Shame...Shame...Shame...on the Seattle Times

I wrote this letter today to the Seattle Times:

Dear Seattle Times:

I haven't written you in a few days because I started this blog to document bias at the Seattle Times:

http://www.libseattletimes.blogspot.com/

This has been a good outlet for my frustration with your paper. But today's Seattle Times is simply so biased, I just had to write. There are so many items, I don't know where to begin. I can put it this way, however, it's almost easier to list the stories that are not anti-Bush (or pro-Kerry) in the A section today, than it is to list the Bush-bashing stories. The worst of these was the ridiculous piece about Bush undermining science for politics.

Perhaps part of the reason people are so divided (as you point out in the piece on page A7) is because conservatives, like myself, are extremely frustrated by liberal news organizations distorting the political landscape. One example of this (and there are MANY) includes the line in today's front-page story on the Patriot Act, "With President Bush's approval rating slipping as a result of setbacks in the Iraq war, lawmakers in both parties appear emboldened to defy the White House and the House GOP leadership". It's interesting the way the Times just slides that part in about Bush's approval slipping because of Iraq, like this is a widely held belief. To me, this is the most insidious kind of bias because I don't believe the authors are purposely trying to shade the story, this is just the way they see the world.

Here is something I would LOVE to see. Wednesday, you did FOUR stories in the A section about Kerry's choice of Edwards as running mate. Yesterday, there was that important story about Kerry's belief that the two posses better hair than the Republican incumbents. Am I joking? Not really, there was nothing to that story other than perhaps polls that show Democrats think the choice of Edwards is "excellent" or "good". Today, we get yet another fluff piece about the campaign of Kerry and Edwards on page A7. Monday, when you discussed Cheney's strengths and weaknesses, you brought up Halliburton and "Fahrenheit 9/11", as if that piece of propaganda is a reputable news source.

How about a nice, non-hit piece, on the campaign of Bush and Cheney? Is that even possible for the Seattle Times to do? All I'm asking is something like these fluff pieces you are doing on Kerry/Edwards. Please consider it. If you are truly a fair and balanced news organization (as you claim to be), you owe it to the Bush campaign.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Tanner
Camano Island, WA