Bias at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. What can you say about our wonderful local oasis of current event commentary? If you don’t live in Georgia, you have probably never picked up a copy of the AJC. If you did, you would soon find that you’ve delved into the realm of leftist talking points.

Is the AJC biased? You better believe it. Just take a look at this.

Last week, the AJC ran a piece written by Bob Dart entitled, “House takes on gas pricing.” Not a very catchy title, I’ll grant you. But, judging from the headline, it would seem to be a very straightforward article. It was a report on the ridiculous price-gouging bill that was passed in the House of Representatives. The vote was 281 to 141, which means that there were several detractors in the House.

If you are doing a report about a piece of controversial legislation in Washington, and you wanted to be completely objective in your presentation of the story, how would you go about doing that? Most logical people would conclude that you have to interview both supporters and objectors to the bill. YOU PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY.

In his original article (for the Cox Newspaper Washington Bureau), Bob Dart DID, in fact, present both sides of the stories. He quoted Congressmen in support of the bill as well as a nonpartisan advocacy group who opposes the bill. It was a somwhat balanced presentation of the facts.

But, as I said, this is the AJC. They have an agenda. There was no room for objectivity.

Most of the original article was dedicated to the supporters of the bill and the demogoging of oil companies. Three paragraphs near the end of the article were reserved for the opposing viewpoint.

When the AJC ran the article in their paper, what do you think thy conveniently edited out?

That’s right. They cut the opposing viewpoint. Their version of the article had no sign of balance. They presented a one-sided argument in favor of the sham legislation.

Read the AJC article. Now, read the original article. Here is what the AJC cut:

At the hearing, though, a statement against the "Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act" was distributed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan advocacy group for "the principles of free enterprise and limited government."

"If we want to go back to the gas lines of the Seventies, this is a good way to do it," said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the institute. "Constraining the ability of gas companies to set prices according to supply and demand is a recipe for rationing. In the end, there will be less gas available and the people who get it will be those most prepared to wait in line."

"Legislation to curb 'price gouging' is a solution in search of a problem," said Charles T. Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. In another prepared statement distributed at the hearing, the head of the refinery industry trade group said dozens of federal investigations have never turned up evidence of market manipulation in the industry.

I’d say that these few paragraphs are very important in understanding the reality of the situation.

The AJC disagreed. Bias…what bias?


Post a Comment

<< Home