August 02, 2004
420 Seconds
Historians will document for future generations our accomplishments and failures as a nation. While the most insightful comments of our past and present actions will not be able to be fully realized for many years to come, some short term thinkers are trying to write into history falsehoods and lies for lack of a better term. One of those people is none other than propagandist Michael Moore.
Moore has made a very good living disseminating information to the public that lacks candor. It began with his film Bowling for Columbine, which had promoted many mistruths to the American public. Moore's latest, Fahrenheit 9/11 is doing much the same but has much more problematic implications.
While most of the populace understands Moore's intent, the truth is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a practice in deception and misdirection. The movie did very well both domestically and in foreign markets, but it is based on nothing more than one man's desire to remove a sitting president from power.
There are a couple of themes that I would like to discuss in regards to his cinematic exploration. With Moore popping into the Democratic National Convention and his media blitz tour, there are several arguments that he is using that are intellectually dishonest.
Moore's movie premise that President Bush is directly tied to the Saudi's via payments to the Carlyle Group in the amount of $1.4 billion. This claim has been rebuffed by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff who writes:
A cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore’s arithmetic—not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this “connection.” The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm.
Most importantly, the movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group.
One can easily see, the allegation sounds great, but is not backed up by any truth. This may work well with the black helicopter crowd, but one should be very skeptical of a movie which promotes itself as being truthful but misleads more often then it sticks to the facts.
Former President Bill Clinton also disputes Moore's claims about the reasoning behind the war in Iraq. In the June 28, 2004 issue of Time, Bill Clinton stated:
You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons.After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been president, you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powered chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So your sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first responsibility is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for.
You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he'd use them. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I've always been worried about North Korea's nuclear and missile capacity. I don't expect North Korea to bomb South Korea, because they know that it would be the end of their country. But if you can't feed yourself, the temptation to sell this stuff is overwhelming. So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back.
There you have one of the left's own defending our actions towards Iraq. After 9/11 happened, it would have been irresponsible for the current administration to ignore such a threat. While many reasonable people can argue this point, let's at least have an honest debate.
In his media blitz across the country, Michael Moore likes to ask his critics if they would send their child to Iraq to defend Fallujah. While I have yet to see anyone clearly answer him, I would like to answer his question. First of all, our military is a volunteer service. Each and every member of the armed forces over in Iraq is there because they offered their services to their country. These are not "children" as Moore claims, but adults who have bravely offered themselves to defend our country against all enemies both foreign and domestic. They are all making huge sacrifices so that we can all (including Moore), live in a free society. Instead of questioning their service, Moore should be thankful that we have such brave heroes willing to put their lives on the line.
Moore then claims that they are only there because the "Bush economy" is so bad that they have no other choice. Unless freedom and security are achieved, the economy will always be at the mercy of terrorist groups and regimes intent on the destruction of the West. This is a war that must be waged and won in order to maintain our current way of life. The American dream depends on our success and cannot allow the terrorists to dictate our way of life. If we stand down in the face of adversity, it only makes the enemy stronger.
Our country becomes safer by every step we take at dismantling terrorist groups and regimes that support them. One action alone is not going to bring down our enemy.
Another one of Moore's tricks is to make the president look foolish for being in the classroom for seven minutes on the morning of September 11th after learning of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center. That's right; Moore believes that those 420 seconds that the president waited before excusing himself were crucial and unacceptable.
Since bin Laden declared war on America back in 1996, what in the world is 420 seconds of time to let the President of the United States think about the full implications of what was happening going to matter? Whatever was going through his mind is something that only he knows. For Moore to second guess and ridicule him is pointless. Everything that needed to be done was done. There are not too many people who don't think that President Bush was a true leader following the 9/11 attacks. Moore is just looking for any way to make President Bush look less presidential. It doesn't work.
While there are many people who were against the war on Iraq, none have had the damaging impact that Michael Moore's propaganda has. Many people do not spend the time to fact check his work, nor should they have to. You can be against the war for many reasons, but to be so due to this movie is downright foolish. Moore should have more integrity than that when making his movies, at least to be honest and say that his movie is not factual. Between the lies and made up scenes, there seems to be no end to the mistruth in this movie. You can take any president and make him look foolish with soundclips and innuendo. But Moore's attempt to do so in such a dishonest way at a time where the future of this country depends on our victory borders on treason.
There are many valid reasons to criticize this president and his administration. However, it should be done with honesty and facts. Propaganda cannot be tolerated in such times. Can you imagine a movie like this one coming out during World War II, it seems inconceivable.
So while his movie has surpassed the $100 million mark, Moore can rest assured in one thing. The movie Jackass made $ 64 million in revenues, which just proves that Michael Moore is rising to twice the fool that those people were. It is time America treats him as such.
