Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bert,
Great post, links! As Keith Olbermann said last night, this is “the story that just keeps on giving.” Aaron Brown ran a segment, and could barely control his urge to laugh. No doubt journalists have already come up with a long list of “Jeff” jokes. Unless I missed it, FOX was strangely silent; they’re busy beating on a crank professor in Colorado. My local newspaper, The Oregonian, isn’t covering the story. It will probably have to be released by AP before they mention it.
Today there are additional developments, it’s moving fast and spreading. Stay tuned.

While it’s amusing to watch righeous right-wing hypocrisy exposed, there is a very serious underlying issue.

A fake reporter with a fake name enters the White House with a daily pass- issued by the White House- and that is NOT the same as a press pass- and is called on to ask, essentially, fake questions. How far will the Bush administration go to undermine a free press? How far has it already gone?

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2005 05:32 PM

Why that’s terrible. How dare they do that. They should know by now that only the left is allowed to use dirty tricks.

Posted by: Jake at February 11, 2005 05:36 PM

Jake-

Why that’s terrible. How dare they do that. They should know by now that only the left is allowed to use dirty tricks.

Moral Relativism. The unfortunate fact is that the Republicans solution to scandal has been: “Don’t get caught.” You need to have higher standards than that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 11, 2005 08:28 PM

Great article, Bert!

This may get even more interesting. It seems that Gannon/Gluckert may also have something to do with Plamegate.
From The New York Times article (I’ll paste most of it here for those who aren’t registered on the website:
Democrats Want Investigation of Reporter Using Fake Name

“Two Democrats in Congress are pressing for investigations into how a Washington reporter who used a pseudonym managed to gain access to the White House and had access to classified documents that named Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative.

The Democrats, Representatives John Conyers Jr. of Michigan and Louise M. Slaughter from Rochester, wrote yesterday to Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent prosecutor appointed in the Plame case, seeking an investigation into how the reporter, James D. Guckert, who used the name Jeff Gannon, had access to classified documents that revealed the identity of Ms. Plame.

Until Wednesday when he resigned, Mr. Guckert worked for TalonNews.com, a Web site operated by Robert Eberle, a Texas Republican. Mr. Guckert said in a March 2004 interview with his own news service, in which he was referred to as Mr. Gannon, that the classified document had been “easily accessible.” The two Democrats questioned how a person with “dubious qualifications” had access to such a document. The Democrats also wrote to the Secret Service seeking an explanation of how someone using a pseudonym was cleared to enter the White House daily press briefings as well as a presidential news conference last month. They said in their letter that allowing such a person in “appears to deviate significantly from heightened security measures you have employed recently.”“
(snip)
“Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, told reporters yesterday that Mr. Bush did not know who Mr. Guckert was. Mr. McClellan said that Mr. Guckert entered the White House under his real name and “like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly, and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes, just like many others are.”

Mr. Guckert was denied credentials to cover Capitol Hill, where press gallery workers said that his application indicated Talon was not his main source of income and that they could not verify its legitimacy.

Karl Frisch, a spokesman for Ms. Slaughter, said: “This is a guy who could not get credentialed by the House or the Senate press galleries, and yet managed to get into the White House and question the president” and have access to a top-secret document.
He added: “To imply he has no connection to the White House is just not credible.”“

After reading this article, I began wondering…
If Gannon/Gluckert was in fact the person who outted Valerie Plame, and he isn’t, and never was, a real reporter, then the confidentiality issue doesn’t apply - and accordingly, shouldn’t Novak be forced to reveal if the man was his source?
I think Novak should go to jail for treason, and if Gannon/Gluckert is also involved, they should be forced to share a jail cell for the rest of their lives.

Btw, let me take this oportunity to give some well deserved praise to one of my favorite representatives - Congressman John Conyers - for again proving himself to be a man of action, and one who always does so with an enormous amount of intelligence and integrity.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 11, 2005 08:50 PM

Are you guys gonna discuss Rather,Soros,Moore?

Posted by: Jake at February 11, 2005 09:16 PM

Jake,
I can’t read your mind. If you can connect Rather, Soros, and Moore to the topic, elaborate on whatever point you’re trying to make, and support that point with logic, links, or… well, any support whatsoever, then a discussion might ensue.

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2005 11:11 PM

I think Jake was asking if Rather, Soros and Moore ever pretended to be journalists from a fake news company that breached White House Security using Inside Connections for the Express Purpose of infiltrating the Press Pool with Reporters who seek to manipulate the Subject Matter.

That is what you are asking, Jake?

Posted by: Aldous at February 12, 2005 04:20 AM

Jake-
Why Rather? He’s a veteran news reporter with legitimate press credentials, with a private corporation and not a political party paying his bills.

Why Soros? He’s a private individual, and not a reporter. His relevance to Gannon is practically nil.

Why Moore? He doesn’t claim to be a reporter. He never gave softball questions to the President in the midst of an often heated press conference. You may argue that Moore is unfair, doesn’t have his facts straight, or this or that, but he’s not flying under false colors. He’s not a plant.

If the reports are true, Then Talon News is a convenient fiction for Conservative political activists to operate from behind. They recieved a classified document whose source is almost definitely from the White House. And somehow, despite being rejected from both House and Senate Press Galleries for not being a professional reporter, he manages to get access to the White House press corps.

It is far too easy to believe the GOP engineered this. They have built a huge PR and political opinion machine that cranks out Republican and administration Propaganda by the truckload. Their lesson from Watergate and all the other scandals has been to be more secretive, to not get caught, to lie boldly and openly and sincerely.

Read David Brock’s The Republican Noise Machine. This goes far past FOXnews. This administration has just got more brazen about it, getting involved with conflicts of interest and bribery in order to ensure that their faithful never have to worry their head about believing the things the other side says.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 12, 2005 10:32 AM

A fake reporter with a fake name enters the White House with a daily pass- issued by the White House- and that is NOT the same as a press pass- and is called on to ask, essentially, fake questions.

What defines a reporter? Does the person have to work for a major Network or affiliate, A major Newspaper, or can a person be a reporter and work for a radio station or an online news source or a magazine?

Judy Keen, a USA Today White House reporter whose tenure dates back to the first President Bush, said Gannon was always cordial with her and may not be the only reporter with a political angle. “I do have some questions about whether he is a legitimate journalist,” she admitted. “But, if you start jerking people’s credentials based on who they work for, that is a dangerous road to go down. He is not the only one who occasionally includes a personal opinion.”

Writers often use a pseudonym to write under, as long as he was using his real name to obtain his daily pass and pass through security there should not be an issue here. The White House has stated that he did in fact use his true name for security and no evidence has been produced that he didn’t.

The question that Gannon asked which by the way was one of two questions that he has asked the president during a total of 4 press briefings in nearly 2 years is below. If he had left off the last 7 words would it have been a legitimate question as far as the left column folks are concerned?

“Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. … Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there’s no crisis there. You’ve said you’re going to reach out to these people. How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”

Until Wednesday when he resigned, Mr. Guckert worked for TalonNews.com, a Web site operated by Robert Eberle, a Texas Republican.

Gasp!!!!! Owned by a Republican!!!

What about media outlets owned by Democrats?

George Soros is a major investor in Liberty Media Group that has large holdings in Viacom (CBS), Time Warner (Time Magazine) and News Corporation Limited (New York Post). He also has direct Time Warner holdings of $16.58 Million. In addition to Soros, Ted Turner also owns a major stake in Time Warner. We all know that Soros is a New York Democrat and Turner is a Georgia Democrat so does that disqualify reporters Time Warner and these other organizations attending press briefings?

Posted by: Kirk at February 12, 2005 03:39 PM

I read about all these programs that the administration wants to cut or eliminate all together and it really pi**#@ me off. We give millions and millions to foriegn aid but cut back at home. What’s that? If we are truely interested in reducing the deficit we should start by reducing foriegn aid, especially to governments that won’t or don’t support our efforts toward international peace.

Posted by: James Hunt at February 12, 2005 03:41 PM

Some answer’s to Kirk’s excellent question: what defines a reporter? and what defines a news source?

