Media Bias, We report - you decide

But I was ALREADY planning to vote for Kerry!
Tell me, do Cheney and his comic sidekick check the backgrounds of all of THEIR donors? Of course not.

The media will spend weeks going through pay stubs for Bush's National Guard service in Alabama in the waning days of war, but if Kerry tells them exotic tales of covert missions into Cambodia directed by Richard Nixon, they don't even bother to fact-check who was president in December 1968.

The Boston Globe biography of Kerry published earlier this year compliantly repeats Kerry's yarn about how he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia "despite President Nixon's assurances that there was no combat action in this neutral territory."

Huh? Kerry was 55 miles away from the Cambodian border on Christmas 1968, and Nixon wasn't president in 1968. But the major media never brought this fact-checking up.

Tom Harkin was shouting this week that Dick Cheney is a "coward," evidently for not fighting in Vietnam like Harkin. Except Harkin didn't fight in Vietnam either. The last time Harkin was bragging about his Vietnam service was in 1984 when he told David Broder of the Washington Post: "I spent five years as a Navy pilot, starting in November of 1962. One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions."

Huh? Harkin had never been in combat in Vietnam, but was based in Japan during the war, ferrying damaged planes from the Saigon airport to Japan for repairs. Oops. Where was the media here?

Then there was Al Gore who, like Kerry, was in Vietnam just long enough to get photos for his future political campaigns. Gore enlisted in the Army in 1970 in order to help his senator dad during an election year. Al was given a cushy job writing for the 'Stars and Stripes' newspaper, a bodyguard, and an exit strategy when dad lost the election. And the media has never complained one bit.

After five months of this dangerous tour of duty Mr. Gore asked to come home - another "short time" veteran. But yet he has been quoted in the media:
- "I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass and I was fired upon." (The Baltimore Sun)
- "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later." (Vanity Fair)
- "I was shot at. I spent most of my time in the field." (The Washington Post)

Where was the media with their searches for medical records and pay stubs? As long as it's a Democrat the media will believe whatever is told them. But a Republican has to prove, and re-prove, any facts he claims.

During World War II, then-congressman Lyndon Johnson went on a single flight ? as an observer ? for which he was awarded the Silver Star by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Only recently has it been exposed that the medal was a complete fraud, probably awarded by MacArthur to curry favor. At the time, no one in the press bothered to investigate why Johnson was the only member of the crew to receive any sort of decoration for the 13-minute flight that never came under enemy fire ? and on which Johnson was merely an "observer." For the rest of his life Johnson got away with wearing what historian David Halberstam called "the least deserved and most proudly displayed Silver Star in military history."

That is until Kerry and major media's selective blindness.

Certainly you've read many stories over the past months about the television advertisements being run by Moveon.org and The Media Fund. But have you ever seen this sentence, or anything like it, in any of those stories?

"Moveon.org, an organization bankrolled by John Kerry supporters ......"

Now you're reading about the television ads being placed by The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In reading those stories how many times have you seen this sentence, or something like it:

"A group of Vietnam veterans bankrolled by George Bush supporters ...."

Do I really have to say any more?

It seems that the only way the media can defend its candidate is to tie any detractors to George Bush. Weak.

The media will eagerly report the Kerry claims that the Bush campaign is behind the Swift Boat Veterans. There is no proof .. but the media will repeat the charge endlessly.

The Bush campaign, though, has released a list of the top 10 connections between John Kerry and the 527s, including: Joe Sandler, who is general counsel to the DNC, while also serving as legal counsel to Moveon.org and Moving America Forward. Also, a Moveon.org staffer recently joined the Kerry campaign as director of online communications and organizing. How's that for extensive connections? There are more, but you get the idea.

These are all extensive connections between the Kerry campaign and Moveon.org, the same group that is smearing President Bush by running ads that lie about his military record in the Texas Air National Guard. These are proven lies, unlike many of the Swift Vets accusations, which Kerry hasn't even responded to.

Where is the media on this? As usual, doing their best to elect Kerry.

I understand that many people do believe that the Swift Boat veterans are telling outrageous lies, but the fact is that many people think they're telling the truth. The book, after all, is number one right now. And just who is doing the backtracking? Hint: It's not the Swift Boat Veterans. All the while the media continues to do their best to shed doubt on the Swiftees while assuming as gospel truth anything coming from the Kerry camp.

