Both the Times and the P-I appear to be biased in favor of Patty Murray and against George Nethercutt.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 30, 2004 01:34 PMThe easiest way to bias things in favor of the incumbent is to give the challenger no free media coverage at all. Looks like that's happening.
I wouldn't go that far. But the media coverage of Murray is simply more sympathetic.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 30, 2004 05:28 PMDoes anybody know if "Our Patty" retained her crown as the Senate's dim bulb? This is a vote among pages and other Senate staffers held annually by some local DC paper. I know she won for several years in a row.
Posted by: Gary B on June 30, 2004 06:12 PMSomething tells me if a local Republican seeking re-election were voted "Dim Bulb of the Senate," all the Seattle media would take notice. If it's Patty bin Murray, I am expecting they will decide it's not newsworthy.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on July 1, 2004 01:46 PMI don't know many people who take the Seattle Times or PI so their bias hasn't affected me. But it comes as no surprise to hear this.
Posted by: Pearl on July 3, 2004 03:42 PMI'm weeping for poor George, the truculent right wing opportunist liar that he is.
If the media is to give equal coverage to both candidates let's be sure to remind the people of the State what George did to the people of his district when he forgot that he promised to honor term limits & leave his job after 3 (I think) terms!
If you think Patty's a 'dim bulb,' which is patently ridiculous, I've got a few Republican senators for you to take a look at as well. Dimness is not confined to a single party my friends.
I'm just terribly sorry to hear that Patty rubs you folks the wrong way!
Posted by: Richard Silverstein on July 3, 2004 08:01 PM