Third Party & Independents: Archives

I was watching CNN earlier, and they were talking about something similar. Since the networks didn’t broadcast the convention on Tuesday, the only things the public will hear about it is what the media decides to report. Apparently, most of the networks are still replaying Teresa Heinz Kerry telling that rabid-right bozo to shove it.

My thanks to the mainstream media for contributing to a well-informed electorate.

The main-stream media continues its promotion of liberal viewpoints. Even the Heinz Kerry “shove it” story is an example. The press continually comments about the Pittsburgh Tribune Review’s conservative leanings, and the leanings of its publisher, Richard Mellon Scaife. The press also compares the incident with Cheney’s comment on the Senate floor, but withOUT giving the Cheney rationale. By giving the Democratic version in this story, but NOT giving the Republican version in the Cheney situation, the press gives explanation to Heinz Kerry’s reaction.

But a more solid example is the Joe Wilson episode. At the very best (and I’m being more than kind to the facts), Wilson is guilty of a number of mis-statements, and the 911 Commission has said that his report did NOT debunk the yellowcake issue, but rather enhanced it.

Yet the press has mostly ignored this issue. Below is a chart showing the coverage of Wilson’s allegations (negative of course towards Bush) and the respective coverage towards the real truth behind the Wilson episode. Stunning, eh?

And here’s the major point. Regardless of whether one chooses to believe Wilson or not, the new evidence certainly brings into question his earlier comments about Bush being a liar. Yet there is media silence on this news. Regardless of the conclusion, it deserves to be reported, yet….silence. The reason——well, its just soo damnably obvious.

Outlet………Wilson Before….Wilson After
CBS………………..30……………0
NBC………………..40……………1
ABC………………..18……………1
Washington Post……..96……………2
New York Times………70……………3
Los Angeles Times……48……………2

@joe,
i’d like to see where all those pretty numbers came from. I just did one quick google search on “Joe Wilson” and got tons of post-911-Commission coverage. Granted, not all from major media outlets, but on the first page alone was a link to a CBS story, which already disproves your numbers. There have only been a couple weeks since the 911 report, so it’s common sense to expect less coverage than from the entire past year since Wilson’s NYT letter.

Also the bulk of these new articles were from the right calling Wilson a liar (which you also may agree with as you say he has at least mis-stated). But after reading some of the articles on both sides, I’m not even convinced he had even mis-stated anything. In his initial NYTimes article from last year, he already said that he had not seen the forged document itself, but rather had talked to the authorities that would need to be involved in the documents passing. The Commission tried to call him out by putting words in his mouth which is why he said he “may have mis-stated” because he didn’t know exactly what they were getting at. But from the beginning, he admitted what he had done there, and that he was one of a handful of people looking into the issue. I think he understood that in terms of ‘hard intelligence’ he didn’t have much to go by, but he had enough to thoroughly convince himself and he assumed that at the very least the CIA would look into it more rather than conclude the opposite. This is what he has been claiming from the beginning.

After all intelligence was gathered, even the NIA and NSC recommended not to include the bit about Niger in the State of the Union Address, but the morons did it anyways (that should tell you something about the administrations war agenda right there).

All the comments that were added in the 911 Commissions Report regarding Wilson seem to be purposely thrown into the report by the Republican Senators to further discredit him. And apparently it’s working. I think the right has not even listened to what Wilson said from the beginning, but rather looked at his persistent quest to have the issue addressed as some sort of rabid self-righteous grandstanding full of lies.

But thats just my opinion. Here are recent comments on Wilson and the Report by 911 Commission (Republican)Senator Pat Roberts, as well as the response letter from Mr. Wilson (also appeared in Salon, 7/16/04, but membership is required).

PS- regarding Kerrys wife & the “shove it” quote directed at a journalist, how can that even come close to Cheneys “go f#@k yourself” to a senator on the senate floor!?

Peezee:

The numbers come from Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. I’m not much at doing the hotlink thing but here is the link nonenetheless:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14102-2004Jul25.html?nav=rss_politics

Or, if you simply google “howard kurtz and joe wilson”, you can find the information in different formats.

As to your defense of Joe Wilson, it doesn’t hold up well. Wilson made HUGE claims that Bush is a “liar” and the Cheney should be “frog-marched” out of the White House. These are not just idle little comments, and they were trumpeted from the headlines.

