Media Bias, We report - you decide

Brother Deckers makes a great observation. Is America really demanding to-the-minute reporting, so that a "scoop" of one hour really makes any real difference?

Do any of us here choose our news outlet based on how many "scoops" they have at any given minute?

Since we're seeing so much error due to zero fact checking, how many average Americans are going to rely on ABC-CBS-NBC as their news outlet in 2005? When and why did "news" stop and "entertainment" start?

What is the definition of "journalism" today?

We laughed at Jayson Blair and the New York Times back in 2003. We were shocked by Dan Rather this year. Who's next?

UPDATE:

The whole "380 tons of explosives that disappeared in Iraq" is old news that occured before US troops entered Iraq. But Kerry and the liberal media are still blaming this on Bush.

NBC news has already stated that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003. The only way Bush could have secured this site would have been to enter Iraq months earlier than he did.

It's a lie. It's a sham. And (I can't believe it) Kerry has actually made a campaign ad repeating the lie. It's an ad that will be shown in the "battleground" states.

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/102604_obligation.html

Kerry knows the facts are being misrepresented. Kerry is flat-out lying in his advertisement. This is absolutely amazing. But there won't be any media, outside of Fox News or Drudge, that will call Kerry on this - the media is trying to HELP Kerry. This is something you would expect from some 3rd world dictator during his "election".

Kerry-Edwards will say and do anything to get into office. And the media is only too happy to assist.

---

News of missing explosives in Iraq - first reported in April 2003 - was being resurrected for a CBS "60 Minutes" election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of "60 Minutes", said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."

The story instead debuted in the New York Times (another Kerry supporter). The paper heralded the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as an "exclusive."

First it was Dan Rather's forged documents. Now it's this "old news repackaged to appear new" lie that happened before US forces entered Iraq. Both have now backfired, painting CBS News in a heavy coat of liberal paint - and also showing them to be ignorant of facts.

The Mainstream Media - not only Liberal, but also Dumb.

1) Somebody at the DNC must have let the people at NBC know they were off the Reservation on this because they were backpedaling like crazy on tonight's evening news.

2) As I understand the composition of these "Explosives", neither of these items were readily usable as components for car bombs, unless the bomb makers had a degree in chemistry and a lot of other specialized materials to combine with these materials. These items where most likely actually some of the components one would need in the "Non-existent" Iraqi Nuclear Bomb Program to create the shaped charges to make the appropriate fusion or fissionable material go BOOM!!!

1) Somebody at the DNC must have let the people at NBC know they were off the Reservation on this because they were backpedaling like crazy on tonight's evening news.

2) As I understand the composition of these "Explosives", neither of these items were readily usable as components for car bombs, unless the bomb makers had a degree in chemistry and a lot of other specialized materials to combine with these materials. These items where most likely actually some of the components one would need in the "Non-existent" Iraqi Nuclear Bomb Program to create the shaped charges to make the appropriate fusion or fissionable material go BOOM!!!

Do you mean the Iranian nuclear program or the Syrian nuclear program?

This whole "380 tons of explosives that disappeared in Iraq" was a package put together by the national Democratic party and hand-delivered to an eagerly-waiting liberal media. To the Dan Rathers of the media this was like Christmas morning. Too bad that actual facts burst their balloon.

ABC, NBC, FNC and CNN, but not CBS, on Wednesday night provided new details, about what is known to have happened at the al-Qaqaa facility in January to May of 2003, which cast more doubts upon the charge that the 377 tons of explosives disappeared after U.S. troops arrived. CBS just cannot accept the fact that this story is a flub, that Bush cannot be charged with a crime, and that the Democrats might actually be lying (or at least mis-representing the facts).

Dan Rather is a baffoon. So is the major media's coverage of this year's election.

1. CBS News had to appoint an outside two-member investigating committee to find out how and why (1) Dan Rather aired a hatchet job on President Bush based on forged documents that CBS was warned about and (2) CBS Producer Mary Mapes coordinated with senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart concerning the discredited source of those documents.

2. Last spring, over 250 Vietnam War contemporaries, including veterans who served with him when he was a Swift Boat commander and his entire chain of command, came forward to publicly challenge Kerry?s version of Vietnam and his anti-war activities. After being ignored for several weeks the media turned on these honorable men with a vengeance, rather than give them a shred of credibility.

3. When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, unemployment was at 5.2 percent, inflation 3 percent, and economic growth 2.2 percent. Today, as Bush stands for re-election, unemployment is at 5.4 percent, inflation 2.7 percent and economists? consensus forecast for economic growth this quarter is 3.7 percent. Coverage of the Clinton economic data was overwhelmingly favorable (35 positive, 6 negative stories). Under Bush, it?s literally reversed to 6 positive, 38 negative. Numbers don?t lie. Bias is the only explanation.

