Media Bias, We report - you decide

The Associated Press sued the Pentagon and the Air Force on Tuesday, seeking access to all records of George W. Bush's military service during the Vietnam War.

Filed in federal court in New York, where the AP is headquartered, the lawsuit seeks access to a copy of Bush's microfilmed personnel file from the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in Austin.

The White House says the government has already released all the records of Bush's military service.

OK. Fine and dandy. But will the AP ever sue the Pentagon seeking access to all records of John Kerry's military service during the Vietnam War?

Why not?

Because Kerry wasn't a deserting draft dodger?

And Kerry didn't fake his Purple Stars?

There's all this buzz about Bush lying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The liberals blast Bush's assertion that al Qaeda and Iraq have been linked for years.

OK, so why doesn't anyone cry out "Clinton lied"? Well, we all know that he DID lie to a federal grand jury, but what did Clinton say about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq?

---

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624...12921-3401r.htm

---

If Bush lied, then so did a bunch of other people over the last several years. Or maybe it's the case that Bush didn't really lie.

The media outlets are determined to do absolutely everything they can to turn the public against George Bush during this election year.

Following the formal handover of sovereignty to Baghdad, 15 Iraqi and Iraqi-American groups have issued an open letter to the American people, thanking them for the sacrifices they endured to liberate their country.

The letter will be delivered to President Bush at the White House today and published in a full page ad in USA Today.

"Just as we mourn for the victims of Saddam's regime, we also grieve for the Americans and Iraqis who were killed or injured during the liberation or by terrorists determined to hold us back," the letter reads. "We will honor those who have sacrificed for our freedom by building a new Iraq that lives in peace with the nations of the world, without fear of war, torture chambers or terrorism."

The groups express the Iraqi people's hopes as they transition to democracy and calls for continued cooperation and friendship between the two nations.

It concludes: "As Iraqis assume full sovereignty over our nation, we extend our hands in friendship and gratitude to the American people."

"The sacrifices your sons and daughters made for our liberation will never be forgotten. Without those brave young men and women, this day might never have come."

The letter was organized by the Iraq-America Friendship Alliance

---

Watch and see how much the media covers this story. Or how little. Remember the template: if it makes Bush look good, then bury the story; if it makes Bush look bad, then run it daily.

Ugh. Either the media is completely ignorant, or they're liars, or they simply want Bush out of office.

NBC?s Tom Brokaw introduced his interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi by marveling at how he "still believes that Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda." When Allawi expressed that view during the interview aired on Monday?s NBC Nightly News, Brokaw scoffed and corrected him: "Prime Minister, I?m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission in America says there is no evidence of a 'collaborative relationship? between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaeda." But Allawi stood his ground: "I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaeda. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September atrocities or not, I can?t vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists."

(1.) There is growing evidence that there has been a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda for years. Even Allawi recognizes that. Saddam and al Qaeda are parts in the overall war on terror.
(2.) There is no evidence that there has been a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Al Qaeda hit the World Trade Towers, not Saddam. We -might- discover a link later, but there's nothing today to link Saddam with 9/11.

We went to Iraq for the war on terror, not 9/11. Bush has never said nor implied that Iraq was connected to 9/11. Period. Non-debatable. So Brokaw's statement of "I?m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq" is factually incorrect in that Allawi never said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq; he said "Saddam was connected to al-Qaeda." Al Qaeda, in their jihad against America, is quilty of far more than just 9/11; 9/11 was just "the straw that broke the camel's back".

Again, either the media is completely ignorant, or they're liars, or they simply want Bush out of office. Either way NBC?s Tom Brokaw is not broadcasting the news, but rather an agenda.

This is the same tactic that the GOP media arm of Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox "News", and the Washington Times used against Clinton. What's the matter, you don't like the taste of your own medicine?

It's hard for me to comment about then, because (gasp) I was actually hoping that Clinton hadn't lied to the federal grand jury. I didn't think 'ole Bill was that bad of a guy until he sat in front of a TV screen and told me (and the other 250,000,000 of us) that he didn't diddle with a 20-year-old intern, and that his testimony was factual. I watched that telecast, and I remember turning to my bride and saying, "He just drew a line in the sand."

Lo, and behold, Drudge was right. Several media outlets knew of the story months earlier and had buried it. Some people think that's lying.