At the very least, Wilson’s claims are negated now. His claim that his wife had “nothing to do” with his going to Niger has gone down in flames, now that the Plame memo has surfaced. The 9-11 Commission, along with the British commission, have both stated clearly that Bush’s comments were understandable and certainly not lies. Had Wilson simply said that he thought Bush was wrong to use those “16 words”, he’d have been okay. But he didnt. He used the inflammatory language, calling Bush a liar.

To have virtually no commentary from the Democratic party, nor from the media, is simply another example of the bias. Had the 9-11 commission reported that “yes, we have evidence that Bush did, in fact, lie”, would you stand on your stance that there have only been 2 weeks since the commission results? I think we both know the answer to that.

Lastly, Im not equating Cheney with Heinz Kerry at all. I’m not in favor of comparing two wrongs, and then trying to assess the lesser or greater. I can understand Cheney’s frustration, just as I can understand Heinz Kerry’s. My coment was solely about the way the media gives both sides of the Kerry situation, but only one side of the Cheney situation. That is simple bias.

Sorry the comments are going away from the original topic, but I’ll offer one more post on the Wilson thing since joe was kind enough to get back:

I see how republicans would get bent out of shape about the guy if he was really slandering Bush and Cheney like that (I never read his book and only found those quotes that you gave on republican blog sites), but at worst he is in the same boat as the president: leaving out other facts to make a stronger case. So if you concede that Bush is not a liar for only giving some of the facts on the table, then Wilson is in the same boat.

I don’t think Wilson is some sort of ideal citizen, but I think the heart of his original NYT article brought up valid points that were never answered, not even by the 911 Commission - namely- Why evidence debunking Iraqi uranium dealings was not considered by the administration. If it was soft evidence, you would think it would have been followed by the pursuit of harder evidence before any action was taken. The intelligence community seemed to agree w/ Wilson in as much as telling the administration that this issue was best left out of their State of the Union speech. But the administration seemingly ignored them in their State of the Union address and their rush to War.

Wilson was right to question the White House for overstating their case, and they were right for admitting they overstated it after his NYT Article. Regarding name calling, media bias, etc. I could really care less, those kind of things you just have to take w/ a grain of salt.

Regarding the 2 weeks since the Commission Report, we will never know about your hypothetical- but it’s hard to compare a 2 week old story with a year old story, esp. when the old one had many follow up parts - Wilsons book, the Plame outing, etc, etc. So maybe not the best things to compare - and I still think Kurtz’ figures are way off based on the quick google search I ran earlier.

After all that nitpicking, I think I mostly agree w/ you in that everyone should be held accountable by the same standards. But I doubt if we will see eye to eye on how the media abides by those standards.

Peezee
Republicans get bent out of shape for other reasons than just the Joe Wilson incident. It can hardly be a surprise when it is so blatant and I may be a little sensitive to this issue. So much that I actually look for it.

I watched a Fox News Channel report/poll graph that showed Bush leading in 4 out of 5 battleground states, which did please me. So I wondered how CNN was reporting it. To my surprise (joking) they only showed the 1 state Bush was behind in and made no reference at all to the other 4 states that he was leading in. MSNBC chose not to report it at all. Probably hoping it was a fluke.

your statement….
>>Regarding the 2 weeks since the Commission Report, we will never know about your hypothetical- but it’s hard to compare a 2 week old story with a year old story, >>

When the NYT reports 46+ front page stories on Abu Ghraib, to discredit the military and Bush, and only 1 on the Oil for Food scandal that should dispel any notion that not enough time had passed to form any conclusion, since the Oil for Food program had been around much longer than Abu Ghraib.

Furthermore, the liberal bias machine otherwise known as Moveon.org that goes after FNC is hardly gentle or covert. Moveon.org filed a complaint with the FCC to stop FNC from using “Fair and Balanced” along with a downloadable petition to boot. Possibly because FNC is fair and balanced and that disturbs them so much they produced a video, which admittedly I have not seen nor wish to. To go after FNC only, should tell you something about the rest of the media as well as the press.
http://www.moveon.org/front/

You can find more choice data from mrc.org’s report…..