4. CBS correspondent Richard Schlesinger focused this story around Beverly Cocco, portraying her as a mom "petrified about a military draft." He never mentioned she is the activist leader of a group called "People Against the Draft." He never mentioned that the Pentagon, the Republican Party, and the Bush campaign all oppose a new draft. Dan Rather introduced the segment this way: "A mother worries her son will be drafted. Does she have good reason?" Both Schlesinger and Producer Linda Karas cited erroneous email chatter about the draft as justification for doing an Evening News segment. Karas incredulously intoned: "The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece."

5. "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 opportunistic and all. There?s going to be this glow about them ? that?s going to be worth maybe 15 points." ? Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 7/10/04.

The elite liberal media is not objective, not fair, not balanced. They are partisans who are sacrificing any remaining credibility in an effort to defeat President Bush. Watch for smiles and a general "upbeat attitude" everytime a state votes for Kerry, but a sense of "doom and foreboding" everytime a state votes for Bush. Tuesday night's coverage should be very easy to watch.

Not NEARLY as easy as Kerry's first State of the Union speach.

Just as long as he does it from Paris.

And now all we here in this forum is the sound of crickets...

From The Onion:

Nader Supporters Blame Electoral Defeat On
Bush, Kerry
WASHINGTON, DC?Supporters of presidential candidate Ralph Nader blamed his defeat Tuesday on George W. Bush and John Kerry, claiming that the two candidates "ate up" his share of the electoral votes. "This election was stolen out from under Mr. Nader by Bush and Kerry, who diverted his votes to the right and the left," Nader campaign manager Theresa Amato said. "It's an outrage. If Nader were the only candidate, he would be president right now." In his concession speech, Nader characterized Bush and Kerry as spoilers.

After all these long months of battling Brother Maisky it's time to "take a breather". Time to tend to the wounds, time to repair the swords and shields.

Time for a full bottle of a fine single malt.

ABC News struck back Thursday night at the notion that exit polls, which found that "moral values" led all other topics as the most important issue to voters, meant support for conservative positions on social issues, as if liberal anti-war activists were equally likely to have picked "moral values" as their top issue. With "Moral Values" in quote marks over a red/blue state U.S. map, Peter Jennings treated the concept as alien as he described how "ever since the polls closed on election night, there's been a lot of buzz in the political establishment, in the country at large, about this question of quote, 'moral values.'"

The liberal media elite cannot grasp the overall concept of "moral vaules" because they pride themselves on having none. To mention "morals", to them, implies "radical conservatism". But to so many Americans it simply means a system of beliefs, usually strongly held, in something more than oneself. You see it in restaurants across the globe: one family says a prayer before their meal while others look at them with disgust.

On ABC's Good Morning America co-host Diane Sawyer expressed astonishment over "one of the big surprises" of the campaign which "still has everyone talking. Voters saying that their top issue in choosing a candidate, not the economy, not terrorism, not Iraq, but moral values." Sawyer at least painted liberal Democrats as the ones out of touch, telling Paul Begala how "a woman in the newspaper this morning said something which really intrigued me." The woman said, 'I've been made to feel by liberal people that my faith just makes me weird' and at the end of the day she didn't like that.

The liberal media is completely out of touch with mainstream America, and their catering to the New York elite is their downfall.

Imagine this:

Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the world community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Wall-to-wall media coverage on every channel throughout the day and night, Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It?s a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.

So I?m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from the media, from Hollywood, from the public-at-large over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.

The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh?s crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood?s creative community? Where is the outrage from the media? Where is the outrage from the college campuses? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech!

Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. You stand to lose a lot more from Islamic terrorists than you do from Michael Moore.

Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they?re not those evil Christians or Jews. Death at the hand of a Muslim is not nearly as bad as death by a Christian or Jew, right?

Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists, the media, people of America, people of the world?

My dear friend...Your analogy is brilliantly written and so true. The world seems so blind to the threatening black clouds that loom just above filled with extreme hatred by those who are bent on world dominance through the indoctrination into their extreme Islamic beliefs whereas by means of fear, cold blooded murder and assimilation they intend to win their ultimate jihad. When is the Western World going to wake up? These so called Muslims are everywhere and are waiting patiently...planning and have been acting out their aggression. Everyone who is not muslim/moslem according to the Koran is an infidel and an enemy of Islam!!!! When you hear that Islam is for peace...think again...If you believe this then may I suggest that you go and study the Koran for yourself and then you'll get an eye-opener.

