How Slimy Can They Get?

ABC got rid of him not too long after he dogged Clinton in a press conference.

 

Lazy? That is quite an assertion from someone who knows nothing of my daily activities and limitations.

 

Well, yes (linkie).

Of course that is not what I meant; they can be neutral and independent like FactCheck.org (cited by Cheney as fair). There are more positions than Left and Right.

 

No offense meant. I asked you for specific examples which you had failed to provide, giving instead more bald assertions. Since I never thought you incapable ("too stupid or ignorant"), well, I guess I came up with my own usual reason for not having done something.

I'll gladly accept whatever reason you give in its place....

 

I am operating off of memory for lack of time to do comprehensive searches and analysis on everything.

For instance, I would have to go back and pull up such a volume of the AP reporting on the election to "prove" my assertion that I cannot devote that amount of time. Examples would only beg the response "that isn't enough to make a generalization."

By training and habit, I look for the reasons behind what people say as well as the meaning of what they have said. I look for patterns of bias and character even in business or social relationships. It is something I do as a matter of course.

I do not get to see the NYT on a daily basis. In fact, since moving to MO it is pretty infrequent. My earlier posts were based on past knowledge and the assertion that the NYT, LA Times, and Wash Post set the agenda and do much of the actual reporting along with the AP and Reuters for major local papers. If that assertion is not true, please let me know.

Help me with an experiment if you would. I don't have daily access to the NYT. First, did the NYT critically report on the Willie Horton ads? Second, have they critically reported the recent NARAL ads? Was there a difference in emphasis/location in the paper? Was one editorial while the other "news"?

If you don't have time I'll understand and look for a more recent example than Horton.

A couple just came to me. Has the NYT devoted as much time to the inconsistencies in Wilson's testimony, editorial, and book as they have Rove's supposed involvement? Have they critically reported on Wilson's inconsistent statements at all? Front page? Pretty important stuff that a guy sent to check on nuke activities would come back and lie to do political harm to a President. That is a failure to live up to his public trust.

Does the times report more on the progress in Iraq or the violence and costs? Which shows more prominently in the paper?

Example of bias by omission:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8897852/

In virtually every newswire story I have read concerning increasing deficits, Bush's tax cuts have been mentioned often along with the supposedly disproven assumption that lower taxes would increase revenues.

The linked story objectively reports the facts. Great. But where is the mention that Bush and supply siders predicted that lower taxes would eventually improve the economy leading to lower deficits?

If it goes one way, it should go both. I don't mind it either way as long as it is consistent, equitable, or at least honest enough to admit bias.

 

Thanks for the link.

Leans to the right, you think? Go to the home page and glance at the stories - all of them about "leftie" bias and "radical leftism" and not one hint of criticism the other way.

I think they've tipped over.

The survey doesn't say how it was conducted, sample size, questions asked, margin of error, etc. There are few links to the full surveys, so it is really hard to tell. Seeing as where this is coming from, I do suspect that the key findings may be selected to make a particular point.

One good link they had the American Society of Newspaper Editors on credibility (linkie)

 

Can you name a news reporting organization or newswire that is conservative?

I would be really interested in anything you can show that reflects that any major investigative news body (except possibly FoxNews to the extent that they actually investigate with their own people) is made up primarily of people who approach the news from say.... my perspective?

I found an interesting article about a Cronkite opinion. He admitted that most journalists are liberal... but not because they intend to be. They just see all the problems in the world and want to foster change. There are more comprehensive reports than this but I didn't find them again.

http://www.mcgeheezone.com/weblog/archives/000845.html

Also this was interesting:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0197mediabias.htm

[ August 10, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

And this:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Feb1004.html

While I don't have first hand access to the people characterized here... the ones who wrote the article do.

 

One of the most respected is the Wall Street Journal (a lot of fine journalism, profiles and plain interesting non-political, non-financial articles - it was from them that I learned of bluebirders twisting the necks of nesting sparrows and the shortage of doorknobs in Poland). Around here, the New York Post is conservative but, apart from their sports coverage, not respectable. There are the perennial BB favorites, World News Daily, NewsMax and Chronsomething. Many here like to reference TownHall.com columnists. There are the American Spectator, the National Review, U.S. News & World Report, Policy Review, World Magazine and the Weekly Standard.

The Christian Science Monitor seems to be even-handed; if it is biased, it is not obvious.

I don't know you well enough to say.

 

Daisy, Those aren't reporting organizations or newswires are they?

I am specifically talking about organizations who do the first hand reporting and gathering of news items, ie. Reuters, AP, NYT, etc.

 

Scott,

Yes, the Wall Street Journal does original reporting just like the NYTimes does. So does the Washington Times. I'm not sure what you mean by a "reporting organization" - you seem to be disqualifying the weeklies and monthlies even though some of them do reporting as well as analysis.

Reuters is one of the best - do you have a problem with them?

 

Only if you define leftist as "not conservative".

Or if you define leftist as "neutral and accurate".

I may be mistaken, but in politics the slime bucket seems to be bottomless. Question: who will dive the deepest?

 

I have a problem with pretty much every "news" organization that reports casualty counts and enemy successes without reporting things like this:

http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML

I remember the play the media gave to the pilot who was shot down over the Balkans. He was a celebrity and hero from a military action that the media approved of... a military action to protect innocent muslims from terrible Christians.

As proud as we should have been of the guy, his actions were nothing more than self preservation.

This Marine should be a media celebrity... He should get a chance to tell what he thinks of the mission... but maybe he wouldn't give the right answer, huh?

Not remarkably, the news only seems to consider it "news" if a soldier voices contempt for Bush, the war, and current policy.


I have a problem with not balancing stories about our failures with stories about our successes.

A friend of mine has a link to a site that shows footage from an AC-130 gun ship doing night patrols over an Iraqi road. As you watch and listen, US airmen go through the process of using night vision to determine that people on the ground were setting up a roadside bomb. They then get clearance and engage the people thus thwarting an attack.

How many times is that process or some other prevention performed each day? How many of the enemy are dying each day in such engagements?

The one thing that people with family over there say repeatedly is that the soldiers don't think the press is presenting an accurate picture. They feel that the good they are doing is being ignored specifically for political reasons.

I tend to agree and yes I think it is a matter of political bias.

Look, if you miss everything else, just latch on to this... both the terrorists and the media KNOW how Vietnam was lost. It was lost by the media accentuating casualties and failures... It was lost by the media telling the American people that the war was unwinnable.

IF the media is not biased then their reporting of the war should be more "objective" by presenting an accurate picture... which is many, many more successes than failures. The lesson of Vietnam cannot possibly be lost on them. The only other alternative is that they are doing what they are doing to advance their own political beliefs.

 

Daisy, Where is the unending media coverage of this?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/11/211201.shtml

An event attended by high ranking Democrats included comparisons of the Bush administration and Hitler's Nazism and that isn't news?

Compare this to Trent Lott's media treatment for being nice to an old man.

 

And is that any worse than how the rightists are using her? Not to my nose. One side is supportive of her but mainly as symbol for their cause while the other sides smears, discredits and demonizes her. Which is worse?