Following the coverage of the Massachusetts Senate special election the past few weeks meant I had to read The Boston Globe online.
Much of The Globe’s coverage was geared towards gaming the election for Martha Coakley, including the disingenuous announcement on election morning that the race was a dead heat, when all the polling data suggested otherwise.
The Globe makes its corporate parent, The New York Times, seem downright fair and balanced.
So no surprise at this paragraph from The Globe’s headline news article about Scott Brown’s victory (emphasis mine):
Brown, an obscure state senator with an unremarkable record when he entered the race four months ago, was a household name across the country by the end of the abbreviated campaign. Running a vigorous, smart, and error-free campaign, he became a vessel into which cranky and worried voters poured their frustrations and fears, ending the Democrats’ grip on a Senate seat the party has held for 58 years, nearly all by two brothers named Kennedy.
This is a classy blog, so I can’t say how I really feel about The Globe’s obsessive need to insult anyone who does not agree with its liberal political agenda, although I came pretty close on Monday to saying how I felt about Keith Olbermann.
Last night the people of Massachusetts told The Globe how they felt. And no amount of editorial snark can change that now.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Political Science?
With Advice Like This, Dems Don’t Need Enemies
Bangladesh Lost The MA Election
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How many "I told you so"s are you handing out Professor? (I believe we also owe one to frequent commentator "Buck Johnson")
"he became a vessel into which cranky and worried voters poured their frustrations and fears"
A more elegant way of stating that the voters had a temper tantrum (h.t. Peter Jennigs)?
I actually don't think it's insulting. I was cranky and worried because of what the Dems have been up to and their apparent party-wide refusal to engage in intelligent debate in lieu of flinging insults….
Speaking of media response, did anyone happen to notice the Katie Couric coverage last night? When talking about Brown's past, she put up on screen, a pic of Brown with his mid section pixelated. Well if anyone saw the pic, there was no nudity. I've seen more nudity in a Hanes underwear ad. The pixelated image was clearly intended to give her viewers the impression that there was indeed, nudity. A fascinating example of MSM hoodwinkism.
I seem to remember another "obscure state senator with an unremarkable record" that won some big office of some kind in the past year or two.
I have no duty to be "classy" and, therefore, will say what I feel, not what I ought to say:
When the Massachusetts electorate was voting for left-wingers with the regularity of sunrise, they were lauded as highly educated, intelligent voters (as compared to those redneck and moronic red state voters). Now that these same voters have voted for a Republican, they have suddenly transformed themselves into stupid (Chris Matthews), cranky (Boston Globe), delusional (Rachel Maddow) voters.
The true character of people emerges not when they succeed, but when they fail.
In spite of their strident public declarations of solidarity with ordinary people, privately Democrats loathe the average American voter.
Wake up, people!
The Globe ran several articles in the last week of the campaign that were so biased, even Globe readers noticed. I think the public at large is waking up to the MSM BS finally. November promises to be very, very satisfying. If the results from last night hold up, I think Barney Frank could be in trouble in the fall, based on a quick look at the globes map and my recollection of Frank's gerrymandered district (in which I live). At least we can live in hope.
Ah, the courage!
An unsigned analysis story masquerading as front page news! Now that Scott Brown is the Senator, the writer wouldn't want to entirely cut off his nose to spite his face, no?
He or she may as well have said, "It was pure peasants with pitchforks, I tell you! Angry rubes with no regard for us decent folk who are busy trying to keep the lid on here in The Hub! Oh, the humanity! "
Heh.
That little dart you quoted is pure editorial page bile, having no place where it is located — even in an analysis piece.
But you know they are incapable of demonstrating proper perspective because they have simply lost all sense of it!
Paraphrasing Gertrude Stein, "there is no there there!"
Oh, I don't know, I prefer to take ownership of my crankiness and worry. It's so liberating. heh
This excerpt made me laugh out loud…Oh…MSM, you are adorable! [Condescending pat, pat on MSM's head.]
Console yourself, Professor, with the knowledge that the Globe is on life support and has no where to go but down further.
Let's concede, for the sake of argument, everything that the Boston Glob has to say a Scott Brown. Is there anyone here who would disagree that the same observation could have been made about another senatorial candidate, this one in Illinois, in 2004?
And that the same Boston Glob turned around and endorsed that other "obscure state senator with an unremarkable record" for the office of President of the United States not even one full Senate term later.
So forgive me if I find this minimization of Scott Brown by the Boston Glob to be rather humorous.