You see, it's only good bias if it's bias for your candidate and Hill shill Taylor Marsh is unhappy that Margaret Carlson is not supporting her gal. Carlson wrote in an e-mail "I covered the Clinton White House for 8 years and don't think it would be good for the country to go back there." Fairly benign when contrasted with what the MSM has been writing about the GOP for decades. Still, Marsh has her panties in a bunch because Carlson stated an opinion not in line with her own:
Oh, you didn't know Eugene Robinson and Margaret Carlson had a bias? Of course not. Like many in the traditional media and beyond, to include the biggest "progressive" blogs around, Robinson doesn't declare he's for Obama. He masquerades as an analyst, pretending he's unbiased, while misleading the public that he can hold his Clinton hatred in check. So obviously the answer to my title question is that Robinson isn't clueless at all. He's simply duplicitous and neck deep in this journalistic (not to be confused with actual journalism) hypocrisy.I guess the irony of that last sentence is completely lost on Marsh. The hypocrisy shown here is 100% from Marsh, Robinson and Carlson has been biased toward Republicans since they've been writing but now she's getting a taste, she's all snippy.
Welcome to our world, Taylor, a world in which bias toward our candidate is daily and ferocious. It may take a while for you to get used to it but soon you'll find yourself picking it out more and more. Suck it up and accept that bias exists. I assume it's rather difficult to come to the realization that something you held as gospel--that bias doesn't exist--is exploded in magnificent fashion. It's a shock and disheartening but that's the way of the world for us not in the MSM.
Thanks Glenn. Blockquote fixed and was inadvertantly put in the wrong spot due to extreme tiredness, NYC does that to a man.