I'm Back!

Hello all! I got back from a vacation to Sturgis, SD last week and I had a wonderful time. First, I am not a big time motorcycle person, but my parents are and they own a large bed and breakfast there. It was refreshing to be with people who were proud of their country and their president. It was also fascinating to read the local papers. We received the Rapid City Journal every day and the differences between this paper and the Seattle Times were startling. I mean it. We are not talking subtle differences here, folks. Just in the week I was there, there were many examples of these differences, but one in particular stands out in my mind. The headline was "prairie Dogs Taken off Protected List" and under that it said, "Relief in sight for embattled ranchers." I was shocked when I read the story. Can you believe it? The editors were worried about THE RANCHERS first! The people came first! Apparently, prairie dog holes cause cows to get stuck and break their legs and is a huge problem to ranchers. If the Seattle Times did this story you can bet it would be all about how cute and cuddly the prairie dogs are and how these evil ranchers can now indiscriminately murder these adorable creatures.

Then I reluctantly came back home. I will be totally honest. I haven't wanted to start writing in this blog because it makes me too damn mad. That's why I have been MIA so long. Perhaps seeing the Rapid City Journal has made me realize what an incredibly uphill battle this is. I mean, I feel like OF COURSE the Seattle Times is biased. Any rational person can see this. What's the point of documenting it? They certainly aren't going to change because of what I'm doing. And if you don't think the Seattle Times is biased, then I'm sure there's nothing I can write to convince you otherwise. If you do, then I'm simply preaching to the quire.

So, what am I saying here? Well, in the last three months I have collected countless examples of liberal bias exhibited by the Seattle Times. If you doubt the Times is biased, I suggest you review this information.

But going forward, this blog will more resemble editorial pieces than a day by day deconstruction of the bias in the Times. It will still be about the liberal bias at the Times, to be sure, but I no longer feel I need to document each and every example of liberal bias. I believe I have proven my case, and if you have read every single thing I have written in this blog and STILL don't feel like the Times is biased, well then, NOTHING I can say will convince you.

So, with that said, let me get right into it with a short discussion of the Times' coverage of the organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Basically, the only coverage the Times has given to this organization has been negative. In other words, when SBVT is brought up in a story, it always about how this person or that person is condemning the group and what they stand for. What SBVT is saying about Kerry is NEVER covered as a news story in it's own right. For instance, the first time SBVT was mentioned in the A section was when the Times reported that John McCain was condemning what the group was covering. Then yesterday, the Times reported on the fact that Bush will not come right out and condemn the organization. OF course, I don't remember the press ever asking Kerry if he condemned Move-on.org as they have compared Bush to Hitler. In fact, I don't recall the Times EVER covering the fact that Move-on.org compared Bush to Hitler. Where was the outrage then? I mean, Bush IS our president.

And speaking of Move-on.org, today the Times did a full page story on George Soros in their close-up section. They did mention the fact that Soros is a major sponsor of Move-on.org but failed to mention some of the things this organization has said about Bush.

The hypocrisy displayed here is monumental. Apparently, groups like Move-On.org can say anything about Bush with no media back-lash, and no connections with Kerry are assumed. However, when similar groups make anti-Kerry statements, all the backlash is directed at Bush, like he organized the whole thing.

I'm on Vacation!

I will be on vacation from 8/11 through 8/17. We are driving to Sturgis, South Dakota to visit the bed and breakfast my folks own and operate three weeks out of the year (my folks are big-time Harley Davidson fans and in case you didn't know, Sturgis is the Mecca for Harley owners in August). Now they make this drive all the time (from the Seattle area) and think it's no big deal. Of course, they aren't packing around an 11 year old.

I'm afraid my blog will be on hiatus until I return as I don't have a staff or assistant who can do it for me. But let me leave you with one thought: the liberal media and liberal pundits have been hammering those who criticize John Kerry's war record. Even Bill O'Reilly believes what he did in Vietnam is irrelevant to his being President. However, John Kerry himself has made his war record a central theme of his campaign. Therefore, what he says about this record (and if he lied ) is EXTREMELY relevant to his presidency. The job of President of the United States is all about character. We expect our president not to lie, exaggerate, fabricate, or otherwise distort the truth. It isn't what he actually did in Vietnam that is relevant (I frankly could care less), it is what he is saying NOW about that service and how that squares with the truth that speaks to his character and is DEFINITELY relevant. This subtle distinction, I fear, has been overlooked by many people, even conservatives. Take care, and see you next week!