Talon News is an “all-volunteer” news service, save for “a stipend was arranged that would provide more than half of Mr. Guckerts [sic] income”. This stipend was arranged after Guckert was denied access to Congression press conferences: the requirement there was that correspondends be full-time paid employees. Also, Talon News supplies news “free of charge” - ie there is no subscription revenue, another hallmark of a “legit” news source, vs a propoganda outlet MediaCitizen

I don’t have the link, but I read elsewhere that Talon News came into existence only days before Guckert/Gannon applied for his press passes. I’ve also read that WH reporters are normally vetted first by congress - so Guckert/Gannon having a pass at all, after being denied access by congress, is super unusual.

He asked many more than two questions at press conferences, and some of those asked to McClellan are pretty amazing. Listen for yourself and see if these are legit questions, or Scott McC’s wet dreams. Movie

All these things, plus the fact that this psuedonymous reporter got access to classified documents, suggest something strange going on.

Wrt the Rumfield hillbilly-armor question - the story there wasn’t so much the question, but Rummy’s callous answer. (“Suck it up soldier! I didn’t whine like that when I was in the army. Actually, I never was in the army. Next queston?”) And besides - we’re discussing two different things here. If you think Rummy’s question was staged, perhaps you’re worried about a biased press. But I’m not worried about Guckert because he has a conservative bias. This isn’t about the press, for me anyway.

I’m concerned because the White House is supposed to be ultimately responsible to we the people of the US, and is supposed to communicate with us, in large part via press conferences - and this mechanism is apparently being perverted.

Posted by: William Cohen at February 12, 2005 05:01 PM

Kirk-
A reporter is somebody who does Journalism for a living. Gannon did not. This is what prevented the House and Senate from credentialling him. Restricting the press corp to professional reporters is not exactly a draconian measure.

You better be careful about your paragraph regarding Gannon’s cordiality. One, it’s irrelevant. A cordial deceiver is still a deceiver. Two, you quote an Editor and Publisher article almost verbatim. You need to put it in quotes and attribute it. Otherwise you put yourself an others at risk for liability under copyright law.

Soros and Turner do not have controlling interest in the businesses they are invested in. These organizations are non-partisan, and their reporters ask real questions instead of standing up on soapboxes and given the Administration ideological softballs.

This ultimately is a question of the Bush Administration’s transparency. Nominally, the purpose of these press conferences is the informing of the public of their government’s policies and intentions, by questions that both force and invite our officials to come clear about those things. When you get some fraud in there who’s only intention is to help that administration avoid the confrontations, that sabotages the process. The Bush administration unfortunately has developed a policy of dealing with the media in ways that undercut it’s independence and objectivity.

The Bush administration should not have such power to shape its own coverage that it escapes from criticism and accountability of its screwups.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 12, 2005 06:12 PM

Kirk,
Once again, your ellipsis omits a vital portion of the quote. Here is the quote in full:

“Q Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock-solid and there’s no crisis there. How are you going to work — you said you’re going to reach out to these people — how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”

Harry Reid never said that. Rush Limbaugh took credit for inspiring the question:

“Limbaugh bragged that he had inspired Gannon’s question, while acknowledging that Reid “never actually said ‘soup lines.’”
From mediamatters.org. It’s all over the web, in case you prefer to google a different source.
I believe Rush said that on February 3rd. Since then Rush has reversed himself.

So! Jeff’s question was, in itself, inaccurate. Compare this with the detailed nature of other questions asked during the news conference on January 26th. See Whitehouse.gov/news/releases
Ironically, the previous questions were about Williams, the fellow who took $240k from the Department of Education.

“Jeff” framed an inaccurate and highly partisan question, and then suggested liberals were “divorced from reality.”

Face it. A fake reporter with a fake name, a plant, asked fake questions.

This follows a trend of intentionally undermining freedom of the press by transforming the media into a propaganda tool.

Posted by: phx8 at February 12, 2005 08:07 PM

Speaking of propaganda… and pardon for being off-topic…

Tomorrow the results of the Iraqi election will be released. Even the most casual or partisan observer knows the Sunnis didn’t vote. Think this will represent sufficiently negative news that a counter-story will be launched? Something, anything, to divert the headlines from bad news?

The “Jeff” issue still has some legs. Don’t think the “Churchill” counter-story has much left. The President’s approval ratings are dropping, mostly thanks to the hare-brained Social Security proposal. It’s about time for a Terror Alert, or some other manufactured story. A US fighter shooting down a Syrian, Iranian, or North Korean fighter would do nicely, if no other readily available propaganda is on tap.

Anything to distract the citizenry.

Posted by: phx8 at February 12, 2005 09:46 PM

Here’s more of the same kind of “information manipulation” by the Bush camp. Did I mention that they are drunk with their own power? I haven’t figured out the little html tricks yet, (I’m gonna try with this one, so bear with me). But just in case, I’ll paste a little bit of the article. Check this out:

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.The survey of the agency’s scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife
Service is charged with determining which animals and plants should be
placed on the endangered species list and designating areas where such
species need to be protected. More than half of the biologists and other
researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which
commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy
companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific
conclusions deemed harmful to their business.

Bush administration officials, including Craig Manson, an assistant
secretary of the Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service,
have been critical of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, contending that
its implementation has imposed hardships on developers and others while
failing to restore healthy populations of wildlife.

Complete Story

Posted by: Jeff Hatmaker at February 13, 2005 08:35 AM

CBS,CNN,MSNBC are not middle of the road,
unless your a liberal. You don’t think their
owners have any influence over editorial content?
Who you trying fool?

Posted by: Jake at February 13, 2005 02:57 PM

I’d characterize CBS as slightly left of the middle, CNN even closer to the middle, and MSNBC as distinctly right of the middle.

Think about this. Think very hard. Where do CBS, MSNBC, and CNN get their money? And no, their money does not come from a liberal sugar daddy’s donations. Come on, now. Think!

Here’s a hint: they are run for profit. Where do the revenues come from?

Here’s another hint: each must stay close to the middle to garner ratings. Why do networks want good ratings? Why do they avoid any real controversy? And if you think ratings mean that viewers send their money to CBS, MSNBC, and CNN, try again. Figured it out yet? It’s a dominating influence in our culture. Think!

What constituency must CBS, MSNBC, and CNN never seriously question or antagonize?

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2005 05:10 PM

Bert, there is a website that is called Newshounds that has 8 women who each watch Fox News. They critique Hannity and O’Reilly etc. They have documented the bias of Fox news on their website daily. It is very interesting.

Some Republicans have put another newshound’s site on search so I will give you their url.

http://www.newshounds.us/

Posted by: Ann at February 13, 2005 05:44 PM

Jake-
That whole Liberal media schtick is just the Republican’s way of distracting people from their mistakes. Let me put it this way- when has This administration not complained about its press coverage?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 13, 2005 06:04 PM

To connect my previous post back to the issue of “Jeff,” and the larger issue of freedom of the press.
It’s important to understand why the scandal of “Jeff” matters.

Most major news outlets are dominated by business concerns. An unspoken culture of materialism controls the media. This is not exactly a revolutionary idea. Think about it for even a few moments; it’s obvious.

In addition, very few news outlets provide ‘real’ reporting from Washington D.C., and even fewer provide international coverage. Much domestic news, and most international news comes from either the AP, or releases by the US government, which more and more amounts to the same thing.

Investigative reporting is nearly non-existent… outside the web.

Bush has held fewer press conferences than any president in memory. Though reporters do not dare be too confrontational, for fear of losing access, presidential press conferences are one of the few opportunities for the press to ask questions. These reporters are already constrained by the dynamics of their profit-driven organizations.

Planting a fake reporter, under a fake name, who asks fake questions, undermines one of the last unscripted venues available to the free press- with ‘free’ being a relative term.

Use the web! Read articles by the right, middle and left. Connect the dots, and understand the powerful motivations restricting the right and middle from doing little more than parroting the lines fed to them. Recognize the influences of money, greed, materialism, and thirst for power. You might agree they’re a good thing, you might disagree, but at least you will begin thinking for yourself.

You, too, can be a liberal.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2005 06:32 PM

phx8,

Nice detailed retort to Jake on the supposed Liberal bias of the news networks. You nailed it!

Ann,

Thanks for the newshounds.com site tip, it rocks!

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 13, 2005 06:39 PM

The NewsHounds have a nibble on another media scandal that maybe could be called “pantygate”. It is mentioned in this article on NewsHounds:

One Hour To Discuss A Commercial

http://www.newshounds.us/

Posted by: Ann at February 13, 2005 07:24 PM

Stephen / phx8,

That whole Liberal media schtick is just the Republican’s way of distracting people from their mistakes. Let me put it this way- when has This administration not complained about its press coverage?

