Vertigo in the left wing echo chamber

I had trouble believing that Richard L. Connor's guest column for Congressional Quarterly was not a parody.

Titled "Liberal Bias?  Show Me," the column purported to provide evidence that ought to give pause to those who assert the existence of a liberal media bias.  The column is amazing in its failure to perceive the obvious.

Connor cited the last Sunday's New York Times as the anecdotal antidote.

Wrote (Frank) Rich, "Obama's speech, for all its thoughtfulness and sporadic eloquence, was a failure at its central mission. On its own terms, as both policy and rhetoric, it didn't make the case for escalating our involvement in Afghanistan. It's doubtful that the president's words moved the needle of public opinion wildly in any direction for a country that has tuned out Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq alike while panicking about where the next job is coming from."

Connor disagreed with Rich in that the opinion of conservatives improved following Obama's speech.  But apparently it did not occur to him that Rich was manifesting a liberal bias by panning Obama for not having a liberal enough position on Afghanistan.  Rich is an opinion writer, of course, but come on, Mr. Connor.

Wrote a New York Times reporter: "The president conceded that there was 'a deep ambivalence about military action today,' which he said was rooted in 'a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.' But he offered a forceful defense of the United States, saying that the lessons of history should ease those suspicions."

It will be hard for my conservative friends to twist those quotes.

Why should conservatives, even those who befriend Connor, want to twist the quotes?  I'm fine with leaving the quotations as they are, though I still struggle to figure out how quoting Obama accurately somehow absolves the Times of the charge of liberal bias.

Obama may sometimes take positions to the right of that favored by left-tilted reporters.  Obama's opinion does not mitigate media bias, however.  We simply expect the media bias to sometimes manifest itself through disapproval of such positions.  And we see a hint of that in the report, as it is said the president "conceded" the type of ambivalence about America that one might stereotypically expect of a liberal reporter.

Thomas L. Friedman weighed in lightly by acknowledging he believes Obama has made a mistake in Afghanistan but offering advice on what could happen to give us a chance of success there.

Perhaps if Obama had taken a position slightly to the left, Friedman would not need to be so hard on him.  No leftward bias there!

Maureen Dowd took a meat cleaver to the White House social secretary Desiree Rogers for believing she is somehow almost as important as the man who hired her, the president.

How dare Rogers place herself near the same level as the wonderful leftist president!

Though perhaps if Rogers had outspokenly taken political positions to the left of Obama's, the Times could afford to show some sympathy.

Dowd also criticized the administration for claiming Rogers cannot be subpoenaed to testify before Congress about her role in the Salahi debacle. There are those in Washington who do not believe this transgression is important but it was. It was a major security breech for those entrusted to guard the president.

And we must protect our leftist president, of course.  Even if he occasionally governs to the the left of what we prefer.

Connor appears not to get it at all.  It isn't that a liberal bias will silence any criticism of Democrats.  The bias is not that overt, and I judge that it is very rarely intentional.  The rose-colored glasses do not entirely alter the image.  They just make the blues, greens and yellows stand out a bit less.