Terror Alert Or Bush Political Ploy

The Seattle Times went on the offensive today against the recent threat warnings the Bush administration has issued. Apparently, now that the organization "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" has been properly discredited and forgotten, the Times has gotten back to the usual business of attacking the Bush administration.

On page A8, we find the story "Democrats More Comfortable Challenging Bush on Terror". This story's title is truly misleading as it really only talks about the political ramifications of the recent terror warnings issued for the New York/New Jersey areas. Please note that there SHOULD NOT BE political ramifications when it comes to terror warnings. They're terror warnings, for Pete's sake!

The third paragraph of the story starts, "The timing provided fuel for skeptics who have suggested Bush has purposely used home-land-security announcements to change the nation's conversation during times of unsettling news for his administration". Who are these skeptics? Journalists? Seattle Times Journalists? The rest of the piece explores this "important" question.

The eighth paragraph states, "But it is apparent they [Democrats] must do so carefully, for fear that any challenge of a safety provision could have a disastrous backlash if a terrorist attack occurs". This is patently false! But I suppose points must be given to the Times for at least "trying" to appear objective. The truth is that attacking Bush on his handling of terror has become a win/win for Kerry, Democrats and the liberal media. If there is no attack, well then, Bush must have issued the warnings to simply boost his campaign footing. If there is an attack (God forbid), I predict the presidency will be handed to Kerry on a silver platter as Bush will have failed at his (post 9/11) MOST IMPORTANT duty, that of protecting the American public. If there is an attack, we will NEVER hear the end of it from liberals.

These days, Bush truly can't win when it comes to the handling of terror. This is unrelated to the Times, but I was listening to a Democratic pundit on TV this weekend criticize Bush's handling of the terror alert warnings and this person was asked what Bush should have done differently. Now his answer was so telling, and it really captures the attitude of Democrats (and the Seattle Times) these days. He basically said ANYTHING Bush does will be wrong (I kid you not) because Bush has lost the trust of the American people. You can basically add the words "and I hate his guts" to that response. I told this story because this seems to perfectly fit the perspective the Seattle Times has when covering any Bush news. There seems to be a tendency to dismiss ANYTHING Bush says or does.

Which leads us beautifully to the next story on the next page, "Dangers From Terrorism are Scant Compared to Other Risks, Experts Say". It's unneccesary to review the story, the title says it all.

Now, please notice how really slick this is. In case you're STILL thinking that the terror warnings are real and not a Bush political ploy, wham!, the Times hits you with this on the next page, A9. Even IF they are real, the dangers of terrorism are really not that important. Again, the Seattle Times has given us another reason to ignore Bush!

I have written this many times (it's in my introduction on the top of this blog), the Seattle Times believes that any news regarding the war on terror somehow helps Bush. Therefore, the Times will attempt to downplay and even dismiss any terror related news. Unfortunately, it is a safe gamble for the Times, because as I stated before, if there is an attack, the political heat will be on Bush, not those who dismissed the threat.

I'm Mad As Hell.....

Today was one of those bias-packed issues of the Seattle Times. First, on page A7, we have the story, "McCain Criticizes Ad Attacking Kerry". As most of you news-hounds already know, John McCain has come out and condemned the ads Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have made regarding John Kerry's war service. First, I think it's important to note that the Times did not cover the SBVT organization until they had something negative to say about them. This PROVES that this story was newsworthy in the first place.

Also, the Times does what the Times does best, distort, and prints a quote of McCain's out of context and says, "I can't believe the President would pull such a cheap stunt". This implies that this was all the President's idea. Nowhere in the piece does it say that SBVT is not affiliated to the Republican party. And yet, the Times goes out of it's way to try and suggest an association by comparing this ad campaign to what it considers a similar campaign Bush had used against McCain in 1990. Very sneaky! I could be wrong, but I recall that when the Times did stories on Move-On.org, they DID remind us that this organization has no ties to the Democratic party. You would expect the same consideration, right?