I’d characterize CBS as slightly left of the middle, CNN even closer to the middle, and MSNBC as distinctly right of the middle.

Below is a portion of an Editor & Publisher article referencing a Pew Research Study of the Media.

The finding of the Pew Research study will show that the media is in fact Liberally biased.

While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as “moderate,” a far higher number are “liberal” than in the general population.

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

Posted by: Kirk at February 13, 2005 09:30 PM

Kirk-
Okay, so 59% of reporters in national 75% in local, and 60% in web news establishments, are moderate. How the hell does it become a liberal news media when we constitute a third or less of the total staff? Again, it’s a myth used to scare the moderates into favorable coverage.

Fact is Republicans enjoy being able to blame their bad press on a bad press. Reforming their behavior would actually take effort, and real organized policy rather than a collection of psychological hangups about taxes, guns and gays.

The myth of the Republican party is that it actually has something it stands for. No. It has things that it stands in the way of. U.N. equal treatment with gays, clear separation between church and state, any law restricting jobs, hurting bottom lines, controlling guns, raising or even keeping taxes at their original levels. You mention an issue, they’re standing in the way of something on it.

I mean, it’s natural to be obstructionists when you’re the minority, but why the hell do you have to be like that when you’re the majority? You wonder why we get so crotchety, why we elect a party chairman who’s virtue is that he got people interested in making aggressive gains at your expense. We’re tired of being put-down, shut-out, and blamed for the fact you can’t get your policy straight.

Liberal media. Right. I don’t care what my media is as long as its got its facts straight so I can make up my own mind. Fox does not fit that bill. “We Report, You Decide” is a phrase meant to camouflage the fact you got more commentary than reporting going on. But what can you expect when the Network’s run by a man who once worked for our president’s father as a political aide. Y’all republicans have been frogboiled in terms of your party’s standard business practices. Of course, if all you want to do is win, that’s alright, you just can claim to stand for anything else.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 13, 2005 10:40 PM

Kirk,

One cannot help but wonder what the rest of the E&P article and the rest of the Pew study reveal, especially since you’ve omitted links to either.

Second, the personal political ideology of most journalists is a moot point, seeing that bias is set by management and owners. There are probably a few Liberals working over at Fox, but they’re regurgitating the bias set by Roger Ailes.

Weekly Standard’s William Kristol is the leading voice of the sane wing of Conservative Republicans, and I put his quote in my post specifically to refute just such a claim. Did you read it?

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 13, 2005 10:53 PM

I read that same statement about the press being liberal about 30 years ago. It is a cover up to hide the conservative bias.

I agree with Stephen. I don’t want a liberal or conservative media. I do want to know the facts and be well informed. A society cannot make good decisions if they are not informed correctly. Leaving out parts of a story is as much a lie as telling a story to make one side look bad or good.

The media is no longer the government watch dog. It is the government’s lap dog.

There used to be laws until twenty some years ago that kept the media honest. Now the press is in it for the money. Guess who has the most money?

Posted by: Ann at February 13, 2005 11:46 PM

Hey, where do I sign up to be one o those
liberals? somebody suggested that for me.
Do I get one o those hats with a propeller
on top? That would shure be elitist.
(still think the press is mostly lefty)

Posted by: Jake at February 14, 2005 12:07 AM

I have a question to ask before you guys send
me the hat. Do liberals ever actually answer
a question? Do they always make a personal attack
on the person asking the question? Is this one
of there customs? I,m considering joining, but
I,m not skilled in such things. Can some of you
show me the lib-way

Posted by: Jake at February 14, 2005 12:31 AM

Jake,

When someone begins complaining about personal attacks to describe the pointed responses refuting their argument, in reality, that looks like a reluctant surrender.

When they start taunting about ‘tiny hats with propellers’, they gain not much more respect than those who’s hateful bile eventually gets deleted from these threads.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 14, 2005 03:09 AM

How the hell does it become a liberal news media when we constitute a third or less of the total staff?

34% Liberal and 7% Conservative. If half the moderates are left of center and the other half are right of center that means that roughly 2/3 at least lean left. If you use the same ratio of nearly 5:1 Liberal to Conservative and apply it to the 59% of moderates you end up with over 80% at least leaning left. These are the categories that those questioned put themselves into.

Pew research also shows the following.

The national journalists tend to feel the press has been insufficiently critical of Bush. National journalists also are the more likely to describe themselves as personally liberal.

It is not the job of a journalist to be critical of a president. It is the job of a journalist to report facts and let we the people be critical of the president.

The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar - 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).

So, that is how the hell it becomes a liberal press.

It has things that it stands in the way of. U.N. equal treatment with gays, clear separation between church and state, any law restricting jobs, hurting bottom lines, controlling guns, raising or even keeping taxes at their original levels.

No we stand for equal treatment not special treatment, we stand for anyone having the right to his or her chosen religion and not prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Why would we not stand in the way of laws restricting jobs or hurting bottom lines? Hurting bottom lines or restricting jobs puts people out of work making them dependent on government and depriving them of their pursuit of happiness. Controlling guns is a direct viloation of the 2nd Amendment the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Of course we stand in the way of that if you support the Constitution you should too. Higher taxes take money out of the economy where it can be productive and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats where it is squandered. Lower taxes stimulate the economy, increasing revenue, demand and jobs. It happened after the Kennedy Tax Cuts, the Reagan Tax Cuts and now the Bush Tax Cuts. This increase in economic activity then generates increased currency turn over and higher tax revenues to the government.

My question to you is how can you possibly be for the opposite of the above?

I mean, it’s natural to be obstructionists when you’re the minority

Now we may be getting somewhere. Liberals should be doing what is best for the country not simply being obstructionist because they don’t want conservatives getting credit for success. Tom Daschle tried this and it got him the boot.

You wonder why we get so crotchety, why we elect a party chairman who’s virtue is that he got people interested in making aggressive gains at your expense.

Have you looked at the election results for the past 3 cycles? If this is what you call aggressive gains by all means please keep up the good work.

Of course Fox will be considered a Conservative network anything even approaching center is conservative compared to the mainstream media. Look at ABC and Stephanopoulis, a Clinton Political Advisor/Communications Director acting as a correspondent on all the news shows.

CBS anchor Dan Rather speaking at a Democratic fundraiser that was hosted by his daughter, who was considering a run for local office in Texas. Then his 60 Minutes hit piece backed up by forged documents. Not to mention his producer arranging a meeting between the source of the documents and Terry McAulife as payment for the documents.

Just two examples of the un-Liberal media.

Posted by: Kirk at February 14, 2005 03:19 AM

Bert,

Both are on the respective web sites. Not all that difficult to find if you put forth the effort.

But just to make it easy on you here you go.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000787908

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214

Posted by: Kirk at February 14, 2005 03:42 AM

Bert, good find on the Kristol quote. The fallacy of a vast liberal conspiracy ought to be common sense, since the media companies are all owned by GOP supporting defense industries like GE or guys like Rupert Murdoch.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 14, 2005 06:39 AM

Kirk, I want to comment on some of your statements.

“….we stand for equal treatment not special treatment”

Republicans consider it “equal treatment” to charge the wealthy the same tax as the working and middle class. That is not equal treatment because you don’t consider the circumstances. It is so easy for the rich to make money. It is that first clear $100,000 that is hard to earn. Much of the government resources go to benefit the rich the most.

“we stand for anyone having the right to his or her chosen religion and not prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Even the Mormans? Most Democrats want the free exercise of religion, but they don’t want their child being taught a different belief by a teacher at school. Religion should not be mixed in with government. We have churches and our home to teach our children religion. Mixing church and state, there is always a danger we could get a radical right wing president that declares his is the only religion and passes a law that other religions are criminal.

Personally, I tell my family to not worry about the teacher and her beliefs and show them where she is wrong.

“Why would we not stand in the way of laws restricting jobs or hurting bottom lines?”

Some jobs use chemicals that ruin the health of the worker or pollute the economy or ruin the ecology or rain forests. They should be outlawed.

“”Controlling guns is a direct viloation of the 2nd Amendment the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Democrats just wanted to take the rapid fire 300 bullet guns off the streets and make it take longer to purchase a gun so you would not buy one in anger. The rapid fire guns put our police in jeopardy. But what the heck, it will be interesting when those guns meet the grim life that lies ahead for the average Joe because of the Bush “No tax crowd” policies.

