Seems to me lately that charges of liberal media bias are tossed around a little too casually. I believe most MSM writers and editors, sometimes explicitly and most often unconsciously, spin stories to put conservatives in a bad light. But when we cry “media bias” when it’s not really there, we weaken our ability to be taken seriously when bias is intentional. For instance, you’ll find a clear example of subtle media bias in a headline from today’s Washington Post: “When Controversy Follows Cash.” Under the subhead “Some Fundraisers With Legal Issues Slip Through Campaigns’ Vetting,” John Solomon and Matthew Mosk portray Hillary Clinton’s (and other Democrats’) association with law-breaking fundraisers as minor bureaucratic snafus–unintentional slip-ups inside behemoth campaign bureaucracies. The headline is the worst part (and a headline writers probably wrote that, not Solomon and Mosk)–but that’s where most people’s reading will begin and end.

The effect of media bias against conservatives is most effective in this kind of example: the possibility of wrongdoing is perfunctorily considered then dismissed in favor of something dull. Can anyone doubt that if the story had been about Republicans, the headline would have been incendiary?

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here