And to top it all off, there is an inaccuracy in the story. I just sent this letter to the Times:

Dear Seattle Times:

McCain Criticizes Ad Attacking Kerry
There is an incorrect statement in that story. You state, "Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero". This is not a quote from an individual, this is the Times reporting on the story.

This is false. Gunner's Mate Steve Gardner served on Kerry's boat from Nov. - Jan. of Kerry's tour. He most certainly DOES NOT support Kerry.

I hope a retraction is forthcoming. I might add you didn't bother reporting on this story until you had something negative to say about the SBVT organization, proving it was, indeed newsworthy, however the Times simply did not want to cover it. Fine. It's your biased newspaper. But at least GET THE STORY RIGHT!

Sincerely,

Nicholas Tanner

Now, I know what you all are thinking: "Gee whiz Nick, this seems like an awful lot of bias for one day, right?" Actually, the Times is just getting started.
The Times puts "Fahrenheit 9/11" back in the spotlight on page A6 in the story, "Kerry Slams Bush's Actions on 9/11". Now this, my friends, is a non-story. I believe it is an outrage that the Times has turned that 5 minute interval after Bush was told about the attacks into an "issue" simply because of Moore's movie. You understand that the Seattle Times tried to completely ignore SBVT despite the fact that Kerry has made his Vietnam service the absolute CORNERSTONE of his campaign, and yet they have now focused on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE discussed in that stupid movie (Bin Laden/Bush ties, Saudi flights post 9/11, etc.)!

And wait, there's more! Why not throw in some Abu Ghraib for good measure? On page A9 we get a total rehash of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal in the story, "Interrogation Chief 'shocked' at Abuse". Come on, haven't we had enough of this one?

Do I seem mad? I actually am mad today. This is ridiculous. I actually thought that the Times was getting better lately, as the Republican convention approaches. Boy, oh boy, was I WRONG!

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth; Story MIA in Times

I just sent this letter to the Seattle Times. The letter says it all.

Dear Seattle Times Editors:

I have not seen any stories in the Seattle Times about the organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and any of the statements they have been making about Kerry (except for a negative reference in one of today's Op/Ed pieces). Unless it is buried in some other story (I admit I don't read every word of every story), I have seen no mention of it in the A sections of the Times.

This is patently unfair and reflects the blatant liberal bias of the Seattle Times. The Times has done several stories on "Fahrenheit 9/11", a movie that has proven inaccuracies regarding the Bush administration. The Times has done stories on Move-On.org, also a 527 political action organization. The Times reported on Seymour Hersh's charges that Rumsfeld authorized abusive interrogation techniques (despite the fact that he relied exclusively on anonymous sources). As Kerry may very possibly be the next president, this story is certainly newsworthy.

If a group of individuals got together and made disparaging statements about Bush's guard service, the Seattle Times would be all over it. Oh wait, I forgot, that already happened.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Tanner

Evil US Contractors Extort $1.9 Billion from Iraqis

Today's Seattle Times front-page headline is yet another text-book example of how the Times can present the news in such a way that subtly shades the story. The headline says, "$1.9 Billion in Iraqi Money Going to US Contractors". This story tells us simply that many US contractors involved in the rebuilding of Iraq were paid with proceeds from Iraqi oil sales. Big deal. In fact, I'm pleased that so much of the cost of rebuilding has been paid for by the Iraqis themselves.

But the fact that the very first word of the story is "Halliburton" tells you clearly the Times believes something fishy MUST be going on. This is reinforced by the fact that the story is front-page, above the fold with a big headline. This reminds me of the story the Times did about a month ago, "Bush Will Not Replace Cheney". By simply reporting the story as important news, certain conclusions will likely be drawn. In the case of the Iraq story, the Times is obviously suggesting some sort of impropriety on the part of the Bush administration.

