From Timeswatch:
Congressional reporter Carl Hulse contributes a bit of labeling bias in Tuesday’s “Senate Leaders Break Off Talks on Judicial Nominees.”
Hulse writes: “Republicans and conservative allies said they planned to have Justices Owen and Brown at the Capitol this week to meet senators. Progress for America, a conservative group that has run advertisements on the lives of the two nominees, said it would invite six Texas legal scholars who are friends of Justice Owen’s to the Capitol on Tuesday to appear with the two Texas senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans. For another perspective, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Justice, Eva Paterson, a civil rights lawyer from San Francisco who had cases before Justice Brown, was expected to appear on Wednesday with Democratic women from Congress who are arguing against the nominations.”
Instead of coyly describing Paterson as providing “another perspective,” why doesn’t Hulse simply say “a liberal perspective,” to balance out his use of “conservative” to describe Progress for America?
So the opposite of conservative is other.
Not liberal.
What is it with the Times’ aversion to that word?