More NYT bias, against Kerry?

Is it my imagination, or could this Kirkpatrick piece at the NYT be ever so slightly right-wing biased?

Kerry Urges Alito Filibuster, but His Reception Is Cool
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
January 27, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 -- Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts could not attend the Senate debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Thursday. He was in Davos, Switzerland, hobnobbing with international business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum.

My bold highlights. More below.

But late Thursday afternoon, Mr. Kerry began calling fellow Democratic senators in a quixotic, last-minute effort for a filibuster to stop the nomination.

Democrats cringed and Republicans jeered at the awkwardness of his gesture, which almost no one in the Senate expects to succeed.

What do you think? Right-wing bias?

So then I got thinking, there must be some central repository which outlines a strong case for the "traditional media" being right-wing biased.  I punched "right-wing media bias" into Google, expecting such a site to come up as the top hit. Alas, here's the result.

[Postscript. Markos is rightly trying to kill off the stupid MSM, favoring the label "traditional media", since we don't want to frame ourselves as non-mainstream.]

•  He announced he was leading

  the charge from a foreign country. What does he expect?

  As to the second part, if you read the rest of the article, Democrats are cringing, and Republicans are crowing. Harry Reid himself said he didn't want too much more talking...

  Doesn't seem like a hatchet job to me.

  by AnnArborBlue on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:47:20 PM PDT

  •  I disagree

    Look at the language they used:

    "mingling" - he was at the World Economic Forum

    "quixotic, last-minute effort" - but later in the article it says,  

    Mr. Kerry has been rallying his supporters against the nomination for weeks in mass e-mail messages and on his Web site.

    And when the Democratic caucus met Wednesday to discuss the nomination, he gave an impassioned plea that the party should try to stage a filibuster even if it failed

    Which is it?  Last-minute or rallying for weeks?  The first claim was in the second paragraph, the facts were buried.

    "cringed" - Did Kirkpatrick see them cringe?  Somehow I doubt it.  But it makes the effort seem silly and/or stupid.

    "Republicans jeered at the awkwardness of his gesture..."

    Sure, the Republicans would be ugly, it's what they do.  But the "awkwardness of the gesture?"  I find that unbelievably offensive.

    There's a lot more.  I think this is a complete hatchet job and is more editorializing than reporting, IMHO.

    btw, Kerry is flying back and will be in Washington tomorrow.

    by BarbinMD on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:58:17 PM PDT

  •  I concur with BarbinMD's reply

    I agree with what BarbinMD said in her reply to your comment.  

    I would also add that the fundamental rule in news writing is that most readers only read the headline and the first paragraph; a few read two paragraphs; almost noone reads the rest.

    So this gives an artificial way for a reporter to be "fair and balanced": front load the first two paragraphs with the "hobnobbing", "cringed", "awkwardness".  Then maybe a couple of paragraphs from the end, start singing praises.  The number of "reader hits" to the biased language in the first two paragraphs is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than the number of "reader hits" on the penultimate paragraph of the piece.

    And when attacked, the reporter can point to the penultimate paragraph to prove (s)he is "fair and balanced".  [Penultimate is hypothetical here.]

    by Winger on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:32:59 PM PDT

  •  "Democrats"

    When I read the full story I find that Harry Reid opposes Kerry on this, and could reasonably be described as "cringeing." He is the only cringer in the article. I also learn that other Senate Democrats, speaking anonymously, say that the caucus decided against supporting a filibuster Wednesday, but that Durbin is supporting Kerry.

    The real crime of the Times here is that it uses "Democrats" when it means "Democratic Senators." If you asked Kirkpatrick I'm sure that he would agree that the Democrats on DailyKos (cited in the story) and in activist groups strongly support the filibuster. But to the reader, there are only 44 "Democrats" and they all live in Washington DC.

    by Elwood Dowd on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:47:24 AM PDT

•  Kirkpatrick leans right

  Like Anne Kornblut and Bumiller, David Kirkpatrick is part of the Times' outreach to the wingnuts.

  by Ben Brackley on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:52:17 PM PDT

  •  Biased reporter

    If you read other articles by Kirkpatrick, you will see a rather consistent bias, sort of like John Tierney when he was a Times' reporter.

    by Ben Brackley on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:54:11 PM PDT

•  Washington Post, Too

  It may not be bias so much as reality. The Washington Post has a similar take on Kerry's efforts:

  Democrats Split Over Filibuster On Alito

  By Charles Babington
  Washington Post Staff Writer
  Friday, January 27, 2006; Page A01

  Several prominent Democratic senators called for a filibuster of Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination yesterday, exposing a deep divide in the party even as they delighted the party's liberal base.

  The filibuster's supporters -- including Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts -- acknowledged that the bid is likely to fail and that Alito is virtually certain to be confirmed Tuesday. But they said extended debate may draw more Americans' attention to Alito's conservative stands on abortion, civil rights, presidential powers and other matters.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  There's also a quote from Dick Durbin:

  While Reid hoped to avoid a filibuster, Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) supports it. But at a midday session with reporters, Durbin acknowledged the likely futility.