Posted by Timothy Perry at August 2, 2004 10:36 AMTimothy said regarding Clinton’s interview: “There you have one of the left’s own defending our actions towards Iraq.”
No, Timothy. You may view it that way, but, the fact from your quote does not support your view. Clinton said he supported going back into Iraq, NOT HOW WE DID IT. The great majority of Americans have agreed it is a good thing that Saddam was removed. But the country is very divided about the manner, basis, timing, duration of occupation and planning, or lack thereof, that accompanied going back to Iraq.
Moore is just looking for any way to make President Bush look less presidential. It doesn’t work.That remains to be seen. Though box office receipts have been incredible, that is no indication as to what effect the movie will have on audience minds.
Our country becomes safer by every step we take at dismantling terrorist groups and regimes that support them.. No it doesn’t. It becomes safer with every terrorist we and other nations take out. It becomes far more dangerous for every day Bush does not expend the resources to control our borders, and for everyday the fundamentalists can recruit more terrorists by pointing to the virtually unilateral occupation of a Muslim state by an Infidel nation.
I don’t have a problem with President taking 420 seconds to move his body out. I still have disturbing questions about our government’s aiding and allowing Saudis to be flown out of the country, even after meeting with the FBI, without taking down their cell phone numbers and collecting other crucial data to determine if any of those aboard had made calls or had any other links to the terrorists responsible for 9/11.
This is a real double standard Timothy. The Whitehouse communications office spends American tax dollars trying to put the best face possible on the man sitting at the oval desk hiding his flaws and mishaps and bad hair days. But you resent a private funds venture to show and display the other side of the man in the office. Seems to me the people are well served to see both sides and allowed to make up their own minds. Moore’s movie may well be called propaganda, but, so to should be the right’s facade of a perfect man doing a perfect job as President. That too is propaganda and lacks intellectual honesty. But, that is par for American politics and the 1st Amendment insures that Americans mostly have access to all points of view which the Founding Fathers knew was a good thing for all Americans.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2004 11:44 AMDavid,
I don’t have a problem with President taking 420 seconds to move his body out. I still have disturbing questions about our government’s aiding and allowing Saudis to be flown out of the country, even after meeting with the FBI, without taking down their cell phone numbers and collecting other crucial data to determine if any of those aboard had made calls or had any other links to the terrorists responsible for 9/11.
This is all accounted for in the 9/11 Commission which wrote:
First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.
Second, we found no evidence of political intervention.We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals.
Third,we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.28 The
Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI’s requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart. The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to
their departures.They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.
Tim
Posted by: Timothy Perry at August 2, 2004 12:53 PMDavid:
Clinton agrees that Bush should have gone back into Iraq. He agrees that the questions about WMD’s and “chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material” were a good reason for Bush to go to war. In the Clinton commentary that Timothy provided, there is NOTHING that Clinton disagrees with in the Bush strategy, as you suggest.
The ONLY thing Clinton disagreed with was the time frame. He says, “I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over.”
David, when one of the most powerful people, if not THE most powerful person, on the left approves of what was done and the reasoning behind it, then who are you to disagree?
And why would anyone then take Michael Moore’s position over that of Bill Clinton. Clinton says Bush did not go for oil, for imperial reasons, and that with the “unaccounted stuff” over there, Bush had good reason to go to war. Mike Moore disagrees with each of these positions. I ask you: Who do you find more credible in this arena…Mike Moore or Bill Clinton?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 2, 2004 02:22 PMIf Moore made a movie devoid of entertainment value, no one would watch it. As Andy Rooney has pointed out we love to hate our President. To suggest that the vitriol against Bush is unique is to ignore what was done to Clinton. Bush’s publically stated reasons for going to war have all proven to be false. What would happen to the sinking US economy if worldwide oil was traded in Euros? Is it sound policy to attack a weak oil rich country on the verge of trading oil in Euros? Yes, if you don’t care about the rest of the world and can only see to the next U.S. election. If any of our Presidents cared more about Freedom and Democracy than money would we be trading into red-ink oblivion with Red China? If #41 & Cheney respected the law would they have traded oil and extraction equipment with Hussien during the embargo? The financial ties between the Bush family and binLadens go back three generations. #41 & Cheney have leveraged their positions in government for personal profit, in rebuilding Kuwait and trading with Iraq. Carlyle and Haliburton are part of that picture. If #43 cared about our troops would he have tried to cut their overseas & combat pay and vetereans benefits? If the neocons knew what they were doing would they have had a plan for saving what they didn’t blow up in Iraq? The main point of Moore’s movie is that Bush doesn’t know what he’s doing and doesn’t much care. Splitting hairs on other details is smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: bayviking at August 2, 2004 03:10 PMA couple things…
Joebag, it is perfectly reasonable to question Clinton since he is an obvious source of bias in this case in wanting to protect his own legacy. Just because he’s an authority on the left does not make him unquestionable, especially when his motives may differ from the rest of the left. That said, I tend to agree with his position. But it is inappropriate to act as if every Democrat must accept his word as gospel just because of who he is.
