Are you absolutely sure it was bias?
Noting the Senate’s rejection of President Obama’s “jobs bill,” Dan Mitchell calls bias on Reuters:
…my cheerful mood was undermined by a reprehensible bit of bias by the folks at Reuters. Read the first paragraph of the story.
The Senate defeated President Barack Obama’s job-creation package on Tuesday in a sign that Washington is likely too paralyzed to take major steps to spur hiring before the 2012 elections.
Two things jumped out at me.
I’ll skip to the second one:
But then the story says “Washington is likely too paralyzed to take major steps to spur hiring,” which clearly implies that approving Obama’s proposal would create jobs.
Oh, come on, Dan. You don’t know for sure they meant that. Aren’t there other possibilities? For example, maybe they were saying: “look, if the Senate can’t pass this worthless nothing of a bill, they’ll certainly never pass anything real.”
Or maybe they’re saying: “geez, Senate Democrats are just totally crapped out.”
Or maybe what they mean is: “President Obama’s myopic concentration on his own re-election is paralyzing Washington’s efforts…”
No, I don’t believe they meant any of those. But, y’know, maybe.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.