I am totally against any gun control now.

“”Higher taxes take money out of the economy where it can be productive and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats where it is squandered.

There are expenses in running a country. It isn’t all squandered. The Military, Public Schools, highways, scientific research and space travel are just a small part of the many things the government does. I do think it is a waste of money to pay taxes to the republican regulatory commissions. They are undoing regulations instead of enforcing them.

Lower taxes stimulate the economy, increasing revenue, demand and jobs.”

Seems like we do better when the Democrats are in office without the severe tax cuts for the wealthy. It is the war that has mostly increased profits in this country since the tax cuts. Plus the media encouraged people to refinance their homes and spend! spend! spend!

The working taxpayer and Social Security is footing the bill for this war. Even with that, the Republicans have put us under a debt that we may never dig out of. Remember when they said the Iraqi oil would pay for the war?

Posted by: Ann at February 14, 2005 08:42 AM

Correction:

Some jobs use chemicals that ruin the health of the worker or pollute the economy or ruin the ecology or rain forests.

That should say: Some jobs use chemicals that ruin the health of the worker or pollute the air and hurt the health of those in the area or ruin the ecology or rain forests.

Posted by: Ann at February 14, 2005 08:49 AM

Bert,

I personally disagree with Mr. Kristol on this point as do media professionals themselves.

Indiana University School of Journalism and sponsored by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, surveyed 1,149 print, radio and television journalists in the fall of 2002. They found that Democrats in news organizations outnumber Republicans 2 to 1.

Fewer journalists say they are Democrats. In 2002, 37.1 percent identified with the political party, down 7 percentage points from 1992. Republican journalists increased from 16.3 percent to 18.6 percent.

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28808

In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a book by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.
89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.
Media in their own words.

“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney

“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings

“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for —- most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias….[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.” — Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas

“There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I’m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don’t trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites’ have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it’s hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters - CBS reporter Eric Engberg

“I’d bet that if you hooked Dan and Tom and Peter up to a lie detector and asked them if there’s a liberal bias on their newscasts, they’d all say ‘no’ and they’d all pass the test….That leaves one other possibility. Messrs. Rather, Brokaw and Jennings don’t even know what liberal bias is. I concede this is hard to believe, but I’m convinced it’s why we keep getting these ridiculous denials….The problem is that Mr. Rather and the other evening stars think that liberal bias means just one thing: going hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world…. And it is this inability to see liberal views as liberal that is at the heart of the entire problem. This is why Phyllis Schlafly is the conservative woman who heads that conservative organization but Patricia Ireland is merely the head of NOW. No liberal labels necessary. Robert Bork is the conservative judge. Laurence Tribe is the noted Harvard law professor…. Conservatives must be identified because the audience needs to know these are people with axes to grind. But liberals don’t need to be identified because their views on all the big social issues — from abortion and gun control to the death penalty and affirmative action — aren’t liberal views at all. They’re simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with at all their reasonable dinner parties in Manhattan and Georgetown….” — Former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg

Posted by: Kirk at February 14, 2005 01:29 PM

The silence and lack of outrage over the fake liberal reporter, asking fake questions is deafening.

Are those crickets I hear chirping?

a liberal activist and associate of Ralph Nader has been obtaining access to White House press briefings while claiming to be a legitimate news reporter.

Russell Mokhiber, who sells a $795 a year newsletter that bashes corporations, attends the briefings to make obscure anti-Bush political points. Recently, for example, he asked spokesman Scott McClellan whether President Bush violated one of the Ten Commandments by invading Iraq. Mokhiber, who told AIM that he has never taken a journalism class in his life and was denied a permanent White House press pass, posts his ludicrous questions and answers on a far-left web site under the title “Scottie & Me.”

Other Mokhiber topics have included industrial hemp, Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, possible war crimes charges against Bush, and Halliburton.

http://www.aim.org/press_release/2643_0_19_0_C/

Posted by: Kirk at February 14, 2005 01:33 PM

I can hear the crickets
Maybee a frog or two. But I think they just
went to get the hat.

Posted by: Jake at February 14, 2005 01:57 PM

Ann,

Republicans consider it “equal treatment” to charge the wealthy the same tax as the working and middle class. That is not equal treatment because you don’t consider the circumstances.

I assume you are referring to the proposal for a Flat Tax by that statement since that is what the two of us have been discussing elsewhere. So, I will address it accordingly.

It appears unfortunately, you seem to have been caught up in the “new math” debacle. You see, 17% does in fact equal 17%. The fallacy of “new math” is that 10% can be made to equal 30% if it makes you feel better.

Even the Mormans?

Yes, even the Mormons.

I don’t think I said I wanted teachers teaching religion in school I will have to look back and see….Nope I didn’t.

there is always a danger we could get a radical right wing president that declares his is the only religion and passes a law that other religions are criminal.

There is always that danger that we could continue to follow the radical left wing agenda to push religion further and further out of our daily lives so that they won’t have to worry about making it criminal.

Some jobs use chemicals that ruin the health of the worker or pollute the economy or ruin the ecology or rain forests. They should be outlawed.

Those are environmental laws not labor laws.

rapid fire guns put our police in jeopardy

Rapid-fire guns do not put our police in jeopardy, criminals do. Besides that, criminals do not go through legal channels to obtain weapons. Do you seriously think that if we banned all firearms in the US that suddenly there would be no more police officers shot? Do you think that maybe the thought that the homeowner or business owner may have a gun inside could make the burglar think twice about breaking in?

Businesses are robbed, citizens mugged and Police officers are stabbed every day by criminals carrying knives. So, I propose that we ban all knives with a blade over 2 inches in length. Which should be much easier that banning guns because the Constitution does not guarantee you the right to keep and bear knives.

It isn’t all squandered.

Take a look at the site below and tell me there isn’t a whole lot of squandering going on. And yes I will stipulate that it comes from both sides.

http://www.house.gov/hensarling/www_weedingout.htm

Seems like we do better when the Democrats are in office without the severe tax cuts for the wealthy.

OK, lets look at this realistically.

Who creates jobs is it the government or is it business?

Who owns, invests the money to start or expand those businesses, is it government or citizens?

If someone uses some of their tax cut money to start or expand a business that puts 5 people to work what really happens does the government loose tax revenues? Or does the fact that 5 people are now employed increase the Income Tax receipts, FICA Tax receipts while at the same time possibly reducing the demand on government assistance programs?

If a worker now has a job that he didn’t have before what is that worker going to do with the money he is now earning? Will he spend it to buy products therefore increasing demand and generating increased tax revenue for the local government?

What happens when businesses see the increased demand from the new consumer (worker)? Do they just continue to produce at the same level or do they increase production to meet the new demand?

Now what do they have to do to produce at a higher level, maybe higher a new employee?

The circle begins again.
_________________________________________________

Now lets look at it from the Democratic Higher Tax side.

The government imposes the largest tax increase in history.

What happens to the cost of doing business, it goes up so a business in turn must raise prices.

Increased prices cause reduced demand, which means less production is required.

Less production means fewer workers are required.

Fewer workers means less tax revenue for the government which causes another tax increase and the circle starts again.

Do some government programs suffer reduced funding because of the tax cuts? Sure, in the early stages while the money is being circulated through the economy generating the demand. In the long run though the available revenue to those programs will be increased.

On the flip side, do some government programs benefit from increased taxes? Sure, in the early stages while the money presently in the economy is being drained off by tax payments. In the long run though the available revenue to those programs will be decrease because of reduced tax receipts.

Posted by: Kirk at February 14, 2005 03:17 PM

You might want to check into Russell Mikhiber a little more closely.

“Russell Mokhiber, who sells a $795 a year newsletter…”

That’s true. He sells it because he is the Editor. He has been since at least 1999, and posts original articles regularly. He has been on radio, and has published books as well.

Whether he has taken classes or not, he certainly could claim to be a journalist.

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2005 04:08 PM

Having said that about Mokhiber, he’s defintely a leftie, and I’m a little suprised he would be admitted to briefings.

As for the quality of his questions, I couldn’t say, didn’t find that. If a briefing line of questioning is about about, say, Social Security, and out of the blue he asks about the 10 Commandments, that’s goofy. If the line of questioning is about the President’s faith, such a question might be appropriate. In other words, depends on context.