Secondly, Tim, while I found Moore’s film very propagandist, some things in it speak for themselves. Bush’s inaction on 9/11 is indisputable — the evidence is there for all to see. Finding out about the 2nd plane called for immediate action and leadership (and arguably the first plane did as well, but that’s an argument for another day). A leader, above all else, must exhibit responsibility. That word literally means the ability to respond. Bush did the opposite on 9/11. He just sat there. In a fight-or-flight scenario, Bush’s instinct was the “flight” response and that’s the last thing I want in a leader.
I also take issue with the Right calling out propagandists on the Left when most of the worst offenders are on the Right. O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, just to name a few. In fact, Fox News Channel is the most egregious offender of them all. An obviously heavily slanted news organization that feels the need to tell (i.e. inculcate) their viewers with the notion that they are “Fair & Balanced”. Or O’Reilly calling his outfit the “No Spin Zone” when all he does is spin, spin, spin. The scary thing is, there’s actually a lot of people out there who hold generally right-slanting opinions but are not well-informed or well-educated and they actually believe the propaganda of FNC.
I fully concede that Moore and Franken and a few others are propagandists. Do those of you on the right willingly concede the same about O’Reilly, Coulter and Hannity?
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 2, 2004 05:18 PMI checked it out. According to Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, the following is true:
the Bush-Carlyle relationship began eight years earlier when the Carlyle Group put George W. Bush on the board of one of its subsidiaries, Caterair, in 1990. In 1993, after the Bush-Quayle administration left office and George H. W. Bush and James Baker were free to join the private sector, the Bush family’s relationship with the Carlyle Group began to become substantive.By the end of that year, key figures at the Carlyle Group included such powerful Bush colleagues as James Baker, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Darman. Because George W. Bush’s role at Carlyle had been marginal, the $1.4 billion figure includes no contracts that predated the arrival of Baker, Carlucci and Darman at Carlyle…
And
…according to a December 4, 2003 email from Carlyle’s Chris Ullman, James Baker and George H. W. Bush made four trips to Saudi Arabia on Carlyle’s behalf, and that does not include meetings they had with Saudis that took place in the U.S. During the course of these trips, Ullman says, former president Bush sometimes met privately with members of the Saudi Binladen Group. At times, Carlyle officials have characterized these meetings as “ceremonial.” But in fact, at least $80 million in investments came from the House of Saud and allies such as the bin Laden family. It would be unseemly– and unnecessary– for former president Bush or James Baker to actually ask for money from the Saudis at such meetings. Instead, David Rubenstein’s team did that after Bush and Baker spoke. For a more complete account of this, see Chapter Ten in House of Bush, House of Saud.
As for the whole issue of legislators sending their children (a term that can be used age-neutral when denoting a family relationship), I imagine the comparison should be made between Vietnam, where many of the legislators at least nominally had their children enlist in the military, and this war, where barely any legislators have had their children go into active service. It is an important issue, in that legislators with nothing precious to lose from their military policy will have less incentive to wisely choose where they send other people’s children.
As for the 420 seconds, I would rather have my president tell the audience immediately what has happened, and then go do what needs to be done, than to have him read a book to children for the next several minutes while more events unfold.
I think those present would understand why he had to go. They wouldn’t consider him rude or irresponsible. They wouldn’t think he was being mean to the children. They would surely consider a national tragedy of his magnitude as being a of higher priority than a reading of My Pet Goat
What gets me is how fast you jumped on this criticism of Michael Moore’s case, doing so at a such a rate that you repeated your source’s mistake. This is unfortunately a common occurence with all the “revelations” and “debunkings” I would think that if you wanted to successfully rebut Moore and others like them, you would want to have a more solid foundation of facts than your target.
In the meantime, I think Moore’s case stands largely intact.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2004 07:05 PMOh, a nice little debunk of the idea that the Saudis were not given special treatment, care of the the same source:
In fact, some restrictions had been lifted–but not all. Commercial aviation slowly resumed on September 13, but at 10:57 am that day, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a Notice to Airmen stating that private aviation was still banned. Three planes violated that order and were forced down by American military aircraft that day. (See House of Bush, House of Saud, p. 9) Yet the Saudis were allowed to fly on the ten passenger Learjet. Far from being irrelevant, the Tampa to Lexington flight is vital because it required permission from the highest levels of our government. Once again, all this information is in the book, and Isikoff told me he had read it. This relevant information contradicted Isikoff’s thesis.
