Or, they might just be biased. SHOCKER!
Hotair.com did a great comparison study on the New York Times’ editorial board reaction to the nominations of both Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. And, as you might expect, their write-ups were dramatically different from one another. Check this out:
About Sonia Sotomayor: “If Judge Sotomayor joins the court, it will be a special point of pride for Hispanic-Americans — as it was for Jews, blacks and women before them to see one of their own take a seat on the highest tribunal in the land. It will also bring the paltry number of female justices back to two. And as Democratic Party strategists have no doubt calculated, the selection could give Mr. Obama and his party a boost with a key voting group. ”
Compare to the board’s opinion of Clarence Thomas’ nomination:
“The fault, in the end, is not that of the nominee but of the man who nominated him, the patron of little-known, untested or inflammatory appointments for offices reaching up to the Vice Presidency. By nominating this black conservative, President Bush serves a narrow partisan interest when the public has a right to expect him to nominate a lawyer or judge of proven distinction.”
Huh.
Sotomayor’s write-up was all gooey and gushy about her life experiences and how they’ve helped shape her rulings. That contrasts pretty sharply with the write-up on Thomas, which said: “As the nation waits to learn more about Clarence Thomas, the questions will concern not so much his talent but his character. Even his rise from poverty and racial isolation will be less interesting than how that experience has affected his regard for other Americans and whether he understands how their lives and rights are affected by law and official action.” I mean, you have to read the two write-ups side by side to have a full appreciation for how drastically different the tone is of each.
Apparently, it’s cool to have a rich and unique heritage and a compelling life story, provided that your rich and unique heritage and compelling life story doesn’t result in you having conservative viewpoints. Because then you’re sort of SOL.
But no, the MSM isn’t biased at all. Not a bit.
