Readers of the Los Angeles Times have come to expect a liberal bias, but how about a little accuracy in reporting? In a laughable editorial, "Bush and the Stealth Justice," tries to pull one over on the public by labeling the liberal Justice David Souter as a "moderate conservative" and "stealth conservative." (By the way, there is not a single reference in the article to a "liberal" justice. "Liberals" receive only one passing mention, while the entire piece is peppered with the labels such as "hard-edged conservative," "outspoken conservative," and "reactionary jurist.")

        David Souter: a "moderate conservative"?!? Even the far-left Alliance for Justice proudly admits, "We've been pleasantly surprised [by Souter] ... We're very pleased."

        Even two weeks ago in an LA Times editorial the paper admitted, "Souter is a classic example of presidential miscalculation," in reference to Souter's leftward swing.

        Fortunately, in response to Ackerman's dopey piece, the Times at least had the decency to publish a reaction from a reader (Tue. July 12, 2005). He wrote in an excellent letter:

The Times is trying to change our lexicon by replacing the dreaded word "liberal" with the more palatable "moderate" ... The opposite of "conservative" is now apparently "moderate." Or more blatantly, as if dealing with a bunch of morons, professor Bruce Ackerman continually describes Supreme Court Justice David Souter — who is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-death penalty and anti-property rights — as a "moderate conservative." Are we still to believe the media does not have a liberal (or maybe that should be "moderate") agenda?

Amen!

 

TheMediaReport.com asks ... What do we expect from Yale professors nowadays?