He also has a pretty canny rebuttal to the whole Clarke thing:
It is a fair question and it deserves a serious answer.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2004 07:16 PMIf there is a hero in House of Bush, it is Richard Clarke, a man who understood Al-Qaeda’s new transnational form of terrorism and developed a forceful strategy against it, but who was thwarted in both the Clinton Administration (thanks to the Lewinsky scandal) and in the Bush administration(by being left out of the loop by the Bush team).
But Clarke is also a brilliant and savvy bureaucrat who is unlikely to characterize decisions in which he played a role as stupid or wrong. And much as I admire him, I disagree with him on this issue.
When first interviewed on this subject in 2003, Clarke said that his approval for evacuating the Saudis had been conditional on the FBI’ s vetting them. “I asked [the F.B.I.] to make sure that no one inappropriate was leaving. I asked them if they had any objection to Saudis leaving the country at a time when aircraft were banned from flying.” He noted that he assumed the F.B.I. had vetted the bin Ladens prior to September 11.
Then he added, “I have no idea if they did a good job. I’m not in any position to second guess the FBI.”
Looks pretty damning to me! Thanks for the references Stephen.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2004 09:15 PMYou’re welcome. I much prefer factual rejoinders to these sorts of things if it’s possible. Anytime some red column discovery comes to light, I immediately google it, and try to find what’s factual about what’s being said. I avoid blogs and highly biased sources if I can, and try to find something independent, or something corroborated by all sides.
To me, a fact-based response feels better, even if it’s not all positive. When everything becomes about just arguing this or that from personal credulity, I get this queasy feeling like I’m one argument away from having my point spun. I’d rather the red-column folks have to deal with that than myself. That’s said, they should feel free to fact check me. God knows what we need in this democracy is more fact checking.
Just make sure yours are better than mine. Otherwise it’s just the same old runaround dressed in factchecker’s clothing.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2004 10:12 PMMr. Kopel, who wrote the “lies” article, uses such flimsy examples of he what calls “deceits” that he verges on being a liar himself. For example, he claims that a children’s story that Moore called “My Pet Goat” is actually titled “The Pet Goat”. Kopel actually counts that as a lie!!! (At least it appears that way. It isn’t always clear which of his flimsy points is the official “deceit”.)
He also slams Moore on many, many occasions for omitting “context” that he thinks is relevant.If Moore put in all of the “context” Kopel wanted, the movie would have to be at least twice as long. (Just an estimate.) Needless to say, by this approach someone could argue that any documentary ever made is a pack of lies.
Another one of his tricks is to blame Moore for mistakes made by his interviewees. For example, Lila Lipscomb (whose son died in Iraq) supposedly made a misstatement about the requirements to receive unemployment. I don’t know why anyone would think she is an expert (and from my limited understanding of unemployment insurance she was probably right).
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 2, 2004 10:17 PMPardon me, getting tired. Lipscomb allegedly misstated the requirement to be counted as unemployed. She said that you have to be collecting unemployment insurance.
Posted by: Woody Mena at August 2, 2004 10:36 PMI agreee that Michael Moore’s film is pure propoganda.
George W. Bush’s speeches and press packets are pure propoganda.
So where does that leave us?
Knee deep in BS. One is a political filmaker with a stated bias. One is POTUS. Gee, that’s what I always wanted in a leader. Michael Moore on the right.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Posted by: Greg at August 3, 2004 12:00 AMI cannot add much to the dissection of your post, or its sources, Tim. However, I was struck how no direct quotes of Moore (or links to) were used in your piece.
I did hear him ask on Bill O’Reilly’s show if the host would send his children to serve in Iraq. However, those broadcast transcripts are not made available publicily.
That takes care of the disseminating of lies and mistruths.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at August 3, 2004 02:23 AMWho cares if the bin Laden clan were flown out before or after the flight ban? That’s a trivial distinction.
To steal a metaphore from the right, if we had some of Hitler’s relatives in custody the day he declared war on America, would we have let them fly back to Germany?
I’m glad to see the right still looks to Clinton as the pinnacle of foreign policy thought. joe and Timothy, here’s some more on the same subject.
“So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ‘Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.’ You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks,” Clinton said.Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix “finished his job.”
If that’s what you’re saying should have happened, then we’re in full agreement.
I’m also in full agreement with the comment Clinton makes on Abu Ghraib, “There is no excuse for that,”
When historians will document for future generations our accomplishments I am hoping that they will list throwing GW Bush from office as one of the highlights. Because if we let this neocon controled figurehead have four more years in office we will be at war with most of the rest of the world.
