Does this paper have a liberal bias?

[illusionofjoy]

I am not a fan of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. In my opinion, it is a conservatively-biased rag, the usefulness of which begins and ends at lining bird and gerbil cages. That said, I find it even more annoying that this paper not only has a regular edition, but an afternoon edition as well (entitled Trib PM), which is apparently geared towards commuters who'd much rather get home.

Every afternoon, I see people on the street corners of downtown Pittsburgh hawking the Trib PM. "Only 25 cents," they yell, "get all of your news here." For a while, I was a target of one of these sales pitches, given that the Post-Gazette which I buy every morning had been thrown away, fully read for the day. The Trib PM people keep a sharp eye out for the newspaperless. My response to being targeted was with tunnel vision; I refused to acknowledge that the Trib-hawker even existed and would walk right past him or her. On Thursdays, I would smugly pick up a copy of City Paper, the remaining alternative newsweekly in Pittsburgh (now that Pulp is defunct), delighted in knowing that I had just sent a strong message that the Trib-hawker would never make a sale with me.

For a while, this approach worked just as intended. The regular Trib-hawkers near my pedestrian route home did not even try with me. Today, however, I noticed that the solicitors had multiplied. There were twice as many out as there had been previously. Fresh faces, eager to make a sale confronted me. As I crossed 7^th Avenue, a college-aged girl on the streetcorner, Trib pouch strapped on, newspaper in hand, accosted me.

"Want to buy a copy," she called out. Instead of ignoring her and passing her by, I stopped, turning to face her. On impulse, I was about to do what I had been wanting to do a Trib solicitor ever since they crawled out of the woodwork to try and imply that their paper was special enough to have proactive sellers, rather than to simply lay in dignity in their streetside sales boxes.

I looked her in the eye and asked, "Is it liberally biased?"

"Huh," she replied.

"In the reporting," I said, "does this paper have a liberal bias in the writing of its articles?" I inwardly snickered, knowing that she would tell me that it didn't and then would be insulted by what I planned to say next. Instead, she dashed my hope of confrontation by saying, "I don't know what you're talking about. Do you want to buy a copy?" She wasn't even annoyed! In fact, her face was completely blank, as if I had just asked her to do a quadratic equation. Saddened that my attempt at rable-rousing was quashed by abject ignorance, I walked away, saying that I only read newspapers that were liberally biased.

I probably shouldn't have been surprised that the Trib-hawker knew nothing about what she was selling. I imagine that most of these kids are just doing this in their spare time to make an extra buck or two. Still, a basic awareness of the product would be a nice touch. It seems that awareness is greatly lacking when it comes to the American public.

There was an article recently published in The Los Angeles Times about people who volunteer for election committees. Within this article, one man quoted stood out for me:

Johnson, 57 and training for a new career in real-estate appraisal, admits he may not be best qualified to promote the administration's policies.

As he says, "I'm not attuned to the particulars" of many issues. When he does tune in, he doesn't always agree with the president.

He doesn't much care for the war in Iraq, for instance — though he thinks Bush has run it as well as can be hoped. Gun ownership makes him uneasy. He's not sure about restricting abortion access. He considers gay marriage "disgusting" but can't see the point of outlawing it.

Johnson will vote Republican this November because of a gut feeling that Bush is a good man.

It's that last sentence which disturbs me - that this man, who disagrees with much of Bush's policies, will still vote for him because of "a gut feeling that Bush is a good man." This man would likely benefit more from voting for John Kerry, bringing government policies more in tune with his personal beliefs, but is going to throw that away based on a gut instinct about the condition of the incumbent candidate's soul. This man is what is wrong with America today.

He is about as aware as the Trib-hawker who looked at me cluelessly when I asked about what bias her paper was slanted towards. He doesn't really know what he doing, pushing a particular candidate, yet he'll do it anyway, based on "a gut feeling" (and might I add, that most people's guts have shit for brains). I don't think America is going to be ruined so much by Republican voters as it will be ruined by uninformed voters. Of those that do decide to vote these days, I wonder what percentage of them just make their decision on the fly in the booth, or worse, simply choose a candidate based on misinformation, incomplete knowledge or gut feelings? I dare say that more people might vote for liberal candidates if they actually did a little research and became aware of the issues.

I dare say that most people might change their votes if they just knew what they were being sold - or what they were selling.