You know you’re out of the loop when your only source of news is the New York Times, which is why you’re probably in a deep funk at this moment, suffering from near-terminal cognitive dissonance. Because, as Matt Welch of Reason notes, if you picked up your paper this morning, you were probably feeling pretty good about your chances tonight in Massachusetts:
On the lower two-thirds of page A22 today, The New York Times runs side-by-side Liz Robbins-authored articles of the same length, space, design, and sidebar-box analysis (the latter by Katharine Q. Seelye). On the left, the story is about Martha Coakley. On the right, Scott Brown. The exercise practically screams out for a bias-detection exercise, and oh my word does The Times deliver the goods.
First, a headline comparison:
After Career as Their Advocate, Coakley May Face Voters’ Wrath
vs.
Riding Wave of Disaffection, Brown Pushes for an Upset
Coakley: Advocate! Brown: Wave-rider! Voters: Wrathful!
Whoops! Be sure to read the whole thing here as you kick back with your favorite beverage and watch Chris Matthews crying in his beer, Rachel Maddow trying desperately to keep a stiff upper lip, and Keith Olbermann, as indefatigably nasty as ever, still snarling at Scott Brown and calling him playground names — which, when you come to think of it, are the only kind of names the Former Sportscaster probably knows.
Luckily for MSM pundits, there’s never any penalty for failure.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.