These morons thought Iraqi’s would welcome us as liberators and allow us to project power into the region by maintaining bases there. They want to subjigate the people of the middle east and turn the region into an oil producing colony. They used the nations shock and morning as an opportunity to pass some of the worst legislation ever. They want this nation to become a theocratic police state empire with them in charge forever.
I dont believe that Bush is the person who will be the first American Emperor. He is too dumb to do this himself. He is just a useful figurehead for the neocons who want to see the USA become the next great empire.
That emperor will be crowned after a huge world war that started in 2003 with our invasion of Iraq. He will be a telegenic, charismatic military general who the people of the US will hail as our savior in about 2012 after millions of Arabs have been killed or inslaved.
If Bush is reelected, Historians will document for future generations our failures as a nation and the end of our republic.
Posted by: winterbear at August 3, 2004 07:13 AMAndrew:
I meant to show in my post that the selected comments of Bill Clinton did NOT show him to have any disfavor with the Bush strategy, as David inferred. David stated that Clinton did not like HOW we did it—-I corrected that to Clinton not liking WHEN we did it. The difference is that Clinton did not appear to have a problem with going into Iraq militarily—-just that he would have waited longer. (To which I must add a sarcastic “NO KIDDING!!!”)
Regarding Moore and Franken as propagandists—-well, of COURSE they are. Really, there is little dispute anyone can intelligently have with that characterization. As far as O’Reilly, Coulter and Hannity—-I have to plead some ignorance. I dont have cable and of the three, have only seen Hannity twice, and the others never. But I’d lean towards saying they too are propogandists.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 3, 2004 07:57 AMO.K. I’m back to the Fox News thing (as I was on a couple of previous blogs around here). What makes Fox News “the most egregious offender of them all?”
I think the best news show going is on Fox. Special Report has Brit Hume, who is a long time ABC guy, and a balanced panel that usually include Mara and Juan from NPR. You can’t say they have some right wing agenda, and that show does a good job of digging into the news of the day.
Is it just the opinion people like O’Reilly and Hannity that are so upsetting, or are the news reports read by the various readers somehow slanted? Or is it the morning show or shows on during the day (I don’t watch those), or is it just every show?
The “Fox News is the devil” theme has been in many of blogs recently, and I’d like to know what it is that is so troubling about them. Besides, maybe, their ratings share.
Posted by: George at August 3, 2004 12:53 PMGeorge:
This is undoubtedly a biased position, but allow me to espouse it nonetheless. It appears to me that the “left” is simply latching on to an argument thrown out by the “right”, in this instance. The right has complained about the liberal media bias for some time. The left started out by claiming there was NO BIAS in the media; they have now co-opted the idea and gone further to state that there actually is bias, but that it is towards the right.
I’ve seen this with the whole Kerry flip flop issue as well. The right calls Kerry a flip flopper and the left uses the “I’m rubber you’re glue, bounces off me and sticks to you” debate tactic by claiming that its George Bush who is actually a flip flopper.
I do find so many instances of media bias that its impossible for me to comprehend how someone can NOT see it. I’ll admit it happens on both ends of the spectrum, but I’ll also state that the majority of journalists in the television and print media lean to the left. That much is fact.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 3, 2004 01:48 PMGeorge,
You need to see the movie “outfoxed” by Robert Greenwald (http://www.outfoxed.org/).
This movie shows how the people on Fox are given daily talking points on how they should cover the issues. It interviews former employees who talk about how they were presured by management to present a right wing version of the news and to always present the GOP in the best light possible.
Also look at this web site: http://www.newshounds.us/
It was formed by the people who monitored Fox for the movie and has daily posts about the abuses on Fox News.
Another site that covers more specific bias in the general media is Media Matters for America at http://mediamatters.org/
Posted by: winterbear at August 3, 2004 03:41 PMThanks Winterbear- But I don’t think a “documentary” funded by Moveon is a great source of independent information. Same for Mediamatters.org, which has a completely leftist slant.
In one “study” of Special Report (the FNC show that I watch) Juan Williams was considered a moderate because he’s a friend of Clarence Thomas. Charles Krauthammer was also considered a conservative. FAIR’s study doesn’t compare Special Report’s guest list with other news talk lists, which if they did I think they’d find the guest lists to be comparable based upon the newsmakers of the day. And yes, unfortunately, many newsmakers in Washington are white males.
All of the sources you point to further prove that the left absolutely hates Fox News. But the hatred of FNC goes far beyond trying to debunk the “fair and balanced” slogan. I really think this boils down to a hatred of Hannity and O’Reilly (the two guys on FNC that I don’t care for). It must be, for them to give Scarborough, a former GOP Congressman on MSNBC, or Buchanan, a former GOP Presidental candidate on CNN, a pass.