Why?

Why? Because the Swift boat folks and their masters in the administration are lying. It is OBVIOUS, DUH!

Thanks, Brother S. I LOVE it when you feed me such good straight lines.....Maybe we should go on the road together.

There is NO media bias whatsoever. Okay, actually there are two media biases, and I prefer to think they cancel each other out.

What's been happening in the Great Media Bias Controversy is that each side is trying to find the speck in the other side's eye, while being blinded with a plank.

I've heard Republicans say they find Fox News fair and balanced, while NPR is liberal. And I've heard Democrats say NPR is fair and balanced, and Fox is conservative. And both sides can prove it.

So it's no surprise that a recent thinktank report (can't remember the source, or else I'd post it) says that both arguments are accurate. There is both a liberal and a conservative bias in the media.

The report pointed out that there is almost no objective reporting anymore. In order to attract more readers/viewers/listeners, the news outlets have adopted a a partisan stance. Now this stance may be subtle or overt, but it's there.

As a result, media watchers on both sides are able to point to a real bias in "the media." And both sides are correct. It's just the other side won't admit it.


Erik Deckers

Erik! You are going to ruin our fun if you keep inserting FACTS into these discussions.
Good post, sir.

Brother Shamalama,

May I suggest that you take a look at the "About Us" section of Move America Forward's web site before you link them with MoveOn.org ?

Move America Forward: About Us

Thanks MDF3530. You actually did your homework and caught what I was trying to say.

There is a wretched disaster known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. There are only so many lawyers that know how it works, and Benjamin Ginsberg is one of them. Benjamin Ginsberg was approached by the Swiftees for advice on how to properly follow the new 527 rules. But Benjamin Ginsberg is/was also a Bush campaign attorney. Therefore, the Swiftees are (in Brother Maisky's words) fascist minions of Bush.

Both the pro-Kerry 527's and the pro-Bush 527's use these few experts on the new campaign finance rules. But only Kerry's claims of collusion are reported by the major media. Only Kerry's claims of Republican wrongdoing are being voiced. Why?

What is so wrong with a group of voters banding together to express an opinion? This is an issue where both Kerry and Bush are dead wrong. There should be no elimination or restriction to the 527's. Geez, the pro-Kerry groups have spent +$60 million in efforts to get you to vote for Kerry and no one, including the media, has uttered a word. Heck, most people hadn't even heard of a 527 group until this week.

But now that a pro-Bush group, one that has spend less than $20 million, has started being noticed Kerry and his "socialist minions" are demanding justice, and that Bush should denounce what they are saying. It took Kerry two months to say anything about MoveOn.org doing that Bush-Hitler ad.

Pure hypocracy here. The 527's, like MoveOn.org, were OK back in the Spring and early Summer. Now only one 527, the Swiftees, and being smeared by both the Kerry camp and the major media. Why?

Kerry people have been helping the pro-Kerry 527's, and that's OK. Bush people have been helping the pro-Bush 527's, and it's immoral if not illegal. Why?

Soros has given at least $12.6 million to Democratic groups working to beat Bush, and he's OK - he's never mentioned. But that mysterious "Texas homebuilder" that gave money to the Swiftees has been mentioned many times over the last two weeks. Why?

deckers, with all due respect sir, you are both right and wrong. True, there is bias in every media outlet because every journalist has their own personal agenda and most editors have their own agendas. But there is little "cancelling each other out". CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN have carried a left slant for years. Only Fox News carries a right slant. The playing field is far from being leveled.

And Dear Brother Maisky, it is MoveOn.org and their comrades in the Kerry camp that are lying. It is OBVIOUS, DUH! (why does he feed me such good straight lines?).

Here's some stuff I found just for new Brother Deckers and his claim of "there are two media biases, and I prefer to think they cancel each other out." This is from the Boston Globe online edition, hardly a bastion of conservative views, and Kerry's hometown newspaper.

