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.