Listen, I’m a liberal but I can admit that until Fox News came around there was a definite left-bias in the media. The bias was relatively mild, however, because there was no agenda and most news organizations want to be as balanced as they can be.
The difference with Fox News is that it’s bias is shameless. O’Reilly has a huge slant obviously. Take a look at his Talking Points today about media bias, where he kvetches about the NYT giving the edge to Moore in their slugfest http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127898,00.html.
The reporter says “Some of the most memorable moments on television had almost nothing to do with the convention itself, notably Michael Moore on Fox News badgering Bill O’Reilly into submissive silence by asking if he would send his own child to Iraq.”
O’Reilly proceeded to roll tape of the 2nd part of his rebuttal to Moore, AFTER he haad finally formulated a coherent thought. Anyone who watched saw that O’Reilly was completely stunned the first time Moore asked the question and was caught speechless for a moment, then stumbled over his words as much as I’ve ever seen him. But he calls out this reporter for her bias? Talk about hypocrisy.
Anyway, aside from the world’s most egregious propagandist Bill O’Reilly, Fox News clearly stacks the deck to the right. Hannity and Colmes? They stack up the most pompous conservative against the wussiest liberal and watch him whip up on him, all while being able to “technically” call themselves “Fair & Balanced”. They pull the wool over all their mindless viewers eyes, and it works because few are intellectually honest enough with themselves to see how they are being inculcated.
There are plenty more blowhards on FNC and yet none of these voices in countered with a liberal voice. At least on the MSNBCs and CNNs they give people like Joe Scarborough his own show.
If you don’t think FNC has an agenda and if you can’t see that it is blatantly propagandist, you need to take a step back and think about it.
I watch FNC because I am intellectually honest and appreciate hearing the other point of view. I also like having my anger stirred up once in awhile. LIBERALS are generally more open-minded to hearing other POVs whether or not they agree. Conservatives, on the whole, are happy to sip the kool-aid and be brainwashed into believing they’re receiving “Fair & Balanced” journalism.
Trust me, it’s not. But I won’t whine about the bias because I believe there’s a place for it out there. You just gotta be able to see it for what it is.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 3, 2004 05:50 PMEverybody has their bias. Nobody’s entirely fair and balanced. The questions is whether the bias is active or passive. One can be forgiven for tie-goes-to-the-runner decisions in terms of newsworthiness, but when one actively censors and underreports certain items, and intentionally hold the other side to a double standard that’s another thing. That’s being a propagandist rather than a leaner.
Moore has no problem in being called a propagandist, in the sense that he is actively shaping an argument to rally people to his side. But he makes no bones about it, and does not claim to be following the dictates of journalism. FOX is not merely egregious for its slant, but for it’s egotistical hornblowing as to how much better and honest of journalists they claim to be. In short, they’ve not only actively pushed their agenda, they’ve actually trapped themselves inside of it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 3, 2004 09:34 PMGeorge,
As to winterbear’s suggested viewing of ‘OutFoxed’, just think what successfully debunking a claim (or two) in that documentary, would do for your credibility here at WB?
Often, Newsmax is linked and sourced here by Red Column Editors. However, never have I read a Blue Column Editor refuse to acknowledge, or comment on a sourced link because of a perceived Conservative bias!
You also seem to infer something, when you repeatly claim we on the Left ‘hate’ something or someone. Could you elaborate?
Btw, I’ve watched Joe Scarborough many times, and have watched Pat Buchanan since the early days of the McLaughlin Group (Buchanan actually works for MSNBC, too.) The reason they do not draw the scrutiny of groups like Media Matters, is because they are not hypocritical, serial documented liars such as O’Reilly and Hannity.
That is also why you will see Pat Buchanan on other network programs, exposing his public views to debate and cross examination. He has nothing to hide.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at August 4, 2004 02:57 AMCharles Krauthammer was also considered a conservative.
George, are you dissatisfied with that characterization because they say Krauthammer is merely conservative, rather than rabidly ultra-conservative?
If FAIR is letting Krauthammer get by with the label of merely “conservative”, they don’t have much credibility with me, either.
George,
I consider myself an independant moderate. I think the far left is goofy and the far right is closed minded. I try very hard to read on both sides of the fence, I think its the only real way to learn whats really happening.
To critisize a movie because of who made it without even seeing it is a very closed minded thing to do. The movie OutFoxed points out two very important things that I think everyone should be aware of. 1) Fox uses Daily talking points memos to instruct its employees on the political slant of that days news. Most of the time these come straight from the Whitehouse. 2) Fox uses poor journelistic ethics when covering many news stories. They not only limit coverage to things that dissagree with their world view, they actually destort and modify the many of their stories. This kind of behavior is revolting to people that subscribe to the generally accepted code of ethics.
