Liberal Bias in the News, Part IV

[mattp]

Fairweather-

I'm with you on wanting news to be news, and editorial to be editorial - to the extent that is possible. Is it "fair reporting" or "balanced news" to repeat Bush & Co's press releases without questionning them? Is it "balanced" to report that Bush said that we went to war because Saddam would now allow inspections - without making any effort to point out that in fact Saddam DID allow inspections (albeit with the threat of military action, but he did in fact allow them) and that WE decided that continuing those inspections was no longer in our interest? That is what the "liberal media establishment" (including NPR) did. They reported Bush's words, with no question. I didn't see where a single reporter raised their hand and said, "excuse me, Mr. President, but is that what you meant to say?"

[Fairweather]

The mainstream media sees FOX News ratings going up, and up. They don't want to lose market share. FOX is telling the majority of the American people what they want to hear in the post-9/11 world....that we are kicking/going to kick some ass. The rest of the media wants to emulate FOX.

 

This effect is now fading, as the American public loses its stomach for payback, and I think you'll see the mainstream media slowly turn back into the sniveling, disrespectful, whiners that they once were. (IMHO )

 

....just a theory.

[mattp]

So, do you think it is fair reporting to repeat Bush's complete distortion without pointing out the mis-statement of history? I KNOW what Fox owners would say, but what do YOU say?

[Fairweather]

I don't think the mainstream media is ignoring the story at all. They have attempted to drive the story home by repeatedly leading their nightly newscasts with it a few weeks back. Apparently the story didn't have any "traction" with the American public as a whole. If it had teeth, the media would have stayed with it. While this story means everything to you, and many here, the American public was/is apparently willing to accept that they were "misled" to one degree or another. Frankly, I am too.

[mattp]

Did I miss it? Did they point out that the president completely misconstued the situation? I'm not talking about the big flap over the Nigerian uranium - a story that was published by BBC about 6 months earler and completely ignored by our press at the time - but about his statement about the situation with the inspections, immediately before the war. Are you really saying that you don't mind if our president lies to us about current events???????? Do you want our elected officials to make policy and sell it based on lies? Would that apply if a liberal Democrat was in office, or only if it is a conservative Republican?

[Fairweather]

I maintain that Bush is an honorable man. (I'm losing faith in Cheney) However, I believe his administration did, in fact, exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq in order to promote an invasion. (Now I see they're trying to blame the "bad intelligence" on Iraqi dissidents who crossed over prior to the war.) But Saddam had to go. Period. My only regret about the administration's credibility, is that they will now be scoffed at when they try to sell us on the even larger threat posed by N Korea.

[Fairweather]

And let's not forget about Clinton's sales job (lies) vis a vis Kosovo. ...And then there was the aspirin factory in Sudan. Were you as outraged then? I believe the media gave WJC a big "pass" on both of those actions.

Edited August 30, 2003 by Fairweather

[mattp]

I take it from your response that the press did not in fact point out Bush's blatant lie, but merely restated it without question (I was away from the newspaper for two weeks, so maybe I missed it when they pointed this out).

 

No, I do not think it is OK for a Democratic president to lie any more than a Republican one. You, however, think it is OK for our president to lie to us if you agree with his objectives ("The American public was/is apparently willing to accept that they were misled to one degree or another. Frankly, I am too.") Do I read you correctly?

 

If you think I am a big fan of Bill Clinton, you misunderstand me completely. But what about the liberal media establishment? I still don't understand the complaints about how Clinton lied to us about Kosovo, but I am willing to believe that NPR and the New York Times and all of those liberal media people failed to do their job and question Bill Clinton about these matters. Can you fill us in on how that may have happened? And if you can fill us in on that, can you explain how that is somehow different than the "pass" that is being given GW Bush and Co?

 

I agree that the American press sucks. Probably the world press. Do you know of a news source where you can get honest, accurate, thorough and balanced news?

[Fairweather]

By the time Saddam finally allowed the inspectors in, with conditions, it was too little, too late. He miscalculated. I think using the word "lie" to describe Bush's candor/lack thereof is certainly a stretch. A big one.