As Networks Prepare for 2004 Conventions, MRC Review Shows Liberals Get Kinder, Gentler Coverage
Television’s Biased
Convention Coverage
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20040722.asp

Here are 2 samples from the above story…

From 1988 to 1996, MRC analysts counted the ideological labels applied by reporters during ABC’s, CBS’s, CNN’s and NBC’s prime time convention coverage. They found reporters used the “conservative” label for Republicans six times more often than a “moderate” label, while the ideological branding of Democrats was nearly balanced.

Even in 1988, when the Democrats nominated the liberal Michael Dukakis, nearly half of the 86 labels applied to Democrats called the party “moderate” or “conservative.” That same year, nearly all of the 214 labels assigned to the GOP called the party “conservative” or used even harsher terms like “hard right” or “far right.” Reporter Mary Tillotson told CNN viewers she smelled a “conservative odor” in the New Orleans Superdome where the GOP convention was held.

And Check out Notable Quotables on the same site

http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2004/nq20040719.asp

Media Will Put Kerry Over the Top
“Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards – I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox – but they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all. There’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
– Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas on the July 10 Inside Washington

CBS Cheers Liberal “Dream Team”
“The Democrats’ dream team of John Kerry and John Edwards hits the campaign trail today…”
– CBS’s Hannah Storm on the July 8 Early Show.

By the Way, Kerry’s Losing
“Democrat John Kerry has solidified his base, gained some ground in the South and among lower income voters and seen independent Ralph Nader’s support drop, according to an Associated Press poll.”
– First paragraph of a July 9 AP story by Ron Fournier headlined, “AP Poll: Kerry Solidifies Base.” AP’s poll showed Bush leading Kerry 49 percent to 45 percent.

Finally, the Heinz Kerry reporting bothered me in particular because there was never any discussion by anybody at anytime that called her on not answering the question. A perfectly honorable question “What did you mean by un-American?” A perfectly logical question that she could have answered and avoided the entire scene.

Peezee:

I really dont have problems with Wilson or the media bringing up valid points of disagreement. I’ve been one who has consistently said that I think Bush did NOT lie, but certainly did try to paint the worst possible picture about WMD’s with the info available.

But to use further example: We now have Sandy Berger taking documents from the Archive. Might be innocent bumbling, or it could be planned suppression of evidence. The press for the most part is staying rather curiously quiet (not totally silent) about it. Were this Rumsfeld, they would be on him like ugly on an ape.

This double standard, while sometimes subtle and othertimes virtually unmissable, is what bothers me. Wilson’s claims SHOULD have been addressed, but his outrageous slander (calling them liars etc) should not have been made into headlines without proof. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, in the case of the Berger incident or in the case of the Oil for Food scandal, the press is being perfectly honorable in their attempts for fairness and non judgement.

Would that it were that way for both parties.

The real problem here is that there is no consensus, and will never be a consensus, on where the political “center” lies. All of your examples may or may not be an example of fair/unfair coverage depending on where the political center is defined- and I don’t think anybody on watchblog is a good representation of that center. I can’t take your argument at face value because I feel that your definition of “fair” and “centrist” is pretty different from mine - and I would not try to claim that my perception of the same should be the model for the media. I think no matter what the media does, people are going to bitch about it from one side or the other. But at least we have a freedom of the press and that all viewpoints make it out in some form or another, especially with the whole internet thing.

I’m not going to comment on any specific examples you cite for the same reason - we don’t see eye to eye on th issues anyways, so you can keep bringing up new examples all day long- but I will continue being skeptical of fact manipulations from stats/figures on the right, and the perceived liberal bias I will see more as centrist. I’m sure any counterexamples from the left would be perceived similarly by the right.

I think a much bigger problem than perceived political leanings of the media is overall quality of media coverage, willingness to invest in in-depth reporting, and the subject-matter that makes headlines. The media really does think the public is stupid and they cater to the lowest common denominator.

Peezee:

The reason I used specific examples was to avoid any “fact manipulations” as you call them. By addressing only specifics, I kept to the topic and gave you the opportunity to not deal in broad open statistics. But you choose to not comment.

In that case, I’m not sure why you want to post any comments at all, since the bottom line seems to be that you will continue to believe what you believe regardless of any information given to the contrary.

I think my examples have absolutely nothing to do with where the political center lies. They have to do with differing standards of coverage for similar events.

Lets take two similar events as example: the Abu Ghraib situation and the “Oil for Food” situation.
Both have factual sides to them, both have insinuations of higher level involvement, both have immense impact on the war in Iraq, and both are available for media coverage.

