BIAS?  WHAT BIAS?

Posted at 9:19 a.m. ET

One of the things we like to do here is take a news story and examine it for bias.  Reuters today provides an extraordinarily rich opportunity to do just that.  It's a report, complete with appropriate sneering, of President Bush's final news conference of his presidency.  The arrogance of this report, by Matt Spetalnick, should win some kind of prize:

At a farewell news conference in which he tried to burnish a troubled foreign policy legacy, Bush denied that U.S. treatment of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo, criticized by human rights groups, had damaged America's moral standing in the world.

Troubled foreign policy legacy?  That's an editorial opinion, not appropriate for a news story.  And again we have the term "human rights groups," even though many of them have clear political agendas, never spelled out by the mainstream media.

Bush, speaking at the White House eight days before handing over to Obama, staunchly defended his record but was at times uncharacteristically reflective.

I haven't noticed that Mr. Bush is either more or less reflective than many of his predecessors.  The reporter offers a journalistic assumption that's been accepted without proof. 

He admitted having regrets that weapons of mass destruction had not been found in Iraq after the U.S.-led 2003 invasion. Presence of such weapons was the prime justification for overthrowing President Saddam Hussein.

Admitted?  Is this a courtroom?  Is there any doubt that Mr. Bush regrets that WMD were not found?  However, WMD programs were found, but you'll notice that the press never points that out.

Six-party talks with North Korea over dismantling its nuclear arms programs have stalled and little movement is expected before a new U.S. administration. Obama has promised his administration will have direct talks with America's foes, in contrast to Bush's strategy of diplomatic isolation.

Note the slant.  Only a new administration will bring progress.  Why?  Because Obama has a new strategy.  This is absolute conjecture, again given with no evidence.  Pure editorializing presented as news reporting.

Bush, in his 2002 State of Union address, called Pyongyang and Tehran -- along with Iraq, then under dictator Saddam Hussein -- an "axis of evil." He never backed away from the accusation, which came to epitomize what critics called his administration's "cowboy diplomacy."

The implication here is that they're not an axis of evil, or that the term is misapplied.  Evidence please?  Is it "cowboy diplomacy," or the truth?

On Iraq:

The war undercut U.S. credibility abroad and contributed to a resounding victory by Obama, a Democrat, against John McCain, nominee of Bush's Republican party, in the November election.

Really?  All that?  The war may have been unpopular in many countries, but how did it undercut American credibility?  Also, Obama's victory in the popular vote was not resounding.  He won by about six points.  Further, Iraq actually played a small role in the campaign, as surveys showed.  It was the economy that dominated everything.  Where was this reporter?

Indeed, where has the mainstream media been for the last eight years?  I think we know where.

January 13, 2009.