Montana Politics The Media

The IR readership responds

One of the interesting things about newspapers blogging is that you get to see the readership respond to posts. I am still discouraged that the IR doesn’t doesn’t seem to approve any comments to news stories on their main site, however, reporter Jason Mohr’s blog is open to comments.

I am sure that most regular readers of this blog remember our discussion of a recent IR editorial (see here). This discussion made the IR blog.

There is an amusing discussion on the bottom of the form, much of it involving Matt at Left in the West and myself and I.D. blogger-leader Don. I find this comment from “Sally Tucker” quite amusing. She writes:

Nice to see you cave before the leftists. Tells us you’ll be sure to continue carefully ignoring the Democrats’ corruption this election year. So much for an ‘independent’ record.

Matt mentions this on the blog but…since when does accurate reporting mean “caving” to the “leftists.” The IR did issue a correction, admitting that there was a factual problem with the original editorial. Also, who said we wanted the IR to ignore corruption? If Sally had read our original post, Don was most certainly not defending any corruption actions.I

I am curious. If you are out there Sally, how is the IR correcting a factual error “caving to the leftists?”  Is this your proof of the liberal bias in media?

I don’t think of the IR as part of the mythical liberal media. Is there a perception of this among the right? What possible proof do you have?

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

0 /* ]]> */