While there IS evidence of misdeeds at Abu Ghraib, the evidence as of yet shows no trail to Rumsfeld, yet the media has been speculating about such a trail.

Meanwhile, there is evidence of misdeeds in the “Oil for Food” issue as well, but here….the media has chosen to NOT speculate since there is no factual or evidentiary basis for speculation.

The question is NOT where the political center lies. The question is: Why treat similar issues in such different manners?

This same question can be applied to the Sandy Berger incident, the Joe Wilson incident, etc.

joe,
I choose not to reply because I don’t know enough of the specifics in the example you cite, but shure enough - again I did ONE google search on “Oil for Food” - the 3rd link from the top covers your story about possible misdoings along w/ the evidence, & this from a major news outlet even - ABC news.. There you have it. And it was my understanding that the reason media “speculates” about Abu Ghraib is because sources within the Military have said the actions were due to higher orders - since nobody is taking that blame, naturally some speculation will go on, but I have heard very little serious speculation going to Rumsfeld. I HAVE heard people saying Rumsfeld should be accountable since it is his department- but thats a different story.

This is why I don’t argue these things. The entire perception of whats happening in the media is different. For an amplified and amusing example of this, go look at Fox’s transcript of Michael Moore as a guest on Bill O’Reily :) Good for a laugh, although they’re both off the deep end.

Hey joe, I looked at the link you provided. I can’t believe you’d use the gossip column in the style section as your source. You might as well just make up the numbers.

As for the Wilson thing, if it was an issue, why isn’t Bush calling for a retraction? Why isn’t Wilson being tried for purjury?

If this were a real issue, there would be more coverage.

And did you see Edwards? What a positive message of hope. It’s going to be hard for the Bush campaign to keep throwing cynicism, attacks, and lies at the Democrats - but they will. Keep ‘em coming. It only makes the GOP leadership look small and petty.

AP:

I provided the link to the easiest access for the information. The information came from the Washington Post, but I had trouble accessing it there. Surely you saw that it was referenced to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post—-maybe you skimmed that part of the information after concluding that the source didnt fit your requirements for solid information.

Wilson is not up for perjury charges because he didnt perjure himself. He did slander people, but it can be said that its just his opinion. I guess I;ll have to repeat once again……my point about Wilson is not what he said, but rather the reporting of it. When he said bad things about Bush…..heavy breathless reporting. When his comments were shown to be false or misleading at best, and that his opinion that Bush lied was simply wrong……nothing from our fearless media.

You may try to move the conversation TO Wilson, but its about the media. That’s the thread here—Wilson is just the example. Got it?

AP,
>>And did you see Edwards? What a positive message of hope. It’s going to be hard for the Bush campaign to keep throwing cynicism, attacks, and lies at the Democrats - but they will. Keep ‘em coming. It only makes the GOP leadership look small and petty.>>

Too bad it all went down the tube when Al Sharpless was preaching.

Staying on topic however and how the media covers issues, isn’t anyone listening to Joe? I will repeat… there were 46 or more front page stories on Abu Ghraib in the New York Times and only 1 on the Oil for Food scandal!!!. That alone, not to mention all the other references Joe has made. It is a wonder that Bush is as close as he is in the polls.

I really don’t understand all the fuss about media bias. I read Dick Morris’ book and all, but to me the media bias issue is more about debate fodder and less about a real issue. That’s because, with so many sources of information available in the “information age”, it would be almost impossible to have any meaningful change in public opinion based on one media outlet’s covert or overt agenda.

What you end up with is people on the left attacking FOX News as a bunch of neo cons (I personally think that Special Report is one of the best news shows going) and the right attacking the NY Times as secretly plotting a communist revolution.

It’s easy to point out media bias and to shout “off with their heads”; please point me to the impact it has with the unassimilated masses.

George:

Its probably difficult to determine scientifically what the impact of a biased media is. But both sides know the impact is there.

Look at the criticism of the FCC for allowing media outlets to control larger segments of the market. People on the left complain about how Clear Channels could simply choose to publish what they want heard, if they get enough control of the markets. That type of thing is on the far end of the horizon, but that’s the kind of impact I’m talking about.

Its easy to say that media is biased, and even those who “say” they disagree seem to agree. Even those on the left who say there is no media bias point to the inherent bias of Fox News….which just proves the point that there really is an inherent bias.

