Media Bias
Time for another Huffington Post link.
One writer there compares media coverage of the Clinton White House vs. the W. Bush White House and makes a pretty compelling argument that, far from having a liberal bias, in the last 14 years, news media have had a distinctly CONSERVATIVE bias.
But of course, this won't put to rest the old "Liberal Media" claims by the Republicans. After all, they've got a rallying cry, and it seems to work for them. Why bother letting go of it for such a trivial reason that it doesn't happen to be true?
Liam.
posted by Liam at 7/12/2005 08:41:00 AM
8 Comments:
Liam, when you listen to the fox guarding the hen house talk about how it's all the dog's fault, and then use that for proof that it is so, makes it look like your looking for confirmation instead of facts. The reason talk radio took off like it has is because conservatives had never heard anyone editorializing their point of view until then. Just look at poor Dan Rather's blatant attempt to influence through lies and forged documents. I'm sure you will agree that he only got caught this once, but that it was the repetition of these acts that got people (even the liberal press) to look at his actions more closely.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:59:00 AM
Did you read the post I linked to? Or just react based on the source?
The sheer number of things that were in the press CONSTANTLY during the Clinton administration, many of which turned out to be NOTHING.
Hell, he was accused of trying to "wag the dog" when he went in and tried to bomb al Qaeda... and now Republicans point to the fact that Clinton didn't do enough as the reason why al Qaeda is as strong as it is today. Some of the same Republicans who, at the time, turned every bomb the President dropped into a political statement, claiming he was just trying to deflect attention.
Read the article I linked to, and explain why so many little or ultimately non-existant things were in the news constantly under Clinton, but at least indications of more serious charges against THIS Administration receive almost no coverage, at least in American media...
It doesn't matter if the charges turn out to be true or not, that was proven under Clinton. The Whitewater deal turned out to be a stupid investment, but nothing shady at all (with all the money and vehemence with which Ken Starr went after him, trust me, if there'd been ANYTHING there, it would have come out), so you can't say that the Bush stories aren't coming out because they may not be true. That just wasn't a concern under Clinton.
How many people have never heard of the Downing Street memo? How many people have never heard of Jeff Gannon? How many people, if they even remember the minor flap over Valerie Plame, and who know a couple of reporters may go to jail over it, have no idea that Karl Rove appears to have been the leaker?
Heck, if Clinton had refused to speak in front of any audience that hadn't all signed loyalty oaths, he would have been excoriated and eviscerated in the press. This guy? Hardly a peep.
Whenever Bush gives a speech and uses a good old home-town folksy example of some Farmer & Mrs. Jones he was talking to who supports his policies, keep in mind that the President never hears the opposing side. He simply never talks to anyone who doesn't already support him. No wonder he thinks his policies are universally beloved.
Now, you may argue that the reason for the difference in press coverage is that we're at war right now, and there may be some merit to that. But inasmuch as a large number of the questions stem from one of the wars we're in right now, and the validity of that war, you'd think SOMEONE in the media would be reporting on it.
Heck, Senator Durbin reports on an FBI memo detailing prisoner abuse in Guantanamo Bay, and what's the news story? Is it that we're torturing prisoners? Oh no. The story is how Dick Durbin should apologize for his insensitive comparison to soviet gulags and nazis.
Can you honestly tell me that under Clinton the press would have been so easily deflected away? No, the press would have been hammering him about Torture-gate or Gitmo-gate, we would have heard little else for weeks on end.
This is why we need a free media, some source of news which is fully funded and not beholden to anyone. Someone who can report bad news, and news we don't want to (but need to) hear, without worrying that they'll lose money for it. Someone who doesn't have to worry about not offending big advertisers, or about losing their spot in the White House press room because they reported something negative about the President.
Liam.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:44:00 AM
Liam,
I read the article. The author asserts that the three Clinton incidents were unjustified attacks by conservative media on the Democrat president and that three incidents where the "conservative" press should be all over the current president are being ignored.
It doesn't seem like that to me. They seem to be quite actively persued by this "conservative" press so what is the point. Just because this poster says the sky is red doesn't mean that it actually is.
The prior president's issues were legitimate questions at the time and needed to be persued. If people think that the current president president's issues need to be persued, then persue (as is clearly being done in the media today). If you think the MSM is conservative, that is what you think. WOuld you be happier if MSM asked you first whether an issue was worth persuing?
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:06:00 AM
Ralph,
The problem is, I have to disagree that the MSM is covering some of these things adequately. BLOGGERS are, and anyone who reads blogs is hearing about (for example) the Downing Street Memo, either from the left (touting it) or the right (decrying it).
But the memo (and it's follow up) were around for weeks, both in the blog world (I hate the term "blogosphere" that seems to be cropping up more and more) and in the international media, but was virtually ignored by the U.S. media. That seems to be SLOWLY changing.
The indications that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source of the information about Valerie Plame is huge, in as much as the White House absolutely insisted that leaks were NOT how they did things, and if anyone in the White House was found to be the leaker, that person would be fired.
Interestingly, the law which was broken by the leak was signed into place by Bush's father, and some of his rhetoric surrounding the signing of the bill labelled the act criminalized by this bill as the most heinous of treason.
But the White House press corps doesn't seem to be asking the questions.
