Thinking it inappropriate to offer a prominent podium to the man who might have been the illustration used in the dictionary under “Rhode Island corruption” if people still bought dictionaries, I’ve avoided Buddy Cianci’s WPRO talk radio show since it began.  That’s as a listener and a possible guest.

On the other hand, I’ve expressed reservations about Cianci’s Democrat opponent for mayor in the upcoming election, Jorge Elorza (here, for one), although if I were a Providence voter, I’d probably go with Republican Dan Harrop, even though I think his candidacy favors Elorza.  But if anything is reinforcing my doubts about Elorza or ameliorating my concerns about Cianci, it’s the Providence Journal’s activistic drumbeat against the latter.

Practically daily, sometimes with multiple articles, spanning the paper from news to columns to fact-check to editorials, the Providence Journal has been illustrating why so many of us “alternative” types don’t think the mainstream media deserves special treatment when it comes to campaign finance.  If Citizens United can’t release a political movie during election season, why should the Providence Journal get to hand Elorza thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of implicit support?  (Please note that I’d resolve this problem by elevating alternative voices with the rights of mainstream media voices, not the other way around.)

Frankly, the Providence Journal’s treatment of Cianci inclines me toward his defense.  It makes me wonder what the real motivation for the vendetta is.  It feels too similar to the stunning bias that regularly makes me wish the Rhode Island news marker were healthy enough to produce a full-scale alternative newspaper.

On that count, I’ll offer a few examples, in no particular order:

• The other day, the news department continued its crusade for same-sex marriage with what may be the most viciously biased article headline and lede that I’ve ever seen: “Same-sex couples begin legally marrying for first time in South: But as with other civil rights battles, many Southern conservatives vow to continue fighting.”  There can be no doubt that the Providence Journal considers its role to be determining how people feel about controversial issues, rather than simply giving them information.
• That’s why a headline about the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s recent constitutional convention event made me livid on Twitter.  Seventy or so people gathered to hear CEO Mike Stenhouse, gubernatorial primary candidate Ken Block, and national anti-tax activist Grover Norquist talk about the benefits of a convention.  Outside, three or four paid activists gathered to hear three of their peers speak against a convention.  The Projo‘s first attempt at a headline? “Constitutional Convention Speakers Draw More Opponents than Supporters.”  The headline quickly changed when I expressed my outrage, and no doubt there was some honest error involved, but isn’t it curious that such errors always fall in one political direction?
• There’s too much consistency in the Providence Journal’s tilt for it to be error or coincidence.  I’ve pointed to PolitiFact’s naked bias many times, most recently highlighting the kid gloves used on Clay Pell, in contrast to the pedantic standard applied to Republican congressional candidate Cormick Lynch and senatorial candidate Mark Zaccaria.

The years of mounting evidence go beyond lost credibility to the point that the paper’s war against the face of Rhode Island corruption feels familiar to the people on whom it usually conducts its battles.  It makes them wonder whether Cianci might be an ally.  That’s probably an irrational impulse, but human beings aren’t entirely rational creatures.

I mean, if you think it’s a toss-up between a known quantity of corruption and a progressive whose inexperience and political philosophy seem destined to foster corruption, the opportunity to repudiate the bias of the state’s major daily newspaper might shift the weight on the scale a bit.