I really discounted most of the lefts bitching about fox as being just so much distaste with the political slant of the coverage. I used to think much like you do. However, this movie points out the dirty tricks used by fox and the poor ethics they use. After seeing this movie its like watching a bad magic act after you know how they do all the tricks.
It like those people that have not seen F911 and scream about how bias it is. How can they know?
Exept for very rare occaions there is truth on both sides of any issue. Listen to both sides… make up your own mind. Dont censure things just because you think they may be biased and dont throw out everything you hear from sources that dont always agree with you.
Posted by: winterbear at August 4, 2004 04:10 PMBert-
What you point out seems to be in line with my thinking on this Fox News stuff: Hannity and O’Reilly are the real targets of, yes I think you can call it, hatred by the left.
I read the FAIR report on Brit’s show and just disagree totally with its methodology. And that the director of the Outfoxed movie paid for the updated “independent study” is definitely a strike against impartial thinking.
As for going and seeing the movie in order to “debunk” the source first hand, here is the problem with that. Like F 9/11, you must pay to see the information. That is a great disincentive against critical points of view, because someone who might look at it objectively is not going to pay for a ticket or buy the DVD. If it’s so important than sell it to PBS or something.
Winterbear- As for the talking points that practice is common on all of the major networks. People like Rush always put together a montage of the same line spoken by different network people when they go off on the left about media bias. And that’s really my point- Fox News is being attacked for common cable news channel tactics. Take away the two hated ones and you have a fairly decent news channel with a much better format and personalities than its competitors.
And AP, you would consider Charles to be a neo-con!
Sorry it the above is cryptic, but my boss is on me this afternoon!
Timothy Perry wrote:
Regarding Michael Moore and F9/11:
“falsehoods”, “lies”, “lacks candor”, “mistruths”, “deception”, “misdirection”, “intellectually dishonest”,
“not backed up by any truth”, “promotes itself as being truthful but misleads”, “tricks”, “downright foolish”
“should have more integrity”, “not factual”, “lies”, “made up scenes”, “mistruth”, “foolish”, “dishonest”, “borders on treason”, “Jackass”
Funny, every single one of these things could be said of Dubya and his administration.
All I’ve got to say about this article is,
Pot, Kettle, Black
TP:
“Moore is just looking for any way to make President Bush look less presidential.”
This is _hilarious_!
“It doesn’t work.”
If it didn’t work, why write an entire article devoted to it?
wow… I would love to see any documentation to your claim that any network other than fox sends daily memos from upper management telling its reporters how to politically spin news stories. Its a common practice for journalists to discuss how to present a story. Whats unethical and unique about Fox is how the upper management dictates a single point of view and then punishes anyone with a decenting opinion. They interview people who got fired or resigned because of this breach of standard journalist ethics.
By the way, your comment about Rush is funny because I used the same argument with people that dragged me to the movie. The problem is not that fox has a point of view and that its personel share a viewpoint… The unethical thing is that they use corprate edicts to inforce a point of view.
Dude… see the movie. Then you will know what I am talking about.
“By the way, your comment about Rush is funny because I used the same argument with people that dragged me to the movie. The problem is not that fox has a point of view and that its personel share a viewpoint… The unethical thing is that they use corprate edicts to inforce a point of view.”
Winterbear, my issue isn’t with the fact that they use corporate edicts per se. It’s the fact that they have this institutionalized bias, then go around and indoctrinate their viewers with the notion that their news is “Fair & Balanced.” That is propaganda/brainwashing in its purest form.
I think what they mean to say, or should say, is that their slant makes news on the whole more “Fair & Balanced”, and that is arguably true. But to market their own news station as such is not only ridiculous but scary since so many people buy into it.
If FNC just marketed themselves as the flag-toting conservative warmongers they truly are, I have no complaints.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 4, 2004 06:29 PMwinterbear-
Fox’s statement on the movie asks the same thing that you do:
“Any news organization that believes this story is big and Fox News Channel is a problem, will be challenged by Fox News Channel in the following manner: If they will put out 100% of their editorial directions and internal memos, Fox News Channel will publish 100% of our editorial directions and internal memos, and let the public decide who is fair. This includes any legitimate cable news network, broadcast network, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post.”
Fox Fights Back
As for going to see the movie, again I’m not particular to giving money to Moveon, but if you Pay Pal me the dough I might consider it. Or I can wait until Fox airs it free (as offered in the article).
