Fraters Libertas

All the News That's Fit To Print Between the Lines

From today's New York Times, a report on Rush Limbaugh's announcement that he's addicted to prescription pain medication:

Mr. Limbaugh, who has been in the forefront of conservative talk radio since the mid-1980's and is widely credited with mobilizing support for the Republican sweep of Congress in 1994 and the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999, made the announcement nine days after he resigned as an ESPN sports analyst because of race-related comments he made about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb.

Mr. Limbaugh - who went from a college dropout to nationwide fame with acid comments about Democrats and environmental "wackos," among others - made the announcement at the end of his midday program.

Mr. Limbaugh, who has regularly told his listeners that drug users should be jailed, said he began taking painkillers after spinal surgery in the 1990's.

As a mere news reader, attempting to get some information from the nation's newspaper of record, let's see if I have this straight:

In paragraph one, the objective information the writer is attempting to convey is that Rush is influential and widely listened to, and we get the aside that he may be a racist.

In paragraph two, in the course of the writer's attempt to tell us that Rush's announcement came at the end of his program, and we get the implication that he's not very intelligent or qualified and his fame is based on nothing more than outrageous rhetoric.

In paragraph three, the writer is attempting to tell us that Rush's stated reason for his addiction is lingering medical difficulties, and we get the aside that he's a hypocrite.

I ain't no graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism, but this reads to me as a blatant example of bias in news writing. Or maybe this is the 'new journalism' I've been hearing so much about. Perhaps with the key news elements of 'who, what, why, when, where, how and harangue'?

Ink stained wretches and pointy headed intellectual journalism theorists out there, write me and straighten me out on this. I'd hate to be unfairly besmirching the reputation of someone. This is the blogosphere after all, and I do have standards to uphold.