On Tuesday’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer offered his assessment of the layout of the current media environment, particularly with regards to liberal bias.
Krauthammer was particularly critical of The New York Times. In its news pages, he argued the Times offered the news through a leftward prism. However, it declared its celebrated editorial page inconsequential for its slant.
“[T]he editorials are so bad, so slanted, so childish — they have no influence. What influences everybody is the choices that the editors make what to put on the front page because that declares to the rest of the media who are the followers what’s important. So, for example, if there is no coverage, essentially no coverage of the two years of missing emails by the IRS in the Times – it ends up on page A17 if anything — that’s a signal to the rest of the media not to cover it. So the main influence is, of course, on the front page on what’s chosen, what’s not chosen — the war on women for example is a phrase you will see in the news pages all the time. They may put it in quotes, they may not. But that’s a trope. Even their own ombudsman wrote a year or two ago that when Occupy Wall Street came along, the New York Times acted as a cheerleader in promoting it day after day … as the equivalent of the Tea Party, whereas I and others who could see clearly it would dissipate with the first Winter wind as it did.”
Later, Krauthammer called The Washington Post’s op-ed page “the finest in the country,” a claim he argued he would make even for which if were not writing but admitted the Post’s editorial page’s liberal tilt.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor