[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Story on Heart Implants
Another perfect example of NYT bias.
This story is ostensibly about the recall of heart implants because of a defect. In the middle, in a blurb, NYT felt it was necessary to inform us that:
Vice President Dick Cheney uses a Medtronic defibrillator, but it was implanted in 2001, before the Fidelis lead was introduced. The White House declined to comment last night.
Knowing the left's attitude towards Cheney (who I have no love towards), one can only assume they want to maintain a sort of Dick Cheney deathwatch, so that we can hope he dies.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do I have a feeling that if the article read:
[ QUOTE ]
Former President Bill Clinton Cheney uses a Medtronic defibrillator, but it was implanted in 2001, before the Fidelis lead was introduced.
[/ QUOTE ]
You would write:
Knowing the left's attitude towards Clinton (who I have no love towards), one can only assume they want to keep him in the spotlight for any reason.
----
In short, I don't see how it shows a liberal bias to mention that the VP uses a particular type of medical device in an article about that medical device.
[/ QUOTE ]
I might actually write what you just said, actually. The thing is the NYTimes likes reducing issues to abstractions and representations, to create characters of good and evil within every story. Cheney is the unalloyed evil to many Democrats right now. Bill Clinton, and his prophet, Al Gore, are on the opposing side of that ideological balance. What I have issues with is using those characters to frame a story - I would have no problem with the mention of a random Senator, or influential figure being mentioned. Indeed, examining many NYTimes articles, you have to wonder - why is this person being mentioned, and this one not? Why is the story being written? To whom will the message of the story appeal to?, so on.