These extremists and those who follow the Koran literally look at the Western world and its freedom, liberty and different brands of democracy as evil and from the devil. They hate our freedom...the freedom that our women have to make their own choices...freedom of religion...freedom to pursue justice justly...freedom to elect our political officials...freedom to voice our thoughts and ideas through written and oral communication. They reject the van Goghs, the Jungs, the Piccasos, the Margaret Thatchers, the Rodans, the Spielburgs, the Anthony Hopkins, the Churchills, the Mozarts, the Rock and Jazz musicans of this world...they hate and reject all free thinkers! When will the world wake up???? And stand up to this irrational hostile hatred and say enough is enough.

They naysayers who say, "Oh, you are over dramatizing the situation...there is no real threat of terrorism." Or the other intelligent people who claim the American government crashed our own planes into the Two Towers in N.Y. and the Pentagon in D.C. to kill over 3,000 of their own citizens so they could go to war are like the same people who said that over 5 million Jews weren't genicide by Hitler and the Nazis.
Over 500,000 people thrown into mass graves found in Iraq isn't that big of a deal, bloody torture chambers and people afraid to fight back is no great consequence...right?
Just like Stalin...Hussien was a nice guy...right? Especially when he was lining the pockets of the heads of the U.N., France, Germany and Russia with Oil for Food money...what is 80 Billion Dollars in their pockets when supposedly the children of Iraq were starving and suffering because of the U.S. back sanctions? Now we can see that these leaders weren't being led by their morals and principles of diplomacy and peace when they stood against the United States, the United Kingdom and the rest of the Coalition who wanted to make Sadam Hussien be held accountable by the U.N....do you think greed was the determining factor??? No, only ignorant people would come to those conclusions...right?!
Europe Wake Up!!!! Canada Wake Up!!! Liberals Wake Up!!! Socialists Wake Up!!!

And it couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.

Reporters Trail Badly (Again) in Annual Poll on Honesty and Ethics
By Greg Mitchell
Published: December 07, 2004 11:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - Once again, newspaper reporters score poorly in the annual Gallup Poll, released today, on ?honesty and ethical standards? in various professions, as judged by the American public. They rank even lower than bankers, auto mechanics, elected officials, and nursing-home operators.

To put this in perspective: Newspaper reporters are even less respected than their TV counterparts.

Somehow, however, they top lawyers, car salesmen, and ad directors. And they also edge business executives and congressmen.

Nurses top the list as most honest and ethical.

If there's any good news for newspapers, it's that since 2000, the number of those saying that reporters have high or very high ethical standards has climbed from 16% to 21%. In 2000, reporters were behind even lawyers in that category.

All in all, in the current survey, Gallup found that 5% of the sample gave newspaper journos very high marks for honesty, 16% high, 50% average, and 28% low or very low.

So one positive way to look at it is that 71% said that at least reporters displayed average or above honesty and ethics. Even so, they were way down the list.

At the top, 79% gave nurses high or very high marks. Other categories, in order:

1. Nurses
2. Grade school teachers
3. Druggists, pharmacists
4. Military officers
5. Medical doctors
6. Policemen
7. Clergy
8. Judges
9. Day care providers
10. Bankers
11. Auto mechanics
12. Local officeholders
13. Nursing home operators
14. State officeholders
15. TV Reporters
16. Newspaper reporters
17. Business executives
18. Congressmen
19. Lawyers
20. Advertising practitioners
21. Car salesmen

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1000732750
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14236

The question here is not whether Rumsfeld is an idiot (he is), or whether the troops going to Iraq are getting screwed on equipment (they are), but why the white house and pentagon are upset because a reporter sidestepped thier censorship? The questions the troops asked were MOST pertinent.

(CNN) -- The question a U.S. soldier asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday about the lack of armor on some combat vehicles in Iraq was planted by a newspaper reporter embedded with the soldier's unit, the reporter told colleagues in an e-mail.

Edward Lee Pitts, Chattanooga Times Free Press military affairs reporter, said he wanted to ask the question himself but was denied a chance to speak to Rumsfeld at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting for GIs in Kuwait.

Pitts wrote the e-mail to co-workers at the Tennessee newspaper Wednesday, and it was published Thursday on the Web site of the Poynter Institute, a center for journalistic studies in St. Petersburg, Florida.

"I just had one of my best days as a journalist today," Pitts wrote from Kuwait, where he is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a Tennessee National Guard outfit preparing for deployment to Iraq.

"As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough so I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld."

Soldiers at Camp Buehring, a staging area in the Kuwait desert, peppered Rumsfeld with queries, including one about armored vehicles from Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th. (Full story)

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in a hangar to hear Rumsfeld.

Pitts said he was told only soldiers could ask questions, so he and two GIs "worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have."

