|
Junkie
|
I believe that the Media (print, radio, tv) acts soley on Editorial agendas of the various and sundry respective media outlets. In this thread example, you have the historically left-leaning Village Voice sounding off in a predictable fashion. I submit the content you see below as examples one might gather from sources opposite the Village Voice et al. The conclusions are yours to construct. Amidst a fiercely biased political landscape, one can easily find media agendas ranging the entire political spectrum, if one wishes. Google, etc., makes the information available to anyone able to type or dictate.
Quote:
Extreme Conservatives vs. Unlabeled Liberals
In the six months since November’s elections, network reporters have zeroed in on “conservatives” — especially “religious conservatives” — as an energized and unwelcome force in American politics. As TV told it, George W. Bush won re-election because of strong support from “social conservatives” and would pack the courts with “conservative” judges. It was “conservatives” who pushed Terri Schiavo’s right-to-life case, and “conservatives” like Tom DeLay and John Bolton were embroiled in controversy.
It’s true conservatives have been making a lot of headlines, but even as the networks painted the right side of the spectrum as ideological, and even a tad fanatical, reporters rarely used ideological terms to define liberals. Since Election Day, network reporters branded politicians or groups as “conservative” 395 times, compared to 59 “liberal” labels, a greater than six-to-one disparity. Our last review in 2002 (using the same methodology, but looking only at evening shows) found a four-to-one skew.
As before, MRC analysts used the Nexis database to examine each use of “liberal” and “conservative” on ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs from November 3 through May 2. We rejected labels that weren’t political (a “conservative investment”) or outside the U.S. context (all those labels of Pope Benedict XVI, for example). We also excluded labels applied by a news source rather than the network reporter.
CBS provided the fewest labels (95) but the worst bias: just seven liberal tags, compared to 88 conservative ones, more than a twelve-to-one skew. NBC, whose three-hour Today spends more time on politics than other morning shows, had the most labels (193), but only 26 liberal modifiers. ABC had the most “balanced” approach — 140 conservative tags vs. 26 liberal labels, a five-to-one disparity. A few examples:
An Imbalanced Approach: On the April 26 Today, Katie Couric introduced a debate segment by branding just one side: “Dee Dee Myers was President Clinton’s first White House press secretary, and Tucker Carlson is a conservative commentator and host for MSNBC.” Were we supposed to believe Myers is non-ideological?
On the March 2 NBC Nightly News, David Gregory talked about “the conservative group USA Next” and the “senior lobbying group AARP,” ideological opposites in the Social Security debate. On all four occasions the networks mentioned USA Next by name, they correctly called it “conservative,” but not once during the six-month study period did a network reporter describe the AARP as “liberal.”
Angry Extremists: On the April 25 Early Show, CBS’s Joie Chen portrayed conservatives as an angry mob: “Thousands of Christian conservatives gathered in Kentucky, seething over what they call the ‘filibuster against faith,' and spoiling for a political fight.” Shortly after the election, on the November 8 Good Morning America, reporter Manuel Medrano trotted out an extreme label: “Arch-conservatives worry that [new Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales may not be conservative enough on hot-button issues.” On the November 4 World News Tonight, ABC’s Linda Douglass warned viewers that “the Senate has gotten much more conservative. One new Senator wants the death penalty for people who perform abortions.”
It’s not that network reporters misuse the “conservative” label. Rather, journalists systematically fail to identify those who seek a secular society and a strong, government-controlled, social welfare system as ideologues of the Left. The media’s labeling scheme presents “conservatives” as less mainstream than their ideological adversaries, even as election returns show that it’s liberals who need to start swimming back to the center.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A Faked Hug?
U.S. Coerced Iraqi Voters?
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Pushes Crackpot Conspiracies
Unlike Dan Rather, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at least doesn’t deny that he brings his liberal opinions with him when he anchors the third-place cable news networks live coverage of political events. But in recent days he’s been using his perch to suggest wacky conspiracy theories that might make even Howard Dean blush.
During last night’s State of the Union coverage, Matthews suggested that the emotional highlight of the evening — the embrace of a mother whose Marine son was killed in Fallujah and an Iraqi human rights activist who braved insurgent threats to vote on Sunday — was cynically engineered by President Bush “to push his numbers on Social Security reform, just to get his general appeal up a bit, a couple of points.” Only left-wing MSNBC host Ron Reagan agreed with Matthews premise. Newsweek’s Jon Meacham called it “absurd.”
Matthews persisted. “The only question is whether that Iraqi woman was prompted to go up and hug Janet Norwood [the mother of the Marine] by some staffer,” he told his mostly skeptical panel. If a rebuttal is even necessary, Mrs. Norwood appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America on Thursday, and explained that she and her husband “had no idea who was going to be there. We met just as we went in the door.”