In any event, he’s not a fake, and he’s not a plant, and his name really is Russell.

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2005 04:36 PM

phx8,

I publish a News Letter for my company that has subscribers outside the company I work for. I earn my entire living from the company I work for. I do all the writing and all the articles are original. I have been on the radio and tv in the past.

So, does that make me a reporter?

Posted by: Kirk at February 14, 2005 05:59 PM

Kirk,
If ‘Kirk’ IS your real name… :-)

It sounds like you have the credentials. Apply for a daily pass to a White House Press briefing, who knows? But please- no scandals pointing back at that eccentric crank, ‘phx8’!

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2005 07:18 PM

Kirk-
First, your math on the leaning is not supported by any internals about how the people inside the groups split. It is guess on your part, and therefore carries no great weight with me. For all you know, the majority of those moderates may just be Conservatives who won’t admit it.

Why do the National journalists believe that we’ve been insufficiently critical of the president? Is it because they know what the president’s done in greater detail and depth than the average person? That’s not an unreasonable possibility. Or maybe it’s frustration with the administration, due to its lockdown and perpetual message control. We aren’t told.

On your beliefs:
Sometimes special treatment is necessary. Would you have amputees and paraplegics forced to surmount steps rather than take a ramp up? Would you have Soldiers not be singled out for benefits for their service? Equal rights and due compensation are more important than equal treatment.

Some bottom lines and jobs deserve to be hurt. A bottom line gained by fraud, harm to others, or inordinate control of the market is a devil’s bargain to tolerate. So are jobs that are created at the expense of our nations best interests, like porkbarrel jobs, and jobs that don’t pay a living wage. Your people are prepared to legitimize illegal aliens simply to allow business owners to pay employees less than minimum wage and withhold benefits.

Guns are a right for the people, but they are a right that is no more absolute than the First Amendment. There are exceptions of time, place, manner, privacy and truth involved in the First Amendment. Why can’t the same be done about weapons, to some extent? It’s impossible to have absolute freedoms without chaos. Waiting Periods, triggerlocks, background checks and other reforms in mind do little to prevent the law-abiding citizens of this nation from owning a gun. Some guns are banned, but so are some kinds of speach outlawed: obscenity, revelation of national security secrets, incitement to riot or criminal activity.

On Higher taxes, you don’t understand the system. hundreds of billions of dollars in our budget do nothing else but pay interest and principal on our debts.

The interest raises the cost of the spending, so ultimately, it would be cheaper for us to pay it now. As for money being taken out of the system, the effects of the deficit are poised to do just that. This is a reality both Bush and Reagan had to face, raising taxes after they dropped them. Additionally, because Kennedy’s successor LBJ refused to stave off deficits by funding his excessive wartime spending through raised taxes… Well, you lived through the seventies, didn’t you? There’s no such things as a free lunch, much less a free government.

As for obstructionism, you assume too much. I don’t know where you get the idea that we have the sort of faith in Republican policies that would warrant such a duplicitous response. Maybe we disagree with you because we don’t like the policies being pushed on us.

Anyways, our people are telling us to fight for them. They’re sick of seeing the Republican make gains at our expense. They want us to win again, to believe again. You just want us to lay down in defeat. Well, you haven’t treated us well enough for us to feel that comfortable resting on your assurances of goodwill.

As for your attribution, quotation and links, they are not there merely to make it easy on the rest of us. They are part of copyright law, and also an aid to the effectiveness of the debate. You can’t merely cut the work of published writers out and just paste it out there as your own. We shouldn’t have to pick out what’s quoted material and what’s not. We shouldn’t have to search for a document whose location you know already. You should provide it so we know your argument has its bonafides.

On your quote heavy post:

Define bias. Well, a bias is the way one leans. But why stop with politics? Biases can lead us to assume things, create prejudicies that blind us to the facts as they are, the big picture as it’s most accurately painted. It’s part and parcel of being creatures with subjective perspectives.

The refrain among Rrepublicans is that your open display and celebration of your bias excuses it, while our denial of our bias makes it evil and sinister.

But why should Republican bias be a good thing, and Liberal Bias an evil? The pernicious effects of unchecked biases are universal. A Conservative reporter who doesn’t keep to the facts, who becomes an advocate where he should keep his distance, is equal in his sin to a Liberal who does the same. The same applies to a green, a red, a freeper, a watchblogger, black, white, smart, dumb, whatever.

No, The solution to the problem is not a purge of liberal reporters, burning Dan Rather at the stake and feeding Peter “The Smirk” Jennings to the sharks. instead, the solution is something old and familiar that just needs to be refined: journalistic standards. Govern the accuracy and precision of what’s being said, not the political tendencies of those at work in the field. Factchecking is the ultimate leveller. Neither conservative nor Liberal is superior in the realm of the facts. All are equally its subjects.

The solution has never been to balance one bias with another, but instead to pass both at the same time through the filter of the facts.

What I write of is the triumph of people over the biases and prejudices of things and people in general, not the triumph of one’s political group over another.

In the end, we must all confront the subjectivity and tame it once and for all, because the alternative is simply arguments about who is for us or against us. We need strong viewpoints, but we need the truth more.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 15, 2005 01:01 AM

About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.

Maybe they know something you don’t…

Posted by: American Pundit at February 15, 2005 01:19 AM

Kirk,

First of all, the reason why the William Kristol admission is so potent in this debate, is that the only other leading Conservative voices to carry greater gravitas, are William Buckley (maybe) or Ronald Reagan, himself.

Second, you could’ve saved your self the effort of crafting a rebuttal, if you’d read exactly what he said:

‘the Liberal media was never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by Conservatives for Conservative failures.’

Your numbers are therefore meaningless given his point, because they did not wield the overriding influence you assume they represent. And, here’s the kicker from the article:

Unlike most of the publications named above, liberals, for some reason, feel compelled to include the views of the other guy on a regular basis in just the fashion that conservatives abhor.

As I pointed out in my post, this is why no one has taken me up on my challenge to provide such evidence of bias from NPR. Can such evidence really be found? Sure. But, besides Media Matters.org there a nearly a dozen organizations documenting the bias and distortions of Fox News, alone. Where is the comparable amount of evidence on CNN, ABC, NBC and others?

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 15, 2005 06:13 AM

Stephen,

Is it because they know what the president’s done in greater detail and depth than the average person? That’s not an unreasonable possibility. Or maybe it’s frustration with the administration, due to its lockdown and perpetual message control. We aren’t told.

If they know in greater detail tell us, its there job. What would be unreasonable in your scenario is for them not to tell us what they know.

Why do the National journalists believe that we’ve been insufficiently critical of the president?

And, they do not think it is we who have been insufficiently critical, it is they who feel they have been insufficiently critical. Why would the media need to be critical of the president unless they are trying to exercise influence over the American Voter? If they are not trying to influence us to follow their beliefs, just report the facts and let us decide on our own.

Would you have amputees and paraplegics forced to surmount steps rather than take a ramp up? Would you have Soldiers not be singled out for benefits for their service? Equal rights and due compensation are more important than equal treatment.

There is a flaw in your assessment of my statement. You see requiring paraplegics to use stairs is not treating them equally because you are denying them access that non-paraplegics have. Not compensating Soldiers for their service is not treating them equally because they are not being compensated for their sacrifices and duty. You see, equal right and due compensation are part of equal treatment.

Some bottom lines and jobs deserve to be hurt. A bottom line gained by fraud, harm to others, or inordinate control of the market is a devil’s bargain to tolerate.

All the above are criminal acts covered by current law. What is your point?

Lets see, who is it that wants to legitimize illegal aliens? Bush wants a guest worker program that would allow them to stay a specified period of time. Some on your side want to make them citizens.

From a NewsMax article http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/10/65658.shtml

Capitol Hill — The leader of the minority party in the House of Representatives Wednesday promised illegal aliens the opportunity to receive “earned legalization,” if they give Democrats back control of the House of Representatives. Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., told a crowd of nearly a thousand people that he will introduce legislation Thursday so that “undocumented people in our country can earn legalization.” “But it will have a very hard time getting through the Congress if the Republican Party continues their majority in the Congress,” Gephardt told the crowd, which responded by chanting “No more Bush!” “If we want to get earned legalization passed, we need a new agenda in your House of Representatives,” he continued. “We need a Democratic majority to get this up and get it done.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., echoed Gephardt’s warning that amnesty legislation would be difficult to pass with Republicans in control of the House.John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, drew one of the strongest reactions during his address to the crowd, comprised of many people wearing T-shirts identifying them as union members. “We renew our call not only for full workplace rights for all workers, regardless of their immigration status,” Sweeney said, “and a meaningful program to bring immigrant workers into our national community through full citizenship.”