Posted by: George at August 4, 2004 10:25 PMGeorge, watch the movie. If for nothing else, than to appreciate your opponent. Also, for the fact that if you fail to see the movie, then every Liberal who argues with you will be able to successfully portray you as the uninformed partisan, which can negate a great deal of your persuasive potential.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 4, 2004 11:01 PMSpeaking of Michael Moore…
I think some of you may enjoy reading an article he has up on his website. It was written for Esquire Magazine by Ron Reagan Jr. and its called: “The Case Against George W. Bush”
Here is the link:
MichaelMoore.com/words/index.php?id=124
It is kind of a long read - but all on one page and definitely worth it!
Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2004 01:12 PMGeorge,
Stephen D. echoed my point to you, eloquently. I don’t need to read Ann Coulter or David Brooks, but I debate best knowing what my enemy thinks. And, if I pay a buck to read them in the NYTimes or the Chgo Tribune, you refusing to fork over $3.99 for Fahrenheit 9/11 at Blockbuster, is not very convincing.
What else was wrong with FAIR’s take on Brit Humes’ show? Care to clarify the reference to a paid ‘independent study’ and OutFoxed?
By the way, I am a card carrying member of MoveOn.org and have cited material borrowed from Media Matters. Does that make my posts and comments off limits to you, in the future?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at August 5, 2004 07:19 PMInterestingly enough a July 8th interview of John and Theresa Heinz-Kerry by Larry King tells us that Sen. Kerry was unable to do anything, even think, for 40 minutes (the time between the second plane hitting the WTC and the plane hitting the Pentagon) on 9/11.
KING: How’d you hear about it?
HEINZ KERRY: I was at home in Washington. I had just come in and I got a call…
KERRY: I think I called.
HEINZ KERRY: And they said, look at the TV. I looked at the TV and I couldn’t believe it.
KING: Where were you?
KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We’d just had a meeting — we’d just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle’s office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.
So, try as he will to say he would have done different in front of kids in school, in front of adults he did nothing for 40 minutes.
Posted by: Ynot at August 7, 2004 10:57 PMIt’s interesting that he was at least able to pick up the phone and call his wife. Why didn’t Bush do that?
Ynot-
What did you want Kerry to do, legislate something to an empty Senate Gallery? Kerry was and is a Senator, and he didn’t have Bush’s responsibibilities to fall short of. The president never had the luxury of time. Kerry did. You could make a better case by saying he reacted pretty much like Bush.
Of course, Kerry really was helpless, moments away from being evacuated. Bush was leader of the free world, with a national response to run.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2004 06:45 PMActually, the 9/11 report does an excellent job of exposing what a lack of coordinated national response we actually had at our disposal- Bush or no Bush. Problems like the trouble with phone and email communications, and chain-of-command miscommunications within the rescue and local military operations, were common on 9/11. Its crappy, but those are the facts.
This whole “7 minutes/420 seconds” argument is being debated at all is a by-product of the (ahem) “documentary” work of Michael Moore. Kerry, by his own admission, did nothing for 40 minutes during the attacks- not that I blame him, but give Bush a little freikin credit (I know that is hard to do for his political enemies). Forgive both of them for having to rapidly reasses their entire lives, careers, and political worldviews live on TV. To argue it much further than this “tit-for-tat” is to give too much creedence to a filmmaker who is notorious (and very rich) for misrepresenting facts and throwing political bombs that he will not address when confronted by people who challenge him (aka, his team of “factchecking” lawyers he has threatened to sick on his detractors).
I realize that my post lacks many specific details, but I have read the 9/11 report and read 10-20 newspapers a day (from all sides). By commenting on Moore’s film, I do realize that I have just given it more than its due, so don’t Here is some questions I have trouble getting my lib friends to answer- If all of the hoopla about Bush is true- the oil conspiracies, AWOL, WMD lies, or (take your pick), then why won’t his enemies charge him with a crime? Is it perhaps that much of the so-called “evidence” in the “case against Bush” would not stand up in a court of law? If you really believe all of this, NAME THE NAMES, CALL THE BUSH ON THE CARPET AND FILE THE CHARGES. Why don’t they just put up or shut up? I invite the libs to skewer me happily. :-)
the 9/11 report does an excellent job of exposing what a lack of coordinated national response we actually had at our disposal- Bush or no Bush.
That’s too true. Even the fighter pilots that were scrambled that day had no idea why they were patrolling Washington airspace. There’s one pilot who thought that the Russians launched cruise missiles and “snuck one by us”.
Analysts are predicting war with China by 2006. I wonder if the Chinese are looking at the 9/11 report and thinking that a surprise sub-launched cruise missile strike on Washington might cause the same kind of confusion, allowing them to grab Taiwan before we get everything sorted out.
