Dear sir,
I read your column in the post and I am confused about the need that you felt to respond. I am not sure if perhaps I misread this so I want to recap regarding "Wrongly Deaf to Right-Wing Media".
Glenn Beck on his program at the Fox network wanted more coverage of a story that he felt was important, the "ACORN" story and didn't believe the story was getting enough coverage. So in addition to all the coverage that FOX was giving this story, Mr. Beck asked his viewers to contact newspapers and demand they cover this "ACORN" story. The Post and other newspapers were then inundated by angry calls and emails from viewers of Mr. Beck's program demanding the Post give more coverage to this specific story.
The Post actually did cover this story briefly, twice. I read about the cutting of the funds in the "Washington Post" since I am a subscriber and I read it every morning.
However, you felt a need to respond to being inundated by these emails and phone calls by reviewing whether the newspaper was not covering these stories because they were "conservative" stories and questioned the reasoning that these "conservative" stories weren't being covered by the "mainstream" media because the "mainstream" media is liberally biased and only reports "liberal" stories? That is what I read in your column.
What are "conservative" stories and "liberal" stories? "Conservative" and "Liberal" stories are propaganda. I do not read the "Washington Post' for propaganda. I read this newspaper for facts and information.
Glenn Beck reported a story that he thought was important. He has a platform, his program is a propaganda program, no one who watches that program, watches it for news. He chooses to report what he believes is important and gives priority to stories that he believes are the most important stories. So he is reporting on ACORN funding instead of perhaps stories on food shortages in other parts of the world, climate changes and how they affect our national security, etc. That is what his program does.
The Washington Post reports on stories that the editors of the Washington Post believe are priorities for readers of the Washington Post. They did report on the ACORN story, but because they did not report it above the fold on the front page of the main section, this was reason for Mr. Beck to urge his viewers to attack the newspaper? It appears to me that Mr. Beck was making a play to make the ACORN story more than it actually is. I mean, really, it is a story about an agency that received federal funds, that has had a scandal that is now not going to be receiving those funds. Why is this of national importance? In these times of economic turmoil, national security issues, health care confusion, global climate change, war on two fronts, why should the "Washington Post" give more space in the newspaper to this story than it actually did relative to other stories that actually affect the lives of your readers?
Why does the "Washington Post" and any other media fall into this defense mode about "liberal" media bias. I haven't seen "liberal" media bias in many years. If you believe "liberal" media bias is not agreeing with promoting issues such as the President wasn't born in the US, or that Health Care Reform will have "death panels" then perhaps the media is confusing "liberal" with factual. There is a difference.
Somehow what has gotten lost these last few years is that balance is not about "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints. It is about factual and honest information. It is about priorities, it is about not giving platforms to people who are saying things that are not true. Or if someone says something that is not true, to call that out and say so. That is not "liberal" or "conservative" it is honest reporting.
This is old history, one person starts some craziness, like the publication of the "Red Channels" in 1950, started by a pharmacist in 1950, in upstate NY, blacklisting people on TV for being "communist sympathizers." This one person created such chaos and no one stood up, and everyone allowed this propaganda to spread. Phillip Loeb, an actor on the Molly Goldberg program was an actor who was listed in this publication. He was a actors union organizer. This pharmacist threatened the sponsors of the Molly Goldberg show that he would start a boycott of their products if Loeb was not dismissed from the program. Ultimately, he was dismissed and he committed suicide. The power of one person to create chaos and others to tell that story, and to spread the story is part of our history. The "Washington Post" does not need to promote Glenn Beck's agenda. He is no better then the pharmacist in upstate NY and others like him that preceded him.
And if you're taking complaints about media bias, why was the "million man march" story above the fold of the front page of the "Washington Post" last Sunday? Why wasn't the headline, "Million Man March a Bust!? Why wasn't the true story told of that? The "million man march that Fox pushed for, the march that only "tens of thousands showed up for? . For all the angry, crazy people there, it was a fringe group. The Post really downplayed that story. Why did the Post downplay that? Some might say it actually was "conservative bias."
And can you explain why the Post accepted Fox's full page ad attacking the mainstream media saying the mainstream media were deceptive in covering the march? It showed the real photos of the march, and in the right hand corner was a photo of some other march at some other time. No photo credit was used, no date, no identifier. That photo, it was said, was the "real" march. Now there is a story. One network is attacking mainstream media for lying, when in fact it is lying. Where are the facts? Are you asking for real information? Why are you letting Fox say that you and the rest of the mainstream media are lying about the march without challenging it?
As a subscriber to the "Washington Post" since 1980, I expect the editors to continue to print stories that are of importance to those of us who read the newspaper. Not to print stories to promote someone's political agenda. And when someone is upset because his political agenda isn't being promoted in the newspaper, you might want to explain exactly why the newspaper isn't going to do that.