From the Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040629-104129-6788r.htm

Mr. Kerry, speaking to the National Council of La Raza’s national conference, said that within 100 days of taking office, he would propose a four-part plan that would give a citizenship path to illegal immigrants who have paid taxes while living here and who pass a security screening. Mr. Kerry’s proposal resembles other pending bills — one by his Massachusetts Democrat colleague Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and two key House Democrats; and the other by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican. The Daschle-Hagel plan requires that the immigrants have worked here for four years, including at least a year after the bill becomes law, and that they pay a $1,000 fine.

On Higher taxes, you don’t understand the system. hundreds of billions of dollars in our budget do nothing else but pay interest and principal on our debts. Instead of increasing taxes taking more of our money so that Congress has more to spend on more new programs. Why not make Congress live within their means. When you overspend and end up in a deficit situation do you go to your boss and force him to increase your wages or do you reduce your spending to meet your income? We need to make members of Congress on both sides of the aisle responsible for their uncontrolled, indiscriminate spending. Tax increases following tax cuts are the direct result again of spending. Look back at IRS records following the Regan Tax Cuts and you will see that per capita tax receipts to the IRS increased the problem was that Congressional spending far outpaced tax receipt increases. A Conservative reporter who doesn’t keep to the facts, who becomes an advocate where he should keep his distance, is equal in his sin to a Liberal who does the same. The same applies to a green, a red, a freeper, a watchblogger, black, white, smart, dumb, whatever. I agree 100%, the point I was making with the quotes and statistics concerning liberals in the media is that the American Electorate is influenced by what is reported as many are too lazy or just don’t care enough to look for the facts themselves. My wife is one of them and it hacks me off to no end that she takes part and parcel what she hears on the 6:00 news. With liberals in the media composing a higher percentage than in the population as a whole (as defined by their own classification) what is reported is going to have a greater liberal bent. So, often the American Electorate does not have all the facts to filter. Hence my complaint in several other postings concerning the near total lack of reporting of positive stories out of Iraq. Posted by: Kirk at February 15, 2005 12:09 PM

Bert,
I did read the Kristol comment and as I said before I disagree with him.
Unlike most of the publications named above, liberals, for some reason, feel compelled to include the views of the other guy on a regular basis in just the fashion that conservatives abhor.
You like to point at Fox News as being biased and distorted toward a conservative agenda. I would have to agree with you. Fox News is relatively balanced therefore, by definition it is going to be more conservative than mainstream media. This is precisely why it has now past CNN and MSNBC as the most watched cable news network. It is more centrist and appeals to a much wider audience.

Fox consistently presents both sides of an issue by having both conservative panelists and liberals like Elanor Clift, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Geraldine Ferraro, Ellen Ratner and Juan Williams on a daily basis.

Posted by: Kirk at February 15, 2005 12:49 PM

“Fox consistently presents both sides of an issue by having both conservative panelists and liberals like Elanor Clift, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Geraldine Ferraro, Ellen Ratner and Juan Williams on a daily basis.”

Kirk,

To paraphrase the blog “This Modern World”.
“Fox invites liberals to speak the way that the Harlem Globetrotters invited the Washington Generals to play basketball. They would look pretty silly out there on the court by themselves.”

Posted by: Rocky at February 15, 2005 02:39 PM

Rocky,

You are right.

Most liberals would look very foolish out there by themselves. Not to mention the fact that most people would not tune in to see it.

Posted by: Kirk at February 15, 2005 05:44 PM

Hey Kirk,
Nod, nod, wink wink.

Posted by: Rocky at February 15, 2005 07:05 PM

Seriously Kirk you allong with all of the rest of the right don’t seem to want to be a gracious winners. You take any remark and turn it into an insult. Now I see why the left doesn’t want to work with you guys. The right reeks with condescendence. You guys don’t want to work with any body, you seem too eager to rub peoples noses in it.

Have a life

Posted by: Rocky at February 15, 2005 07:17 PM

What is the bias of the media?

Take any magazine. For this example, let’s use “Time.” What is it’s bias? You can find out for yourself.

First, tear out all the advertisements and set them aside. You’ll be surprised at how thin the magazine is!

Categorize the articles into liberal, moderate, conservative.

What percentage does each category represent? But keep i mind there are FOUR categories. Remember those advertisements? Now, reconsider; what is the bias of “Time”?

Watch any news show and do the same exercise. But remember those commercials!

It’s all around us, yet we take it for granted. The bias of the media is quite obvious. It’s hiding in plain sight.

Posted by: phx8 at February 15, 2005 08:10 PM

Interesting Media Matters analysis of media bias during the inauguration,

Republican and conservative guests and commentators outnumbered Democrats and progressives 19 to 7 on FOX, 10 to 1 on CNN (not including a Republican-skewed panel featuring Ohio voters), and 13 to 2 on MSNBC.

Moreover, the rare Democrat or progressive guest usually appeared opposite conservatives, whereas most Republican and conservative guests and commentators appeared solo or alongside fellow conservatives.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 16, 2005 08:22 AM

If they know in greater detail tell us, its there job. What would be unreasonable in your scenario is for them not to tell us what they know.

In my scenario. In your scenario, they’re demonstrating liberal bias, seeing the glass half-full, betraying the troops, etc., etc.

You see, that’s the danger of a continual insistence on a hidden, inextricable liberal bias: anything and everything that does not benefit the Republcan party and the president is seen as a political attack.

Why would the media need to be critical of the president unless they are trying to exercise influence over the American Voter?

Define critical. Just carping on Bush out of ideology- I understand the resistance you would have for that. But my experience has been that any problem reported with Bush’s policies gets made out to be a partisan attack. Then you get a vicious cycle of disregard, as any release of information that could damage Bush’s reputation is treated like an attack and given the whole treament of denial and secrecy.
In the end the press needs some influence over our lives to serve its function. It is the truth or falsity of what they say which should concern you. If it’s true, you need to look into it further, because it’s your party’s welfare at stake.

You see, equal right and due compensation are part of equal treatment.

Not necessarily, not if you take the Republican party view of things. This is the rationale by which many equal opportunity and civil rights rules are opposed. Why else does the Party establishment use a term like “reverse discrimination”, which has its origins in white supremacist rhetoric?

Some bottom lines and jobs deserve to be hurt. A bottom line gained by fraud, harm to others, or inordinate control of the market is a devil’s bargain to tolerate.

All the above are criminal acts covered by current law. What is your point?

My point… Well, I think your notion that they were covered by current law is not creditable. Your party has rolled back many laws that rendered recent frauds and conflicts of interest explicitly illegal. Things like having a stockbrokerage that sells a company’s stock, and a bank that holds the debt on its loans in the same company. Things like the creative accounting we saw in Enron and so many other companies. Your party was behind these “reforms”, which left things wide open for such corruption.

What do you think deregulation is about, nowadays? it’s about allowing businesses to cut corners, consolidate into monster conglomerates, or stay that way (as in the case of Microsoft) Your party let’s these things go on “for the sake of the economy”. Often though, they are the source of economic trouble, except for those at the top who use things like Personnel decisions to raise their stock prices, and who depart with incredible bonuses even when they screw everything up.

Meanwhile, Bush runs this government like one one of those businesses. And your people let him.

It puzzles me that you think that somehow spending into deficit encourages any real cuts. Truth is, the special interests and lobbyists will encourage the politicians to cut a few nobody programs, but will keep the vast majority of spending in place.

What really happens is this: when deficit spending begins, people lose their inhibition for spending additional money. The beast doesn’t starve, it simply seeks its food elsewhere. As long as America can run up debt through treasury bonds, it will continue to spend. Your strategy only works when our economy collapses. If we return to pay as you go, there is a stigma attached to both increased taxes and deficit spending that both sides can use to temper the other side’s spending. Yes, we may have to raise taxes, but by doing so, we actually pick the cheaper option for taxpayers, and the one that is best for the economy

Tax increases following tax cuts are the direct result again of spending. Look back at IRS records following the Regan Tax Cuts and you will see that per capita tax receipts to the IRS increased the problem was that Congressional spending far outpaced tax receipt increases.