My belief is that the major news outlets for most people (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and many newspapers) lean well to the left. They present facts, but its easy to present facts in such a way as to contain bias. So…if they all trumpet the same bias, many people will come to view it as fact.

I read letters from soldiers in Iraq who say that what the media reports is nothing like the real truth there. But….if thats all we see, then we start thinking Iraq is worse off than it truly might be. And if we believe that, then we can find fault with George Bush…and then we can vote for John Kerry. That CAN be the impact of the media bias.

Agree w/ George which is what I’ve been trying to say all along - This is a non-issue and a distraction from real issues.

@ MAW,
There are so many flaws with the example you chose.

First of all you’re calling out discrepencies strictly within the NYT - a paper widely regarded as left of center to begin with. So it would make sense to have the scale imbalanced toward articles on the Abu Ghraib story. If you wanted to make a stronger case, then include other papers across the nation.

Secondly, I just googled the NYT for “Oil For Food, and quickly found a piece on it from just yesterday. That piece noted that Congress is currently looking into the UN to provide further info on the story. They expect to have results mid-August. So you can expect to be hearing more from the story in the near future.

Thirdly, the Abu-Ghraib photos were a domestic news piece concerning our Army which required immediate response from the Pentagon. This generated a Press Conference by Rumsfeld which amped the coverage. And the Army did an invesigation which concluded around the time of the 911 report. This aplified coverage again. The treatment of war prisoners is a serious topic that needs to be addressed quickly and openly so that other nations see that this is not taken lightly. I’m sure the Pentagon wanted more headlines to get out to potential dissenting countries in the middle east and elsewhere. Whereas the “Oil For Food” piece is an international issue in which the US is on the periphery. Additionally, the type of evidence is not the same as shocking photos that make for great newspaper ‘sensationalism’. And the gathering of further evidence is still under way- there have been no press conferences or reports to speak of yet, so little food for the media to gobble up. They are completely different types of stories and shouldn’t even be compared.

I’m tired of giving these long winded responses to every example, and I’m wasting worktime, so I’ll make my exit from the thread here. But I encourage you to stop looking at these surface figures/stats as black&white reflections on the media, and start looking at the broader and subtle issues that govern the flow of media, both within your specific examples and at large. I think during the Clinton scandal, the media was very sympathetic to the right, again after 911 and leading up to the Iraq war, the media just followed the president and didn’t ask questions. Now that tides are changing both w/ Bushs incumbancy ratings, and with the hindsight of the lack of serious questioning leading up to the war, the media may be inclined to take a few steps left. But even this is not a conscius effort, it is part of a larger social climate and is just a guess on my part- I’m sure I could go make some prett stat #s to support this idea, but you could just as easily shoot them down because there are too many factors involved. It would be one thing if there was 1 supreme media outlet for the USA, but we are fortunate to have countless outlets. This also makes it near impossible to hypothesize on media bias. The argument will never be won or lost. Which I take to mean the media is all over the place, but usulally hovering not to far from center.

Joe et al-

I guess I’m just tired of people trying to say, “see there it is, media bias” and only pointing to the bias that is counter to their argument.

Back when the national media was the only game in town, this argument might have mattered. But now, given the many outlets and opinion (including this blog) I just don’t think they have as much influence in public opinion as they once did.

And why does the left hate Fox News so much? Their venom for that channel sometimes disturbs me. Are they talking about specific shows or is the whole line-up a bunch of right wingers?
Or is it that they are just not use to having conservative opinion mixed in with their news?

Maybe that’s what it is; I’m so use to having left leaning influences in my news that I tend to ignore it. The left hasn’t learned how to digest opposing opinions and slant, because they’ve never had to do it.

I may be on to something here…..

My belief is that the major news outlets for most people (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and many newspapers) lean well to the left.

My belief is that the major news outlets for most people (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and many newspapers) lean well to the right.

Anybody else have a “belief?”

AP

Yes I have a thought. You would make a great comedian. But there are too many out of a job already….

Haha! Thanks MAW. I was considering a career in comedy, but I too was worried about all the other comedians I would displace. :)

You are too funny. Did you read my post on why I choose Bush? Your question to me about what point would move me to vote for Kerry, well I’be been thinking, and thinking, and thinking, and thinking….. you get the point…

Yes I do. MAW. Thanks for not wasting my time. :)