The Massachusetts Election and Government Media

Tuesday night probably the biggest, and more likely, the most important election in history, was run in Massachusetts when a Republican won the Senate seat previously occupied by the late Ted Kennedy.  Massachusetts has held a Democrat in that seat for over 36 years; in fact, Ted Kennedy sat in that seat so long, Democrats thought it was a pew in the Catholic church that the Kennedy's purchased and tacked their name plate to it.  Tuesday, however, they found they were wrong when Scott Brown won the election, and as one morning talk show commentator said, "Now that hell has frozen over,..."

It was hilarious to see the media after this upset acting like a bunch of first graders who just lost at tether ball.  "I'm not talking to you anymore," was the impression I had when I opened the New York Times and found the only mention of the race on the front page was a picture that looked like it was shot in the parking lot with more Coakley signs than Browns.  They are so "pea-green" with envy that they never even mentioned the winners, much less any information about it.  Even when you go to page A12 that's on the picture, you don't find any mention of a winner, just a bunch of interview articles, or more like opinion polls, that were taken outside the polling booths.  Not one article in the whole paper about the election, nor the winner.

The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, had a top,  front page picture of Scott Brown with the caption, "GOP Victory Upends Senate".  But, I guess, that's why the Wall Street Journal is thriving and the New York Times is headed to Congress to ask for a bailout before bankruptcy.  The Wall Street Journal understands the difference between real news and sucking up to the Progressive politicians. Unbiased news gets you revenue, sucking up only gets you a court date. My advice to the New York Times would be, get some editors and reporters who actually know what news really is and how to communicate with the people, not the politicians.