This article ran in this morning's print edition of the Washington Post under the headline: Al-Jazeera: Covering news or shaping it? I find this comical since it would be just as relevant to write a similar article under the headline Washington Post: covering news or shaping it?
Now I do not know if Al-Jazeera is really biased and loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood and ousted Egyptian president Morsi. I am really irritated that Al-Jazeera took over the broadcast rights to La Liga soccer so I have to search through Wiziwig for an online streaming source for Barcelona matches. Other than that, Al-Jazeera has little impact on my life.
What I do know is that the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, and most other major news sources in the United States serve as nothing more than mouth pieces for the liberal ideology. Only after the presidential election do we get any coverage of the Benghazi scandal. They had to be shamed into covering the Kermit Gosnell trial. Sandra Fluke gets twenty folks to listen to her and it is front page news. A hundred people camp out in a Washington park and claim they are occupying it for some ill-defined cause and it stays in the news for weeks. Half a million folks march on Washington to stand up for life and there is near silence from WaPo. Not a word about the six thousand Catholics that gathered on July 4th to pray and make a stand for religious liberty. Not a word of protest that the HHS mandate was based on a kangaroo-court-like session of the Institute of Medicine. The Washington Post has even eliminated its ombudsman position that served as an avenue to protest inaccurate or unbalanced coverage of issues.
Granted, this morning's article was published in the Style section, so it is not presented as breaking news. Still, an expository piece by the Washington Post on the bias of Al-Jazeera is like the National Enquirer dismissing Star Magazine as nothing but a tawdry tabloid.
Pot, meet Kettle.