Back on June 10, 2009, I posted a question about the bias of the press.  This is a followup.

On August 4, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Williams (San Francisco) ruled that California’s Proposition 8 was not legal.  The proposition, passed by over 52% of voters in November of 2008, had reinstated a ban on same sex marriage. This judgment was seen by the Gay community as a huge victory.  This is a hot topic and all the press seemed to headline the issue.   Judge Walker is gay so it would appear his ability to remain neutral in this case would, at least, be questioned in the press.  The New York Times, the L.A. Times, The Washington Post, and the San Francisco Examiner all either neglected completely or relegated the information about his sexual orientation to the tail end of the story.

Imagine if the ruling had gone the other way and the judge had been a very conservative man, married to his wife for over 30 years.  Don’t you think the lead line would have read something like this?:  “Married, conservative judge Vaughn Walker today ruled against gays…” or  “Judge Vaughn Walker, a married, Christian, Tea Party Member, today ruled against Gay Rights by upholding Proposition 8.”  In my view this is a very clear example of mainstream media bias.

On Tuesday of this week, the voters of the state of Missouri voted over 70% in favor of a measure that would invalidate a key provision of Obamacare – the manditory health coverage requirement.  To get over 70% of any State’s voters to agree on something is a big deal.  Those who opposed the massive Health Care Bill think this is a big deal. Evidently, the Washington Post doesn’t.  In the first two days after the vote, I could find in the Washington Post only 4 articles specifically about the vote.  By way of contrast, I found 16 articles about the Gay Marriage Proposition 8 being overturned.  The weight of the numbers indicates that the Washington Post thinks Gay Marriage is four times as important as health care.  I have a hard time believing that our Congress (as wacky as it is) would pass a law that would eventually spend over a Trillion Dollars on Gay Marriage rather than spend it on taking over our coountry’s Health Care.

This may be just anecdotal evidence of press bias.   Compared to how conservatives are almost always labeled in the press (“tea-party activist John Doe” or “Right wing conservative Jane Doe”), I see a deliberate effort on the part of the majority of the press to bury anything that is not in favor of the new Liberal Congress and Administration and highlight only the most extreme views on the right.

Do you agree?