  "Having made a count," he said, "I have come to the conclusion it is highly unlikely that a filibuster would succeed." [emphasis added]

  
  

  by Realist2004 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:53:24 PM PDT

  •  The tone and language is different

    The Post article is fair; the Times' article is full of loaded language.

    by Ben Brackley on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:56:06 PM PDT

    •  Exactly right n/t

      by BarbinMD on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:59:14 PM PDT

    •  Totally

      "hobnobbing" is what snobs who are better than you do. It's a charged word. "Cringing" applied to all Democrats is part of the propaganda palette of the right.

      "Awkwardness of his gesture?" Where the hell is that in non-biased reporting? That's a totally subjective evaluation. Why not "courage of his gesture"?

      Yet another case in point that traditional media works for the regime.

      by Jim P on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:03:14 PM PDT

•  I hate the term "Main Stream Media"

  ...mostly because it's too long to type. But the problem I have with "traditional media" is what we have today is NOT traditional--at least NOT in the proud tradition of Edward R. Murrow, Eric Severeid, Walter Cronkite, etc.

  I followed your link and found "Traditional Corporate Media" which is better--but longer.
  (Or maybe a neutral "corporate-owned media".)

  Someone also suggested "legacy media".

  Anyone know what George Lakoff sugggest?

  by daulton on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:56:28 PM PDT

  •  How about the "petty media"

    I'm trying to get across it's jejune, effete, worn out, unsubstantial, sappy, fatuous--along those lines.

    by daulton on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:03:36 PM PDT

  •  Lakoff

    Not sure what George has to say, but I like Establishment Media.

    by jorndorff on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:07:15 PM PDT

    •  That's better than what I suggested

      by daulton on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:16:40 PM PDT

•  Given the amount of 'cringing'

  seen here at lefty, liberal dailykos, I'd say it's based in reality.
  However, it is a reality presented with the glee of a right wing ass licker.

  by NYFM on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:00:10 PM PDT

•  This is a load of crap...

  ...why not start with the facts on the filibuster rather than the "hobnobbing"...and then straight into the Repub and White House condescension.

  Of course there was some news in it, anonymously sourced, on the Dem meeting which does not sound too encouraging.

  However surprises are by definition unexpected.

  (I saw a USA Today headline a few days ago  Alito confirmation:no surprises expected)

  by elial on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:01:51 PM PDT

•  AP Foot Dragging

  The AP has been running leads on its Alito coverage all week about the inevitability of confirmation.  Tonight it had nothing on its wire for more than 90 minutes after CNN posted the Kerry filibuster.  Why?  Do they lack the technology?  Is it so unworthy of coverage that it can be overlooked?  Or does delay serve some purpose in the news cycle.

  by johnnygunn on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:11:55 PM PDT

•  It's snippy.

  But it actually gets better as you read on.  And there is this, recounting Kerry's efforts Wednesday night:

  And when the Democratic caucus met Wednesday to discuss the nomination, he gave an impassioned plea that the party should try to stage a filibuster even if it failed, people present said, speaking only if granted anonymity because the meeting was private. Some senators at the meeting said an unsuccessful filibuster would leave the party weakened for future battles.

  Some said a messy and unsuccessful filibuster fight would distract from the Democratic focus on other issues like corruption in government and wiretapping by the Bush administration.

  So I don't understand why it isn't obvious what Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin are up against and it doesn't matter when they called for it, where they called for it, or what benefit comes to them for calling it.  It met with resistance last night for the same sorry reason many of us suspected.

  If any of them had called for it a week ago, you'd just have had week-long hyperventilation over the nuclear button.

  by Cathy on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:20:14 PM PDT

•  The problem is

  we have become so used to hearing liberal, democrats or progressives put down that we don't react much anymore. I'd like to think that we are getting fed up and that's why the outrage at the WaPo and Chris Matthews.

  But just check out the way that Katie Curic questions Howard Dean on the Today show. It just makes me nauseated.

  http://www.crooksandliars.com/...

  Naturally I sent an outraged email, but I'd put money on it that things won't change unless we somehow get organized and point it out loudly (as the righties do) each and every time they do it.

  Many thanks to Crooks and Liars for their good catch.

  by Kewalo on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:33:54 PM PDT

•  Hobnobbing

  Say what you will about the rest of the article, but the word "hobnobbing" is clearly chosen to make Kerry look bad.  The connotation of hobnobbing is negative; it implies that you enjoy schmoozing and kissing up to powerful people.  Look at dictionary.com's entry, in which all four usage examples describe someone of a lower status trying to associate with elites.

  by dtj on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:43:32 PM PDT

•  the other posters...

  are correct about the NYT article being biased because of the way they choose their language, even if the article contains true facts.

  There was a big diary about this here; this one is from the Huffington Post (via the Smirking Chimp) and is worth reading:

  http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

  by onanyes on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:35:36 AM PDT