The March 22 editorial outlining the challenge for Peter Fitzgerald to get himself elected was insightful–as far as it went. A glaring omission was the challenge of Fitzgerald overcoming media bias.
I have heard some TV commentators refer to Fitzgerald as “ultra-conservative” because of his (1) opposition to abortion on demand and (2) his support of the 2nd Amendment–the right to bear arms. At the same time his political opponents are referred to as “moderates or mainstream,” even though they support abortion on demand for any reason, including the hideous partial birth abortion procedure that is neither moderate or mainstream.
If these political “tar and feathering” descriptions are good for the goose, they should be good for the gander. Political commentators should be consistent and refer to abortion-on-demand politicians as “radical Leftists” if they are going to refer to the right-to-life position as “ultraconservative.” The same argument applies to the gun rights versus gun confiscation positions.
A better idea would be to drop the political categorizations altogether; after all, the audience is literate and does not need, nor require, the political bias of the analyst to “color” the commentary or inform the electorate of what is “ultraconservative.”