To make sure the soldiers were picked, Pitts said he "found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."

Wilson was the second soldier recognized.

"When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees," Pitts wrote, "the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question."

Rumsfeld said armored military vehicles have been brought to the region "from all over the world, from where they're not needed to a place they're needed."

"It's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld said. "It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

Rumsfeld's response was aired repeatedly on news channels, including CNN. The Pentagon held news conferences to discuss the issue.

Even President Bush weighed in, telling reporters at the White House Thursday that the military is working to address the issue, and that he didn't blame the soldier for asking such a tough question.

"If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country, I would want to ask the secretary of defense the same question. And that is, 'Are we getting the best we can get us?' And they deserve the best," Bush said.

In his e-mail, Pitts said he had been "trying to get this story out" since he learned several weeks ago that he would be assigned to an unarmored truck, and the Times Free Press published two stories on the issue.

"But it felt good to hand it off to the national press," Pitts wrote. "I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be too late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after."

Pitts wrote that Wilson told him he "felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad."

Military officials had given the Tennessee Guard unit "reassurance all along that this would be taken care of," said Tom Griscom, the paper's publisher and executive editor.

"We have pictures of soldiers in the 278th literally going through [a] scrap heap" scavenging steel plate for their vehicles, Griscom said.

"They [the soldiers] spoke for themselves," Griscom said.

Griscom said he supported the way Pitts handled the situation.

"Lee called in here yesterday on the [satellite] phone, told us how the questions had unfolded," he said.

"I am supportive of his trying to find a way to get a question asked," Griscom said.

Though there was some discussion at the paper about Pitts' handling of the matter, Griscom said, "I would not start by saying we made a mistake. I personally do not think we made a mistake."

Professor Stuart Loory, who holds the Lee Hills Chair in Free Press Studies at the University of Missouri School of Journalism in Columbia, said he doesn't consider the manner in which the question was asked to be a problem for the reporter.

"Reporters don't have the same access any longer that they did to ask their own questions," he said. "And planting a legitimate question with somebody who may have the access, I think, is an acceptable practice.

"The question is whether or not the soldier who asked the question really believed in it, and my guess is that he did, or he wouldn't have asked it," said Loory, who also is editor in chief of Global Journalist magazine.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita disagreed.

"Town hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense," Di Rita said in a news release.

"... The secretary provides ample opportunity for interaction with the press. It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command."

1- The two soldiers in question were coached in their questions. The questions came not from them but from the reporter that wanted HIS questions answered.

2- Humvees were never designed to be armored. They are simply the evolution of a Jeep. The engineers never designed armor, the military never requested armor - this is a media-inspired event, nothing more, to cast a bad light on the war on terrorism. The production facilities for the Humvees are pumping out as many armored units as they can, increading production 10-fold.

3- The only thing unusual about this particular ?town hall meeting? was the fact that the press was invited. Rumsfeld intended to show that he has nothing to hide - sort of like a ?full public disclosure? kind of thing. The problem with this is obvious. When the cameras are rolling and a soldier stands up and asks why the military isn?t doing anything to properly equip him for war, the anti-war media machine immediately establishes a new "truth" - in this case it?s that the military is not equipping the force. Absolutely no effort is made to fact-check the soldier - his word is taken as pure gospel. Politicians on Capitol Hill start ranting and raving, the pundits weigh in, and the opposition party gleefully waves the "I told you so" banner. All because of one question from a hard-working well-meaning lower enlisted soldier.

4- SPC Wilson is one of those soldiers who likes to take shots at authority figures. His ex-wife said of him, "It wouldn?t matter if it was Bush himself standing there. He would have dissed him the same." This does not mean he?s a bad soldier. It does mean that he?s probably not a good choice to be an Army spokesperson, which is exactly what he became. If Wilson had said anything pro-war the media wouldn't even have reported it. How many media outlets repeated what all the other soldiers had to say at this meeting? Why? This specific soldier said something that fit into the media's pre-conceived agenda - nothing more.

5- 2,300 soldiers in an air hangar and this reporters' flunkie gets asked a question. Coincidence?

6- The question was legitimate. Rumsfeld's answer was legitimate. The problem is that the media quoted the most damaging parts of the question, and quoted the weakest half-sentence of Rumsfeld's 3-4 paragraph answer, thereby making it look like Rumsfeld got "grilled" and couldn't handle it, when in reality he took a tough question and gave a direct and straightforward response that really answered the soldier's concerns.

7- Contrary to what the majot media is saying, there are very different opinions of the Rumsfeld meeting. Sgt. Missick, C-Co., 319th Sig Bn:

8- This is much more a media event than a real issue.