In every election, I can count on receiving emails like this one from John Keating in Tempe:
“This is getting silly!
Your newspaper coverage of the Presidential Candidates is far from balanced.
I started noticing that the Democrats seemed to have more articles and
pictures of them in your paper. I thought it was my imagination. Then I
started keeping an unscientific count of the number of pictures and articles
featuring the presidential candidates. Not to my surprise, your paper covers
the Democrats far more (and usually in a more positive light) than the
Republicans…….even though your Native Son (John McCain) is in the race.
I had hoped that your biased coverage of Democrat candidates was a one or
two time occurrence, but after keeping a close count of the number of
articles for both sides, it is clear that you cover and/or favor the
Democrats. Take a look at the paper’s last 6 months. You will come to the
same conclusion. Oh…..you already know that.
I dumped the Republic for this very reason. Now I have to seriously
consider dumping the Tribune. Can’t a guy just relax and read his
(unbiased) morning newspaper? Evidently …..not in Arizona!”
Here is my reply:
Dear Mr. Keating:
Political news tends to gravitate to the controversies, collisions and confrontations. It could be what you are noticing is that the head-banging right now is going on in the Democratic Party. The Republican nomination is decided; consequently coverage of Arizona’s native son has for the most part subsided. The NYT article stirred things up. On our editorial pages we denounced that story, though you make no note of that in your email. Since you’ve accused us of being biased, I think you should know that I’m registered NP and work for a libertarian newspaper company. I think it’s safe to say that we don’t have a dog in this hunt, though that seems to be what you’re asking for.
Jim
