Patterico has an exhaustive review of the worst of the year at the L.A. Times . Long but worthwhile. My first reaction after I finished reading it was, "What? Seven pages and nothing about Robert Scheer? That's inexcusable!". My more considered reaction was "Oh my God, seven pages full of examples of outrageous bias, sloppy reporting and unprofessionalism, and he ran out of time before he could even start on Robert Scheer!"
Cataloging the failures of the L.A. Times is a monumental undertaking.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 31, 2003 04:29 PMI do despise Scheer, but I decided not to say anything about him, because I have come to consider you the expert on debunking his nonsense. After the Canard-o-Matic, anything I could say about Scheer would be superfluous.
Posted by: Patterico on December 31, 2003 04:44 PMWhich big city newspaper of record is the most factually challenged and is pathologically wedded to blending editorial opinion into news reports?
In my opinion two newspapers stand out. The LA Times and The Minneapolis Star-Tribune. But since the LA Times has a much larger circulation and is much more influential it takes the prize.
Any other nominees? Anyone? Anyone?
Posted by: Reid on January 1, 2004 06:09 AMIs anyone in the blogosphere giving a media bias award?
My vote if for CNN. News chief Eason Jordan admitted that for years they weren't really reporting the news from Iraq but were reporting what Saddam wanted the world to hear.
And then there was this CNN gem: "Schwarzenegger, like Hitler, is a native of Austria."
Posted by: Reid on January 1, 2004 12:26 PM