How quick was the media in breaking the missing explosives story? - Instapundit.com
Interesting pre-election story from Instapundit about some data that may have shown the explosives ACTUALLY went missing last year and the government only told us all about it now. But Ms. Althouse goes on to rail against the media and the fact that they may or may not be showing Kerry leanings.
I'm always fascinating with bias of this sort. In this case in particular, Ms. Althouse has three pieces of information that the story was not held to time against Bush in the later part of the election (the LA times story and, I'm assuming, both the CBS and NY Times who will certainly say they did not hold it). Regardless, Ms. Althouse takes away from these pieces of information and the timing of the story that the media groups MAY have in fact held it to hurt Bush. In fact she uses roughly half of the article to expound on this possible behavior and the journalistic code of ethics (if any). How can she conclude this? I am assuming it's just the timing of everything that made her decision for her, but this is a logical fallacy we all get into way too often; just because someone benefits from an event does not mean they had a cause in the event itself. For people on the other side, it parallels with "The oil companies orchestrated 9/11; look at how it's given them all this money!" Just as wrong. As far as her point is concerned, if there's any question of who showed obvious bias here, I'd have to say it was Ms. Althouse.