[mattp]

He said that Saddam would not allow inspections. The truth is that WE decided to discontinue inspections at a time when just about everybody else in the world was urging us to give the inspections more time. Bush didn't say it had been "too little too late," or even anything remotely like that. I don't think "lie" is too strong of a word. Either it is "lie" or perhaps "self-deception."

 

Is it OK for a Republican president to lie, but not a Democratic one? Does any of this have bearing on the question of whether the press presents a consistent liberal slant to the news?

[mattp]

By the way - what is with this "finally allowed inspections in." As far as I remember, the ONLY time in the entire twelve years or whatever it was that we did not have inspectors there was when WE called them back because WE were going to bomb. Yes, I believe that Saddam was interfering with the inspections at many points along the way, but "finally allowed inspections in" is clearly a misstatement of the reality.

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

 

Do I read you correctly?

 

I still don't understand the complaints about how Clinton lied to us about Kosovo, but I am willing to believe that NPR and the New York Times and all of those liberal media people failed to do their job and question Bill Clinton about these matters. Can you fill us in on how that may have happened? And if you can fill us in on that, can you explain how that is somehow different than the "pass" that is being given GW Bush and Co?

 

I agree that the American press sucks. Probably the world press. Do you know of a news source where you can get honest, accurate, thorough and balanced news?

 

The first question is easy. Kosovo was pre 9/11/01. Many American's opinions about the aggressive use of our military changed on that day.

 

The second question has no answer. We are all left to gather information from the widest possible variety of sources, filter it through our own biases, beliefs, and skepticism, and then take our best guess.

[mattp]

Fairweather -

 

Exactly what question did you answer in answering the "first question?" I asked how exactly it was that you think Clinton lied to us about Kosovo and how would the press' treatment of that lie show a liberal news bias whereas their treatment of Bush's "misleading" us about Iraq does now show an equal bias to the right? Times have changed is all you can say? Do I understand you correctly - that it it is only because of 9/11 that the press has temporarily "wised up" and they are going to go back to a liberal slant any day now? If they are following changes in public opinion (which I would agree with you is pretty sad), aren't they merely being commercially driven rather than idealistically driven?

 

I am glad that you didn't say "Fox News" in answering "the second question." On this point, we may well agree. You can't get real news. The media is mostly presenting commercial messages.

 

[iain]

Greg_W said:

I don't want my lack of response to be taken as lack of ability to back up what I say, but I don't have my information at hand.

 

[catbirdseat]

Bias in the media has more to do with what is not reported than what is or how it is done. It is difficult to know what is underreported except when one has first hand knowledge. One way to know is to compare our media's coverage to that of foreign sources that we trust, such as the BBC and perhaps European media, if not Al Jazeera.

[rbw1966]

iain said:

Greg_W said:

I don't want my lack of response to be taken as lack of ability to back up what I say, but I don't have my information at hand.

 

I believe he's busy threatening to hit someone with batteries in another thread.

[mattp]

I bet most of those who don't trust the supposed "liberal media" will not agree that the BBC could be seen as a benchmark against which to measure our press, Catbird. e BBC published that story about how the African uranium purchase was a bogus story -- way back in, like, January. It took our "liberal"press, and even our unpatriotic liberal politicians, six months to catch on.

[iain]

rbw1966 said:

Hey Greg--where are those stats you promised yesterday?

 

Still workin' it.

 

bumpity bump!

[catbirdseat]

Iain, you're just pining for the good 'ol days of socks and D-cell batteries, ain't ya?

[foraker]

The problem with "The Media" isn't that they are either liberal or conservative, it is simply that they have devolved into a a bunch of ambulance chasers and human interest goons. There are no more budgets for investigative journalism. Spending money on such things does not sit well with 'shareholders'. If the media is so liberal, why are they so easily distracted by any stupid noise about Bush's war record and not focusing on real substantive issues? Thus, I submit, in this age the question of bias in the media is irrelevant. They aren't providing information, they are providing distractions and entertainment. They are our modern 'bread and circuses'.