Saturday, October 09, 2004

Media Bias Strikes Again!

With the media (ABC here) sending internal memos like this one, (on the day of the debate, no less) it makes me wonder why the media even bother to dispute their indelible liberal identity:

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave.

I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

Yes, they must artificially enforce what they percieve to be the "public interest." Now, this is no knock on Charles Gibson, who I thought did an admirable job moderating the debate (except for allowing Kerry to pontificate on W's mistakes instead of his own on the last question). But maybe sometime soon the media as a whole will just admit that they and their news coverage are hopelessly liberally skewed.


At 10/13/2004 6:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post reflects the assumption that both campaigns are equally nasty; this is the central point of contention between its author and ABC.

Is it not possible that Bush's campaign is in fact more centrally nasty? Because that's all the memo seems to be saying, which is, I think, no certain proof of an 'indelible liberal identity' (and if it's truly indelible, what do you hope to change?).

Sorry, Andy; a lot of your conserva-paranoia might be justified--but on the issue of the media, I see no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt (I have the sense that they've perhaps had better opportunity to research these matters than you).

At 10/13/2004 12:16 PM, Blogger Randomscrub said...

The problem is that this is a direct attempt to slant the coverage of the campaign to favor Kerry. Particularly when the supposed nastiness is so subjective (misleading somehow more central to Bush's campaign than to Kerry's? how do you verify that?), I have a hard time taking it at face value. When liberals outnumber conservatives almost 5 to 1 in national newsrooms, it stands to reason that I am suspicious of their motives.

And I'm not making that stat up: here's the link to prove it:

You're right that if it's indelible I don't hope to change it. I've given up on that. I hope to help others realize that the coverage is biased, so that they realize that for every story harming Republicans that the news airs, there is probably one harming Democrats that they've buried. Neither party has a monopoly on virtue, but you wouldn't realize that if you got all your news through the MSM.


Post a Comment

<< Home