I won’t say that Democrats of the time were innocent, but Reagan can’t be excused himself. In the end, the increases in Defense spending constituted the bulk of new spending. In fact, your side congratulates itself on having spent the Russians into decline (it remains to be seen whether correlation means causation in that case)

Regardless, Reagan at least understood that the debts need to be covered. He followed his tax cuts with three tax hikes.

Lawmakers must have had fun in that binge of tax reduction, but the fiscal hangover proved to be a bear. Almost immediately, lawmakers began to have second thoughts. Deficit projections began to rise sharply, worrying traditional conservatives who still believed in balanced budgets. When those deficits began to materialize, pressure grew for a tax hike. In 1982 Reagan agreed to a substantial tax hike. More followed in 1984 and 1987, further eroding the 1981 reductions. -Tax History Project(link above)

Also, per capita measures of increased spending power can be deceptive, as they are a per person share of the total money returned to the economy. That will not tell you if there are imbalances in the way this money is flowing. An economy as a whole can improve, and yet the situation within a certain economic sector can worsen.

In the end, though, you cannot encourage responsible spending by permitting irresponsible spending. Let the tax cuts go, and get us as close to even as possible, then impose fiscal discipline. Addtional spending requires additional taxes.

As for your final points about the liberal media, I’ll say this: The problem with harping on liberal bias is that it is an equally lazy proposition to accepting bias. The first question should be: are they right? Is this being reported by multiple sources on both sides. Second question should be, what stories are they missing, or what contexts are they missing. Rather than simply moan and grieve for what is missing, supply the missing context and stories. In the case of Iraq, you need more than just stories about school openings.

If there is a story not being told, concerning our efforts in Iraq-that is, if you’re right-then that story would be the progress in taking back territory from the insurgents, and creating security for the country. Part of the positive reaction to the elections was the low body count, the success of the security lockdown. Are we having similar successes elsewhere? If so, that’s your story, not the rebuilding. If Iraq is becoming more secure, then all the media griping about the war is wrong.

But if they are right, and security is not improving, then you have to admit there’s a problem. That is the price of a skeptical, tentative approach as I offer it. Answers of substance must counter concerns of substance.

But in the end, that’s the better deal. If it becomes clear to you that things are not as good as your politicians would have you believe, then you, armed with your knowledge, have the power to challenge them, and encourage others who trust you to do the same.

I’ve been so stubborn with these things, because I see the anecdotal stuff, the stuff about school openings as mainly propaganda-oriented fluff. Those anecdotes don’t provide the substantive counterpoint to the negative stories that I would take seriously as grounds for dismissing my own concerns. At best, they only speak to local improvements, improvements that could be wiped away by the consequences of the problems yet unaddressed.

If your side can bring substantive facts indicating that our efforts are being effective, that we aren’t simply being lulled into ignorance about real problems there, then winning your arguments will be easier. But if all you can demonstrate is that good things are happening, that won’t be sufficient.

The good must neutralize the bad, not merely outcompete it for time on our news program and print space in our news paper. If we flood the media with positive stories about Iraq, and yet miss a crucial problem, the worst will happen in spite our enchantment with the best. Positive thinking must be complemented with effective knowledge and action and a sensitivity to the real situation. Otherwise it is merely delusion occasionally aided by luck.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 16, 2005 09:53 AM

Stephen,

You see, that’s the danger of a continual insistence on a hidden, inextricable liberal bias: anything and everything that does not benefit the Republcan party and the president is seen as a political attack.

By ignoring the fact that there may be a bias you let the media slide and do not demand of them that they follow their responsibility to provide both sides and complete details.

From the Society of Professional Journalists

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

emphasis added

I’ve been so stubborn with these things, because I see the anecdotal stuff, the stuff about school openings as mainly propaganda-oriented fluff. Those anecdotes don’t provide the substantive counterpoint to the negative stories that I would take seriously as grounds for dismissing my own concerns.

Are you saying that as the improvements to standard of living issues like infrastructure, schools, and agriculture are made the attitude of Iraqi citizens will not improve? And, as those attitudes improve, the number of those opposed to the US presence will decrease thereby improving security?

The first question should be: are they right? Is this being reported by multiple sources on both sides. Second question should be, what stories are they missing, or what contexts are they missing. Rather than simply moan and grieve for what is missing, supply the missing context and stories. In the case of Iraq, you need more than just stories about school openings.

Therein lies my point. Not that the negative stories should not be reported. Of course they should. My point is that the media for the most part are not reporting any of the positive stories.

What stories are missing (other than the improvements in infrastructure etc. that you dismiss)?

How about the following.

The number of US Military fatalities has been decreasing steadily since Sep. with the exception of Nov.

The number of US Military wounded has been decreasing steadily since Aug. with the exception of Nov.

The number of Non-US Military fatalities has been decreasing steadily since Aug. with the exception of Jan. in spite of an increase in the number of Non-US Military of 1,300 during the same period.

The number of attacks on Iraqi oil and gas pipelines, installation and personnel has declined steadily since Aug. with the exception of Nov.

The total number of Iraqi Security Forces on duty has increase steadily since Aug.

All the above information is readily available from the Brookings Institute Iraq Index

http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

Part of the positive reaction to the elections was the low body count, the success of the security lockdown. Are we having similar successes elsewhere?

If the above was being reported by the mainstream media, you would not have to ask “are we having similar successes elsewhere”.

Posted by: Kirk at February 16, 2005 01:29 PM

Kirk wrote:

The number of US Military fatalities has been decreasing steadily since Sep. with the exception of Nov.

This is like saying the Unemployment figure fell to 5.2% percent, except last month, instead of the 290,000 jobs expected by analyst, only 133,000 jobs were actually created!

Are you saying that as the improvements to standard of living issues like infrastructure, schools, and agriculture are made the attitude of Iraqi citizens will not improve? And, as those attitudes improve, the number of those opposed to the US presence will decrease thereby improving security?

The key phrase here is ‘…as the improvements’. What is frustrating arguing over these figures with you Kirk continually, is your refusal to acknowledge that these promised improvements are two years overdue, and are still far from reaching the level of tempering Iraqi anger towards their perceived occupiers.

It’s like a year into the construction of one’s house, the contractor is pointing out the finished foundation, while you’re being drenched by the heavy downpour of a storm.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 16, 2005 07:31 PM

Kirk-

By ignoring the fact that there may be a bias you let the media slide and do not demand of them that they follow their responsibility to provide both sides and complete details.

Your side obsesses on it, considers its possibility even in pre-emption of the facts. You speak of comprehensive accounts, but are you thinking comprehensively about the individual subjects, or just generalizing for the most part?

Are you saying that as the improvements to standard of living issues like infrastructure, schools, and agriculture are made the attitude of Iraqi citizens will not improve? And, as those attitudes improve, the number of those opposed to the US presence will decrease thereby improving security?

The question is, as the Iraqi citizens see their lives improved, will that be a barrier or a spur to their wish to see us gone?

You suggested drops in recent body count numbers. Well, if you measure from June to January, the numbers go like this: 54 66 80 63 137 72 107. If we allow for the anomalous deaths of 31 servicemen, we still lose 77 brave soldiers. Allowing for September and November, we have an escalation in deaths, not a decline.

My question for you is how you are doing with your bias. You obviously don’t want to focus too much on the negative. But what if the negative facts are the most important? I don’t think the current evidence provides much counterpoint to the negative elements of the situation. Without that counterpoint, there’s no guarantee that a rosy view is realistic. We have real problems here, and unless they are getting solved, another declaration of victory will be premature.

I know my perspective is imperfect, but it’s all I’ve got. You’re in the same situation. You go after bias, but you fail to realize that the real problems are those of professionalism, of letting your opinions, regardless of what they are, shape the facts you offer, rather than the other way around. I can admit your read on the police and soldiers is correct, but at the same time, I must make two objections: one, we are still halfway to each goal, and two, I have no idea what the timeframe for resolving the goals is. I’m looking for the broad picture here, the trends and the tendencies. I wish to keep my president and his party honest on this, and I hope you want to do the same.

As Americans it is our duty to question our leaders when we have doubts, and sometimes, even when we don’t. This is our check on their power. Accepting corruption or incompetence, chronic error or failures of perception, without pressure or expectations of improvement and reform is a recipe for disaster, and an invitation to tyranny.

