I Want Biased Reporting. Seriously.

I've written pretty extensively on the case of Todd Willingham, the man was executed by Texas in 2004 for setting a fire which killed his daughters, but who all the evidence shows is innocent of that crime. Read these posts here, here, here, here, and here; if you haven't read it, it's a fascinating story, and those posts cover it pretty well.

Here is a CNN interview of David Martin, who was Willingham's attorney in a death penalty case.

Two things.

First, God help anyone who has this man as an attorney. He had clearly made up his mind about his own clients guilt, and it's almost impossible to believe that someone could be on trial for his life and have this man responsible for saving it. The fact that Texas allowed this man to serve as an attorney in a capital case is a travesty in its own right.

Second, what in the hell is Anderson Cooper doing thanking this man for his "expertise"? This is a prime example of the new "fair and balanced" journalism, in which an opinion that is idiotic on its face is treated as just as valid as an opinion backed by evidence and actual reasoning. (Or, in this case, is given more time, and barely challenged at all.)

We have these "debates" all the time. A "journalist" invites two people with opposing viewpoints to "debate" each other on a "news" show. These people proceed to scream at each other, and are allowed to lie outright if it helps their case. The "journalist" sits there in the middle, never challenging, never offering an opinion. The message is that lies are as good as truths, and that journalists don't care.

Why on earth would we ever want balanced journalism? Balanced between what? Truth and falsehood?

I don't want that kind of balance. I want my reporting to be biased. I want it to be as biased as it can be on the side of truth. I don't want reporters to write down lies and repeat them. The people who are lying usually don't need any help promoting their lies.