Both Wired.com and The New York Times recently ran articles about my favorite political candidate, Ron Paul. It was good to see a man so resolutely ignored by the media finally get some press. The way these articles played out, however, was surprising.
I like Wired.com. Tech news, the latest memes, and a gadget section designed for those who eschew functionality in favor of coolness? What more could a person want? Well, apparently, a little less bias and a little more common sense.
Wired.com - a site devoted to technology and the internet, a site that regularly
lampoons most of the media for their idiocy when it comes to matters technological - completely ignored its own dictums in its haste to bash Ron Paul. The article - a piece ostensibly
detailing the recent and unprecedented buzz Ron Paul has created on the Internet - accuses Dr. Paul of having a huge, shadowy following, that rigs polls and spams sites to tip everything in his favor. It ignored the fact that polls record your IP address or, if they are telephone polls, your telephone number. Each one of those votes in polls that RP fans were accused of 'rigging' was an actual vote by a Ron Paul supporter. It's surprising that a site that focuses on technology news would have such a political bias that it would make such a glaring political error.
In contrast, there is the story in the New York Times. The Gray Lady has never been one of my
favorite newspapers. It seems to have a liberal bias (the recent scandal over its Moveon.org ad pricing only confirms this) and to rely too heavily on its name, rather than its quality. That's why it's article on Dr. Paul was so surprisingly refreshing - instead of the small, vitriolic ad I was expecting, Dr. Paul received a thoughtful, five page article, giving his history, stance on various issues, and campaign futures. Certainly, it crticises him in places, but that is only to be expected. Dr. Paul received as fair a hearing as did the other candidates.
It seems odd - a site that I assume would have no bias is far less fair than a paper that I never quite agreed with. I must raise my hat to the Gray Lady.
I like Wired.com. Tech news, the latest memes, and a gadget section designed for those who eschew functionality in favor of coolness? What more could a person want? Well, apparently, a little less bias and a little more common sense.
Wired.com - a site devoted to technology and the internet, a site that regularly
lampoons most of the media for their idiocy when it comes to matters technological - completely ignored its own dictums in its haste to bash Ron Paul. The article - a piece ostensibly
detailing the recent and unprecedented buzz Ron Paul has created on the Internet - accuses Dr. Paul of having a huge, shadowy following, that rigs polls and spams sites to tip everything in his favor. It ignored the fact that polls record your IP address or, if they are telephone polls, your telephone number. Each one of those votes in polls that RP fans were accused of 'rigging' was an actual vote by a Ron Paul supporter. It's surprising that a site that focuses on technology news would have such a political bias that it would make such a glaring political error.
In contrast, there is the story in the New York Times. The Gray Lady has never been one of my
favorite newspapers. It seems to have a liberal bias (the recent scandal over its Moveon.org ad pricing only confirms this) and to rely too heavily on its name, rather than its quality. That's why it's article on Dr. Paul was so surprisingly refreshing - instead of the small, vitriolic ad I was expecting, Dr. Paul received a thoughtful, five page article, giving his history, stance on various issues, and campaign futures. Certainly, it crticises him in places, but that is only to be expected. Dr. Paul received as fair a hearing as did the other candidates.
It seems odd - a site that I assume would have no bias is far less fair than a paper that I never quite agreed with. I must raise my hat to the Gray Lady.
No comments:
Post a Comment