The issue isn't whether they should or shouldn't have been reporting on allegations without proof in the Clinton case, the issue is that since in 8 years of Clinton Presidency they clearly showed that was the journalistic standard to which they cleaved, it's quite interesting that they're now falling back to "Well, if there's really something to it, it'll come out eventually, and THEN we'll cover it." (Quite forgetting that if everyone takes that attitude, then it never WILL come out.)
I agree that the questions about Clinton allegations were legitimate to ask (even if many of the allegations turned out to be false). And I feel that the questions about the Bush allegations are equally legitimate to ask. And to my mind, I'm not seeing them asked. I'm not seeing the same kind of zeal for reporting these things now that we saw then.
Blogs are getting the news out there, but blogs are by definition opinion driven. They make no effort to hide their ideology and haven't got the resources to chase down individual stories and verify them.
But, if you can point me to significant examples of the MSM covering the Rove allegations, the Downing Street Memo, or in fact any mention in the Main Stream Media of the absolute disproof of the Bush mantra "We're fighting them (the terrorists) there (in Iraq) so that they don't attack us here" contained in last Thursday's attacks in London.
This group just plays so strongly with the stay-on-message-don't-deviate-from-the-talking-points strategy, and no one in the main stream news seems to pick apart the falacies in their words.
The Daily Show does, but The Daily Show isn't a serious news show, it's comedy. If we're resorting to The Daily Show as our main source of deflating self-important windbag politicians blowing hot air, we're in worse trouble than I thought.
Liam.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:29:00 AM
For what it's worth, the comatose sharks have apparently been roused by blood in the water...
The media seems to sense that Karl Rove is wounded, and they finally seem to be besetting him with the same ferocity a similar scandal in the Clinton White House would have engendered.
Tim Russert (a man who has thrown more softballs lately than the entire league my company participates in) was on the Today Show today, and commented "One Republican said to me last night, 'If this was a Democratic White House, we'd have Congressional hearings in a second'."
Scott McClellan has fielded numerous questions, and after two years of assuring the press corps that Rove was innocent, no one in the White House would have leaked such stuff, he'd personally talked to Rove and was assured he was innocent, now suddenly is reticent about answering, being suddenly unwilling to comment on an ongoing investigation.
So perhaps, just perhaps, the news media isn't as cowed by this White House as I had thought. Perhaps there is hope after all.
Liam.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:00:00 PM
Liam, how about a newspaper story on Wilson?
.http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=57692
How do these presented facts jive with your sources?
Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:57:00 PM
Well... First off, note that the link you linked to is in the Editorials section, NOT the news section. Which means it is basically an opinion piece. Not unlike a blog.
Secondly, the piece mentions several items taken more or less directly out of the Republican talking points memo for this issue, some of which are blatently false. Of course, right now I'm about to head in for a night shift, so I can't track down sources, so I should perhaps wait until later, but here are a few of the "facts" which are either false or at best, misleading:
First off, Wilson didn't make the claim about the Vice President's office until well AFTER Novak's original report. And Rove's comment was not that Wilson was suggested by his wife, but that he was APPROVED by her. Big difference. The one says "Hey, keep in mind, my husband has worked as a diplomat and has contacts there. You might look to him" and leaves the choice up to other people.
The facts seem to be confused at best as to whether his wife ever actually suggested him or not, certainly she did not send him on the trip, she had no authority to do so.
So far, I've yet to see any proof that Hussein was actively involved in trying to get Uranium from Niger. There is some evidence he may have looked into it 5 years before the events in question, but 5 years is a long time. That would be like saying "The President is clearly having an affair with an intern, because there's ample evidence from five years ago that the President was having an affair with an intern."
The plain facts appear to support the contrary. No WMDs in Iraq, no nuclear weapons program, no attempts (since 1997) by Hussein to even consider obtaining uranium.
For a couple of posts from the other side, check out this post and this one. (The second one particularly refutes point by point).
Finally, keep in mind that the net result is that an undercover agent of the CIA was outed. Even if we give everything else, even if we postulate that Wilson was lying, that Bush was 100% correct and all the rest...
How do you justify statements by Bush, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan, and by Rove himself, absolutely denying Rove having told anyone about Valerie Plame until after the story broke, and it now becomes clear that Rove's e-mail was three days BEFORE the story broke?
How do you justify the fact that the President and his spokepeople have said that if there was a leak in this White House, if someone in the Administration had leaked that information about Ms. Plame, they would be dealt with, and now they're backing off from that?
Come to think of it, given Bush's tendency to stand 100% behind friends who are under fire (see last week's comments on Alberto Gonzales), why he decided NOT to speak out on Rove's behalf yesterday?
Read through the links I sent you, I've now gotten sucked into this and am going to be about 10 minutes late to work. If you want more, let me know, I'll look into it later.
Liam.
Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:28:00 PM
Oh, and, thanks for pulling up a link from my local paper, the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader. It was refreshing to recognize the source immediately.
For reference, the Union-Leader is a generally right leaning paper in a generally right leaning state.
Not that leaning one direction or the other makes one automatically wrong (or automatically right), but editorials in liberal papers are rarely given much credence as sources of fact, I don't see why editorials from conservative papers should be given any more.
Liam.
Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:31:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home