---

Some of Kerry's biggest fans are in the press
Not much doubt who the media wants to win

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | August 24, 2004

With the exception of the Fox News Channel, the liberal tilt of the mainstream media - the major newspapers, the networks, National Public Radio, the news magazines - has long been a fact of American life. No one observing the coverage of this year's presidential campaign with both eyes open can have much doubt that the media establishment is pulling heavily for the Democratic ticket.

That explains why, for example, the intense media interest in George W. Bush's National Guard records last February wasn't matched by an equally intense interest in John Kerry's Navy history in May, when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first went public with their criticisms. Far from leaping on the charges that Kerry's Vietnam heroism had been greatly exaggerated, the mainstream media's initial reaction was to largely ignore them. And while the press saw no reason to question the credibility of Bush's accusers or to demand that Kerry repudiate them, their attitude toward the Swift Boat vets has been much more hostile.

None of this should come as a surprise. The nation's newsrooms are Democratic strongholds, and that cannot help but affect their coverage of the news. Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of Newsweek, put it plainly last month.

"Let's talk a little media bias here," he said on the PBS program 'Inside Washington' on July 11. "The media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards . . . as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." Just how lopsided is the pro-Kerry bias? When New York Times reporter John Tierney surveyed reporters covering the Democratic National Convention last month, the results were striking.

"We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington," he wrote on Aug. 1. "When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...e_in_the_press/

You're welcome, Brother Shamalama.

BTW, I noticed you left out MSNBC, Matt Drudge, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and virtually all of talk radio when you mentioned the right wing media outlets. Please don't forget this in the future.

MSNBC? They've only got 387 viewers - hardly worth mentioning.

Drudge? He's currently getting 9 million hits per day. I would think that ABC has quite a bit more viewers during only one hour of their nightly broadcast. That doesn't include their morning programs, or their "newsmagazine" thingies.

The New York Post and the Washington Times are cancelled out by their local competitors. No score there.

The Wall Street Journal has always been conservative. The smart money people usually are. But the WSJ is more about dollars than they are about politics (until it is perceived to touch their money) - most people don't read the WSJ for political commentary.

I don't know anything about the Chicago market.

Virtually all of talk radio? Wow, you really think that there are that many people that still listen to AM radio in their cars while driving home in the afternoon? And Rush, the Godfather of right-wing radio, is on during the day, when most people are at work. Who is listening to him?

Take everything you've mentioned and you'll probably equal one of the major broadcast media outlets. I mentioned four of them. Also remember that the explosion of right-wing radio, Drudge, and Fox News are less than 10 years old - the liberal slant on mainstream media has been going on for decades.

As I said, the playing field is far from being leveled, but considering how much the liberals are afraid today, it's going to be fun once it is. Thank heaven for cable TV and the internet!

I don't doubt for a minute that journalists -- the actual writers, reporters, etc. -- are Democrat.

However, I've heard similar surveys that show a majority of the publishers and editors are Republican.

My point is that for every newspaper you find that is liberal, I can find a conservative one. For every conservative radio talk show you can find, I can find. . . well, there's just the Air America network, but you get my point.

And for every liberal TV anchor you find (Dan Rather), I can find a conservative one (like Tom Brokaw, who when Rush Limbaugh called him a liberal in one of his books, Brokaw got pissed and corrected him. Limbaugh had to apologize).

You'll never convince me that there is NOT a conservative bias in the media. It's there, and I see it. But I also agree that there is a liberal bias in the media. You can't convince me there's not one of those either.

Which is more prevalent? I don't think we'll ever know. For starters, we would have to have an independent think tank decide a research methodology we could all agree on. Then they would have to examine every political news story on TV, radio, and in the newspaper for the 2 years leading up to an election and 1 year after.

Ann Coulter does this, but she only picks on liberal outlets. Al Franken does this, but he only picks on conservative outlets. Their arguments are pretty much unencumbered by logic and rationality, and usually end up being the "Oh yeah?! Well YOU'RE stupid!!" type.

It's like if Coulter can prove there is a liberal bias, then it must follow that there is no conservative bias. So Franken goes out to prove the opposite.

And it just goes round and round and round, and neither of them win. Okay, so maybe WE win, because it's pretty freakin' entertaining, but they'll never settle it.


Erik Deckers

This one is turning out to be very tasty.