Democracy demands the vigilance of the electorate, even when the leaders we have and the parties we belong to coincide. If the Red states, and Republicans don’t hold their leaders accountable, nobody else will, at least not without a loss of power on their part.

The retention of power for the Republicans will be a question of how responsive they are too the problems we face. If they fail to deal with those problems with sufficient competency and integrity, the American people, even delayed by positive news or propaganda, will eventually render their judgment and turn to others for a fresh start.

Of course that sounds good for me, but I would just as soon have Republicans remain, doing well, rather than have problems boil up into crisis and have my people having to pick up the pieces. I’d rather have a gentle transfer of power owing to our powers of persuasion than a politically rancorous fall from grace that puts us in the position with a bunch of resentful Republicans yearning for better days.

Why? Because it’s been my experience that the Republicans have taken a scorched earth policy to responding to political defeat. In the end, Republicans need moderation more than Democrats. We had our time in the wilderness. Your people need some humility, some grounding.

It is my hope that eventually the Republicans of this country will come to understand that they can do their best when they fight the wars elsewhere and discuss things with us, instead of trying to browbeat us out of our honestly held opinions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2005 10:22 AM

Bert,

is your refusal to acknowledge that these promised improvements are two years overdue, and are still far from reaching the level of tempering Iraqi anger towards their perceived occupiers.

It is rather difficult for the improvements to be two years overdue since Operation Iraqi Freedom did not even start until March 20, 2003. Were the improvements supposed to be done before we moved into Iraq?

Posted by: Kirk at February 18, 2005 02:15 PM

Stephen,

My question for you is how you are doing with your bias. You obviously don’t want to focus too much on the negative.

I have stated numerous times in my various posts that the negative stories need to be reported. B

Therein lies my point. Not that the negative stories should not be reported. Of course they should.

I don’t think the current evidence provides much counterpoint to the negative elements of the situation. Without that counterpoint, there’s no guarantee that a rosy view is realistic.

To the vast majority of Americans there is no evidence of a positive becasue they never see one. I believe that while your’s as well as most here in the blue columns views of the situation in Iraq are in most part influenced by your feelings about Bush, at least you collectively research the situation. That is the problem, most Americans do not even do that. If it is not on the 6:00 news they know nothing about it.

Therefore, most of the American Electorate is ignorant of any improvements taking place in Iraq aside from the recent election. If you know of the improvements and choose to take the stand that they do not begin to offset the negatives that is fine you are making an informed decision. If you only know one side of the equation you will never be able to make an informed decision. Are those the people you want supporting your side of the argument? Or is it the old ends justify the means, and as long as the liberal side wins all is well?

Posted by: Kirk at February 18, 2005 02:53 PM

Kirk wrote:

It is rather difficult for the improvements to be two years overdue since Operation Iraqi Freedom did not even start until March 20, 2003. Were the improvements supposed to be done before we moved into Iraq?

Your quibbling over a 45 day period in comparison to a valid revision of an 18 months timeline, is a glib response reflecting the lack of a credible counterargument.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 18, 2005 09:00 PM

Bert,

Your quibbling over a 45 day period in comparison to a valid revision of an 18 months timeline, is a glib response reflecting the lack of a credible counterargument.

Bush did not declare an end to major military action until May 1. So, there is no way reconstruction programs could have started before then. Factor in the time it would take to rebuild the infrastructure following 15 – 20 years of neglect by Saddam and I am quibbling over a whole lot more than 45 days.

Maybe your purposefully misleading statements are meant to cover for your lack of credible rebuttal to the fact that these stories are not being reported.

Posted by: Kirk at February 19, 2005 02:37 AM

Factor in the time it would take to rebuild the infrastructure following 15 ? 20 years of neglect by Saddam and I am quibbling over a whole lot more than 45 days.

Before the Invasion and although they were still under the thumb of Saddam, the Iraqis’ were not a destitute people living in refugee camps, as you infer. They were a very modern Muslim nation with basic services like electricity, water, sewage and phones. They had cars and jobs, and schools to send their children to.

These needs have nothing to do with ‘infrastructure’, and they’re called basic services for a reason. They are the utilities that are priorities when knocked by a storm, hurricane or flood.

The residents of Baghdad can plainly see that there is not a lack of these services within the Green Zone. So what aren’t their lights on?

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 19, 2005 04:48 AM

Bert,

They were a very modern Muslim nation with basic services like electricity, water, sewage and phones. They had cars and jobs, and schools to send their children to.

Just in case you did ot know the reality of the condition of the infrastructure in Iraq, I have included some information from the USAID.

From USAID Sector Report 11/18/2004

On Electricity

Immediate post-war, when the fighting seemed to have a lull a least, it was about 204 megawatts that was operating in Iraq, actually operating. The rest of it was either out of commission for any number of reasons—lack of fuel, no maintenance, no operators in the site, looting; but that was not operating.

And the biggest problem has been well enunciated all throughout the last 18 months. The infrastructure suffered from tremendous lack of repair and maintenance over the 25 years of Saddam’s reign. The shortage of spare parts has been well known.

A second thing, which probably is not as well known in the power sector, is that Baghdad got a pretty good complement of power for the country; whereas, the other parts of the country suffered that expense. Typically, Baghdad got 18 to 20 hours of power per day. Other places got two to four to none. So, it was—power was directed to where Saddam Hussein lived and his associations lived.

On Water / Wastewater

As Jim mentioned, there was very little investment, either in capital, infrastructure or in O&M during the last 20, 25 years. As a result of that, Iraq could not supply potable water to its growing population, and waste water treatment plants fell into total disrepair.

Right after the war, looting took a heavy toll on water and waste water infrastructure at the plants and at pumping stations. All of this puts Iraq in a very vulnerable situation in terms of health. And water, as you know, potable water is—lack of potable water is a primary cause of infant mortality, mortality in children under five; contributes significantly to diarrheal diseases.

One of our major efforts on the potable water side was to complete an expansion of a water treatment plant in eastern Baghdad, which will add 50 million gallons a day to that part of the city. And this—to give you—put it into perspective, this will increase the amount of potable water to eastern Baghdad by 45 percent. And I mentioned, no waste water treatment plant in Iraq was operable when we arrived. We are rehabilitating the three waste water plants in Baghdad.

A portion of one of those plants is completed and in June of this year, Iraq began treating waste water for the first time in over 20 years. Now, those three treatment plants should be completed, fully completed, by early 2005.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/vid_live111804.html Posted by: Kirk at February 19, 2005 08:47 AM

Typically, Baghdad got 18 to 20 hours of power per day. Other places got two to four to none. So, it was—power was directed to where Saddam Hussein lived and his associations lived.

This is what they were used to, yet even this much electricity has not been restored. And, just in case you overlooked my other point:

The residents of Baghdad can plainly see that there is not a lack of these services within the Green Zone. So what aren’t their lights on?

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 19, 2005 11:26 AM

Bert,

This is what they were used to, yet even this much electricity has not been restored. And, just in case you overlooked my other point:

The residents of Baghdad can plainly see that there is not a lack of these services within the Green Zone. So what aren’t their lights on?

More information from the Brookings Institute Iraq Index in a survey of Iraqi’s concerning their standard of living.

On Iraqi Standard of Living, Since the invasion, which or the following happened to you personally or to members of your household?

a. Gone without Electricity for long periods of time: Within past 4 wks 3%, Since the Invasion 44%, In the Year Before the Invasion 68%

b. Without Clean Drinking Water for long periods of time: Within past 4 wks 4%, Since the Invasion 28%, In the Year Before the Invasion 36%

c. Been unable to obtain Medical Assistance or Medicine: Within past 4 wks 1%, Since Invasion 16%, In the Year Before the Invasion 15%

d. Felt afraid of Practicing Religious Beliefs: Within past 4 wks 1%, Since the Invasion 4%, In the Year Before the Invasion 54%

e. Gone without Public Sewage System: Within past 4 wks 1%, Since the Invasion 31%, In the Year Before the Invasion 37%

Lets let the Iraqi people be the judge of their Standard of Living. I imagine they know better than either of us what their lives are / were like. They themselves report that Electricity, Water, Medical, Religious Freedom and Sewage are better now than before the war started.

Posted by: Kirk at February 19, 2005 12:42 PM

Kirk,

So why do they want us out of their country before we’ve finished the job?

Zogby poll says most Iraqis favor rapid U.S. Withdrawal

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 19, 2005 05:35 PM