I rarely pay attention to this stuff, but I can't help but feel like the Herald Leader is 99% for Obama and 1% for McCain. Has anyone noticed this or has it just seemed that way in the few papers I've read lately? In the papers I read, I felt like every story supported Obama and went completely against McCain. Even in the opinion section - out of 20 letters - 15 of them were for Obama and/or against McCain and the other 5 were related to other topics. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed this?

The Lexington Herald is nothing but a Democratic mouthpiece. I first realized that fact during the 1988 campaign. I have no problem with a newspaper favoring a candidate on its editorial page but article selection and placement that clearly favors one candidate over another really ticks me off and that is what the Lexington Herald does on a routine basis.

I knew it seemed that way, but I wouldn't to see if I was the only one that thought that. It was like every article somehow took a shot at McCain and built Obama up. Thanks for the input :thumb:

I knew it seemed that way, but I wouldn't to see if I was the only one that thought that. It was like every article somehow took a shot at McCain and built Obama up. Thanks for the input :thumb:

In '88 the Herald-Leader simply refused to run articles exposing the "Massachusetts Miracle" as a myth while the state's economy spiraled downward. Massachusetts economy was a corner piece of Dukakis' campaign and if one relied on the Herald, there was no problem with its economy until after the presidential election.

I think that it is a shame for newspapers to play politics, in Whitley Co. Nothing but Republicans, where are the Libertairians...

We always call it the "Liberal Herald-Leader" and have for a while now.

We always call it the "Liberal Herald-Leader" and have for a while now.

 

I had never really paid attention until this particular election, but it became very apparent when I did start noticing.

Of course, there are some of you who think the WSJ, Washington Times and Orlando Sentinel trend too far to the left.

 

In all seriousness, though, the HL does trend further to the left than the CJ, which is decidedly liberal. But the CJ does go out of its way to provide a steady diet of national conservative columnists, as well as local columnist John David Dyche.

They don't call it the "Liberal Leader" for nothing...

They don't call it the "Liberal Leader" for nothing...

 

"The Herald-Liberal" was the moniker I always heard the most.

Of course, there are some of you who think the WSJ, Washington Times and Orlando Sentinel trend too far to the left.

 

In all seriousness, though, the HL does trend further to the left than the CJ, which is decidedly liberal. But the CJ does go out of its way to provide a steady diet of national conservative columnists, as well as local columnist John David Dyche.

 

The LHL does this as well. There may actually be more columns from described conservatives than described liberals.

I think you'll find most media outlets (print or talk) are relatively liberal. Therefore their support for Obama will overshadow McCain.

Too much Merlene Davis, I suppose.

The LHL does this as well. There may actually be more columns from described conservatives than described liberals.

I don't care if a newspaper wants to give Bill Ayers a forum on its editorial page. The reason that I quit paying for the LH years ago was the bias in article selection and placement. Bad news for the Dukakis campaign seemed to get buried if it was printed at all. Any negative allegations involving George H. W. Bush landed on the front page.

 

Around the same time, I happened to be at work early one Saturday morning when the AP's correspondent for most of eastern Kentucky called my boss for a comment on a story that he was writing for publication in the Lexington Herald. I listened as our engineering director explained the facts of the case from the company's perspective, including efforts to settle a case involving an attempted adverse possession case by adjoining property owner. The resulting story contained two or three sentences from the reporter's discussion with my boss.

 

I understood then, that the reporter did not expect to reach anybody in the office early on a Saturday morning - or he expected to reach a staffer who would be unable to comment on the case. Anytime that I read an article now containing words like "attempts to reach...were unsuccessful," I immediately suspect that a call was made after normal business hours.

I don't care if a newspaper wants to give Bill Ayers a forum on its editorial page. The reason that I quit paying for the LH years ago was the bias in article selection and placement. Bad news for the Dukakis campaign seemed to get buried if it was printed at all. Any negative allegations involving George H. W. Bush landed on the front page.

 

Around the same time, I happened to be at work early one Saturday morning when the AP's correspondent for most of eastern Kentucky called my boss for a comment on a story that he was writing for publication in the Lexington Herald. I listened as our engineering director explained the facts of the case from the company's perspective, including efforts to settle a case involving an attempted adverse possession case by adjoining property owner. The resulting story contained two or three sentences from the reporter's discussion with my boss.

 

I understood then, that the reporter did not expect to reach anybody in the office early on a Saturday morning - or he expected to reach a staffer who would be unable to comment on the case. Anytime that I read an article now containing words like "attempts to reach...were unsuccessful," I immediately suspect that a call was made after normal business hours.

 

I made no comment on the articles of the paper, only the opinions. If I am giving more interpretation to the reader with this, or others like "in terms of fariness" from the OH voting thread please let me know.