As I stated above, I believe the fact that so much money came from Iraqi sources is clearly a good thing. In reading through the story, the Times states that there was little bidding before contracts were awarded. Also, the Times suggests that there was something wrong with the bulk of the contracts going to US firms (as opposed, for instance, to Iraqi companies). It seems to me that there was not time for a long bidding process as Iraq had a great many needs after the war. And as far as the companies being almost exclusively US, well, in the case of Halliburton, there just aren't a whole lot of companies that can do what they can do. Also, US occupation forces were certainly more comfortable doing business with US firms, many of whom they had likely done business with in the past. And lastly, what the heck is wrong with the victors of the war benefiting? US soldiers fought and died in Iraq, I frankly would be rather upset if French companies had made a bunch of money in rebuilding.

This story should be a small item in the Iraq digest section, not a headline. By presenting it in such a way, the Times is suggesting some sort of scandal or impropriety that does not exist. Though there does not appear to be any factual errors in the story, I believe this is clearly an example of liberal bias.

School Performance and Diversity

I'm frankly getting a little burned out on all the Kerry/Bush stuff in the Times. To be fair, now that the Democratic convention has concluded, the Times appears to be toning down it's campaign coverage. And after reading through today's A section, I didn't see anything that screamed bias.

But then I opened the Op/Ed section and saw The Newspaper's View piece "Beyond Race Toward Equally Good Schools", and I knew I had my topic for the day. Now, before I start in, I think I should state for the record that I believe what is said in "The Newspaper's View" column should be bias free (in an ideal world, that is). This column ideally should represent the collective view of the Seattle Times' staff, not an individual. Therefore, I would expect to see the views expressed represent the collective will of Seattle citizens and not contain extreme political ideology. I understand that the point of this section is for the Times to take a point of view and/or to make an argument, however when I see liberal bias entering the realm of the Newspaper's View, I will document it in this blog. I feel extreme liberal ideology has no place in a column intended to improve the lives of Seattle and it's citizens.

That being said, I truly believe the Seattle Times crossed that line with today's piece. Namely, my contention revolves around the notion of "diversity" and the great importance the Times places on the concept of diversity. The piece deals with the federal court's decision not to allow racial "tiebreakers" to be used, however, instead of laying the groundwork and making the case as to why diversity is important in the first place, the Seattle Times has written this piece assuming the reader also believe that the notion of diversity is very important. Certainly, no one questions the importance of a good education, but I for one certainly question the importance of diversity in achieving that good education. In fact, I tend to believe diversity is about the least important thing a school can provide it's students, and I have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise.

Now, of course, anytime someone like me writes something like this I am IMMEDIATELY branded as a racist by the liberal left. Unfortunately, it is this very fear of talking about this issue that has led to so many problems. Before I go on, I just want to say that I am not a racist or a bigot, in fact my best friend is gay. But I am not afraid to talk bluntly about race and the serious problems we face today. The Seattle Times, on the other hand, is consumed by fear and political correctness and therefore ultimately fails to get to the root of the real problem.

The piece starts, "Seattle's public schools should have a diverse student body excelling at quality schools." The Times reminds us all of the importance of diversity by saying, "This page ranks diversity in the public schools at the top of the priority list, alongside school quality". The Times goes on to basically suggest that the performance gaps between whites and blacks could be closed if diversity were made more of a priority. The Times states, "But the student achievement gap remains a troubling sign of the lack of quality and equality in our schools." Lack of equality?

This is the biggest cop-out I have ever seen. While schools are certainly important, factors such as family stability, family involvement, and peer-pressure in a child's education are far, far more important. But clearly, this is an area where the Seattle Times does not want to go. So they blame the problems on the school, stating that if blacks aren't doing well, then the school must be failing in a given area (diversity being just one of many).

Bill Cosby came the closest to identifying the real problems with the performance gaps we see today. It is such a pity he was vilified for it. In a nutshell, inner-city youth culture places virtually no importance on education. THAT'S THE PROBLEM, FOLKS! I'm not afraid to say it. You shouldn't be afraid to say it. And someday, I hope we hear the Seattle Times say it. Maybe then, we can begin addressing the real problems that will bring real change.