My biased newspaper
One of my daily reads (and guilty pleasures) is the New York Post, which defied the trend this year, and actually saw its circulation increase, surpassing the Washington Post to become the fifth biggest paper in the country.
My stuck-up New York friends who read this rag, however, tend to look down their noses at my reading habits, wondering how can I tolerate such low-brow, biased, yellow journalism.
The Gray Lady is hardly without her own biases, of course, especially this time of year, when election season endorsements might just as well be substituted with the words "Vote Democrat." The Times hasn't endorsed a Republican for president since Eisenhower. Typically, however, they do find it in themselves to endorse some token New York RINO to some throwaway street-sweeper position, just so they don't look too lopsided.
Until this year, that is. For the first time in 34 years, the New York Times has endorsed exactly zero Republicans in congressional races. The Post, by contrast, has endorsed Democrats in the state's two biggest elections (Spitzer and Clinton.) Yet I'm the one who reads the slanted, right-wing rag, while the NYT readership fancies itself the acme of enlightenment and fair-mindedness.
You see, it's not just that the Times is biased. I can deal with that. But (and I think this is important) they're in denial about it. The New York Post, to anyone who reads it for any length of time, is quite open about its political slant. The Times, on the other hand, still righteously (if absurdly) paints itself as a detached, disinterested, even-handed purveyors of news. Not only that, but their coverage of Paris Hilton is woefully lacking.