CBS News had a much-heralded investigative report on Wednesday night's edition of "60 Minutes II" about the president's National Guard service in the early 1970s.

The focus of the show was "previously unseen documents . . . obtained by '60 Minutes,' " as the network bragged Wednesday night on its Web site. Their author, supposedly, was Bush's squadron commander, Jerry Killian, who died 20 years ago.

They "include a memorandum from May 1972," CBS reports, "where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about 'how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November.' " A document dated "18 August 1973" complains that Killian is being asked to "sugar coat" Bush's record. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job," the document says.

One of the documents is an official order to Bush to report for a physical, which never was carried out.

CBS made the four documents available in their original form on its Web site Wednesday night. Copies of these documents are at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections...shGuardDocs.PDF

BUT . . .

It is starting to appear that these four documents were forgeries.

- The spacing between the letters and the words was proportional, and only a very few IBM electric typewriters could achieve that effect back then.
- The documents contain superscript lettering which was not available to electronic typewriters in the 1970's.
- The documents contain curly quotation marks which were not available to electronic typewriters in the 1970's.
- The documents have "proportional spacing," which was on very few typewriters in the 1970's.
- The number "4" in the documents does not have a "foot" and has a "closed top," which is indicative of the Times New Roman font, a font exclusive to modern computer word processing programs.
- One of the documents lists the squadron's address as a P.O. box, and that the numbers are surprisingly sequential - standard military practice has always been to place the actual physical address on the letterhead.

These lead a rational person to conclude that these "1972-1973 documents typed by Bush's squadron commander" are in fact fakes done on modern word processors.

The author of the weblog "Little Green Footballs" wrote: "I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft's Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date '18 August 1973,' then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian. And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as 'authentic.'"

Killian's son, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, also told ABC News Radio that he doubts his father wrote the documents. "It was not the nature of my father to keep private files like this, nor would it have been in his own interest to do so," he said. "We don't know where the documents come from," he said, adding, "They didn't come from any family member."

Marjorie Connell, widow of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, questioned whether the documents were real. "The wording in these documents is very suspect to me," she told ABC News Radio in an exclusive phone interview from her Texas home. She added that she "just can't believe these are his words."

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan suggested the memos surfaced as part of "an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the Kerry campaign to tear down the president." I believe we can add CBS to that list.

CBS has said there will be no investigation as to the authenticity of these documents. Dan Rather is personally vouching for the documents, and has said he will not reveal his sources.

But why would CBS go to all the trouble of having this the focus of a much-hyped investigative report without first contacting Killian's widow, or his son? Is it because Dan Rather himself created these fakes?

Or did they come from either the Kerry camp or the Democratic Party, and Rather will not expose his good friends?

Some convervatives have suggested that Ben Barnes, former Texas Lt. Governor and current anti-Bush media darling, may have a hand in this hoax.

Remember that ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN all spent a good portion of Wednesday all but convinced that "Bush lied, and these documents prove it". None of the networks had apparently done any research or fact-checking, but that didn't stop them from televising "the fact that Bush lied". And yes, these are the same networks that, from May to August, ignored or disparaged charges against Kerry by his fellow Swift Boat veterans.

In the American mainstream media if you criticize a Republican you're simply doing your duty to inform the people, and facts and fact-checking are unimportant. If you criticize a Democrat then you're smearing them and using dirty-tricks, and facts are simply assumed to be lies.

Then how do you explain those records were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request?

Also, did the thought that his records could've been entered into a computer database at a later date occur to you? Government offices are doing that now.

It is definitely a forgery. People just don't put this sort of stuff in memos. If there was going to be any "sugar coating" it would have been done over the phone or in person.

And, who the heck was George Bush in the early 70's - nobody! Commander would not waste his time on such matters, especially with Vetinam going on.

Then the superscript. Its interesting that on some of the titles it is not superscript, but perhaps their focus was not clear as they created the memo. I believe this was forged by 1 person and then passed off as authenticate. If it was more than 1 person they would have proofed read to death the document and pointed out this.

In any event, whether it is Kerry or Bush, it does not matter. This is an assault on the American people to try and influence an election. My own personal opinion, while meaningless, is they should track down who did this and let him spend some time in a nice cold dark cell with creepy crawlys on the walls.