Matthews was also out in far left field a few hours after eight million Iraqis voted in Sunday’s free elections, wondering if our troops had bullied them into making the trip to the polls: “Was there no pushing by American soldiers or coalition forces to make people vote or discourage them from not voting? Was it a clean turnout, in other words?” he asked NBC’s Brian Williams. Williams rejected Matthews’ theory.
A couple of hours after Matthews signed off last night, the left-wing Air America radio host Janeane Garofalo showed up as a guest on MSNBC. She sneered that it was “disgusting” for House members to salute the bravery of Iraqi voters by holding up similarly ink-stained fingers, and mockingly held up her hand in a Nazi salute. Next to her, Chris Matthews looks downright mainstream.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTABLE QUOTABLES
A bi-weekly compilation of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous,
quotes in the liberal media.
May 20, 2005
(Vol. Eighteen; No. 11)
Conspiracy to Embarrass Media
Anchor Keith Olbermann: “Why does a book in a toilet start riots, but a war doesn’t?...Newsweek first apologizing for the report over the weekend, and then late this afternoon, formally retracting the story....Something smells funny to me about this Newsweek apology, then retraction. Do you sense the same thing, and what the heck are we smelling?”
MSNBC Analyst Craig Crawford: “...This is a pattern we’ve seen before, Keith. We saw it in the CBS case, as bad as the supposedly fake memorandum that Dan Rather used in the 60 Minutes report on Bush’s National Guard service, as bad as that was, they did show it to the administration ahead of time. It does make you wonder if sometimes they set up the news media.”
— MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, May 16.
“The way Craig Crawford reconstructed it, this one went similarly to the way the Killian [60 Minutes] memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet — or has its proxies do it for them. That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous.”
— Keith Olbermann in a posting to his MSNBC.com “Bloggerman” Web log at 9:45pm EDT May 16, about 90 minutes after his exchange with Crawford.
Of Course, Army Is Still Guilty
“‘What we know,’ he [Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman] said, ‘is that the Newsweek story about a Koran destruction is demonstrably false.’ Demonstrably false? At Guantanamo Bay, almost nothing is demonstrable, especially to the Muslim world. It’s a secret prison, for good reason, perhaps. But secret. What really goes on at Guantanamo Bay, no one really knows.”
— ABC reporter John Donvan on the May 16 Nightline.
“Do you think the volume of the protests [from Bush administration officials] is, perhaps, a bit calculated to deflect some attention away from the policies at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?...Given the other abuses, I guess what I’m getting at here is, does Newsweek deserve all the blame assuming that its story was incorrect?”
— Anchor Chris Bury to Akbar Ahmed, Chairman of Islamic studies and professor of international relations at American University, on ABC’s Nightline, May 16.
Mag Caved to Bush’s “Pressure”
“Under pressure from the White House, Newsweek today retracted a story that led to deadly rioting in Afghanistan.... Over the weekend, Newsweek said its source could no longer confirm the report, and the magazine’s editor apologized. Then late today, under pressure from the White House, Newsweek retracted the entire story.”
— Bob Schieffer introducing the May 16 CBS Evening News.
“Did you get pressure from the White House, Dan?”
“The administration’s criticism of Newsweek has intensified over the last 24 hours following the so-called apology on Sunday. Do you think there is a bit of piling on here from the administration?”
— Co-host Matt Lauer to Newsweek Washington bureau chief Dan Klaidman on NBC’s Today, May 17. Klaidman denied there was any pressure exerted on Newsweek.
Simply Beyond Help
ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran: “Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?”
Press Secretary Scott McClellan: “...We would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region. And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran...is handled with the utmost care and respect....”
Moran: “With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it’s appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President...to tell an American magazine what they should print?”
— Exchange at the May 17 White House news briefing.
Anchor Bob Schieffer: “I must say I can never recall a White House telling a news organization to go report X, Y or Z. Can you ever remember anything like that?”
Reporter Wyatt Andrews: “I’ve thought about that, Bob. I cannot remember any circumstance like this from the White House podium, especially in this context, as if Newsweek is now obligated to repair the damage that America has suffered to its reputation overseas. Never seen it.”
— CBS Evening News, May 17.
Twisting Ken Starr’s Words
CBS’s Gloria Borger: “Just who gets to sit on the Supreme Court? And should we appoint Justices who want to rule on everything from abortion to gay marriage to civil rights? That’s why many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon. But conservative icon and former federal Judge Ken Starr says it’s gotten out of control.”
Ken Starr, to Borger: “This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.”
Borger: “Starr, who investigated the Monica Lewinsky case against President Clinton, tells CBS News that the Republican plan to end the filibuster may be unwise.”
Starr: “It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful Senators may come to regret.”
— CBS Evening News, May 9.
“Kenneth Starr — an appeals court judge on the D.C. circuit from 1983-1989 — came out against the Republican plan to ban judicial filibusters on Monday. He told CBS Evening News that it is a ‘radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.’”
— May 10 Associated Press dispatch by Jesse Holland.
vs.
“The ‘radical departure’ snippet was specifically addressed — although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip — to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience....Our friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said.”
— Ken Starr in an e-mail he sent to National Review writer Ramesh Ponnuru and posted May 12 on National Review’s “The Corner” Web log.
“Very Conservative” John Warner
“It’s interesting to me that the person who may actually be the deciding vote could be John Warner, the very conservative Senator from Virginia, who may — I’m saying may; there’s been no public announcement — could vote with the Democrats to defeat this.”
— CBS’s Bob Schieffer discussing a proposal to end the Senate Democrats’ filibuster of judicial nominees, on Face the Nation, May 15. According to the American Conservative Union’s 2004 scorecard, Warner was tied with John McCain as the fifth least conservative of 51 Republican Senators, behind only Mike DeWine, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Lincoln Chafee.
“Disgusted” If Filibuster Fails?
“If the ‘nuclear option’ is played out, don’t you think voters are going to be disgusted with all politicians and say come on, get out of the sandbox?”
— NBC’s Katie Couric to Republican Senator Arlen Specter on the May 13 Today.
Informed Putin vs. Ignorant Bush
Anchor Bob Schieffer: “Let me ask you this other question, though, Mike. Do you find him [Russian President Vladimir Putin] informed on what’s going on in the West?”
Mike Wallace: “You know something? He’s a foreign intelligence expert, that’s where he came from. And unlike President Bush who, I understand, says, ‘Look, I get the news, I don’t read newspapers, I get the news from my aides,’ he [Putin] said, ‘Not me, I read newspapers all day long. I don’t want to hear the biases of my aides. I don’t want to hear what they believe is the news. I want to find out for myself. And that’s why I read papers.’”
— Exchange on the May 9 CBS Evening News, where Wallace was showing additional clips from his interview with Putin for 60 Minutes.
vs.
Mike Wallace: “Mr. Putin apparently believed that Dan’s resignation as anchor of the CBS Evening News meant he had been fired from CBS.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin: “On our TV screens, we saw him resigning. We understood that he was forced to resign by his bosses at CBS. This is a problem of your democracy, not ours.”
Wallace to Putin: “He still works for CBS News. He continues to work, as a matter of fact, on 60 Minutes.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes, May 8.
Mean Assault on Beloved Liberal
“It’s like he [President Bush] stuck a broomstick in his [FDR’s] wheelchair wheels.”
— Newsweek’s Jon Meacham on MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning May 9, discussing Bush’s criticism of Roosevelt’s Yalta deal with Stalin on control of post-war Europe.
CBS Ethics Guide, “Never Used!”
“My yard sale consisted mostly of things I found lying around the office, like a box of macaroni and cheese from the ’96 Republican convention, and some boring personnel manuals. ‘CBS News Standards.’ This is the standards we work by. That book’s never been used.”
— CBS’s Steve Hartman showcasing some of the items he tried to sell while working on a story on yard sales for 60 Minutes Wednesday, April 27. Hartman marked the spiral-bound guide, “Never used!” and priced it at 50 cents.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Will They Dismiss a Real Vote, When They Fell for a Fraud?
While the network news gurus have spent weeks questioning whether Sunday’s elections in Iraq would (A) occur on time or (B) be accepted as legitimate, it’s important to remember that when Saddam Hussein called a vote in October 2002 as coalition troops moved into place, ABC, CNN, and NBC accepted the dictator’s “100 percent” vote as a credible plebiscite, not a joke. To his credit CBS’s Tom Fenton explained why everyone voted aye: “You would be foolish not to — a U.N. human rights report said 500 people were jailed in the last referendum after casting a negative ballot.” But other networks, desperate for access into Saddam’s Iraq, played dumb and parroted the dictator’s script:
? “Iraqi citizens are preparing to go to the polls to decide whether Hussein stays in office.” — Preview of an October 14, 2002 segment on CNN’s American Morning with Paula Zahn posted on CNN’s Web site.
? “Seven years ago, when the last referendum took place, Saddam Hussein won 99.96 percent of the vote. Of course, it is impossible to say whether that’s a true measure of the Iraqi people’s feelings.” — ABC reporter David Wright, World News Tonight, October 15, 2002.
? “All 11,440,638 eligible voters went to the polls with one thought: Yes to Saddam Hussein! The government proclaimed it a victory of light over darkness, good over evil. It seemed more like a political miracle.“ — NBC reporter Keith Miller on Today, October 16, 2002.
? Diane Sawyer: “I read this morning that he’s [Saddam Hussein] also said the love that the Iraqis have for him is so much greater than anything Americans feel for their President because he’s been loved for 35 years, he says, the whole 35 years.”
Dan Harris in Baghdad: “He is one to point out quite frequently that he is part of a historical trend in this country of restoring Iraq to its greatness, its historical greatness. He points out frequently that he was elected with a 100 percent margin recently.” — ABC’s Good Morning America, March 7, 2003.
|
link |