Today these same media outlets are still bending, distorting, and hiding the truth, Tom Brokaw included. Some people think that's lying.

Brokaw purposefully twisted Allawi's words to suit Brokaw's own aganda. That is not a characteristic of a journalist.

"Prime Minister, I?m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq." Tommie Boy, Allawi never said there was a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

"The 9/11 Commission in America says there is no evidence of a 'collaborative relationship? between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaeda." Tommie Boy, the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, said "There were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that." Even Clinton, twice, publically claimed there was an al Qaeda-Iraq connection.

Tom, you're supposed to be Journalist #1 at NBC news and you can't even get these two facts straight? Or are you lying? Or do you simply want Bush out of office so bad that you'll do 'whatever it takes'?

It's not news. It's an agenda. Whether it's a "taste of my own medicine" or not, it's still lying, and it's still wrong.

Whatever happened to telling the ENTIRE truth and letting the people decide for themselves? What are NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN scared of?

They are telling the whole truth and people are deciding for themselves.

NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are scared of the same thing most intelligent people are of: FOUR MORE YEARS OF AN INCOMPETENT MIDDLE-AGED FRATBOY IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

You forgot "Draft Dodger, Deserter and War Criminal".

Sorry, my bad .

?It is one of President Bush?s last surviving justifications for war in Iraq and today it took a devastating hit when the 9/11 Commission declared there was no ?collaborative relationship? between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden....The report is yet another blow to the President?s credibility.? ? John Roberts on the June 16 CBS Evening News.

Peter Jennings: ?One of the Bush administration?s most controversial assertions in its argument for war in Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaeda. Today the 9/11 Commission said, unequivocally, not so....?
Terry Moran: ?After the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq undermined President Bush?s main argument for going to war, this new finding by the 9/11 Commission challenges his case on another front.? ? ABC?s World News Tonight, June 16.

?The 9/11 Commission also has come to some conclusions about the link, or the absence of it, between Iraq and al-Qaeda....The Commission is sharply at odds with what leading members of the administration continue to claim.? ? Tom Brokaw on the June 16 NBC Nightly News.

?Memo to the Vice President: 9/11 Commission finds, quote, ?no credible evidence,? unquote, of any link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.? ? MSNBC?s Keith Olbermann on Countdown, June 16.

?Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie.? ? Front-page headline in the New York Times, June 17.

?Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed.? ? Headline in the June 17 Washington Post.

?Everything?s been built on lies. Everything! I mean, the entire pre-text for war.? ? Former 60 Minutes correspondent Meredith Vieira, now a co-host of ABC?s The View, June 17.


::::::AND NOW THE TRUTH:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Chairman Thomas Kean: ?Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there?s no question they were there....?

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton: ?I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?s government. We don?t disagree with that....It seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.?

These were the two top members of the 9/11 Commission at a June 17 press conference. Maybe they should have sent an email to CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

Did CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post simply make an honest mistake? Sloppy journalism? A rush to publish?

Or did CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post already know the findings and chose instead to lie? The ends justify the means when you're demanding anybody but Bush, huh?

"They are telling the whole truth and people are deciding for themselves." Oh please. And Clinton didn't inhale.

The media has a left slant. The numbers show it, and more American's are realizing it.

- The Brookings Institution?s Stephen Hess surveyed the Washington press corps in 1978 for his aptly-titled book, The Washington Reporters. More than twice as many journalists told Hess they were liberal (42 percent) as said they were conservative (19 percent). As for the public, even back in 1978 self-identified conservatives outnumbered liberals by a 31 to 26 percent margin, according to the General Social Survey taken annually by the National Opinion Research Center.

- A pair of Indiana University journalism professors, David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, surveyed more than 1,000 journalists for their 1986 book, The American Journalist. Their poll included more than just top reporters, and, overall, they detected only a modest skew towards the liberal side of the spectrum ? 22 percent of those interviewed called themselves liberal, compared with 19 percent who said they were conservative. But among 136 executives and staffers at ?prominent news organizations? ? the three weekly newsmagazines, the AP and UPI wire services and the Boston Globe ? the tilt was much more pronounced, with liberals outnumbering conservatives by a more than two-to-one margin (32 to 12 percent). Only six percent of this group identified themselves as Republican, compared with seven times as many (43 percent) who said they were Democrats.

- When the Los Angeles Times polled journalists around the country in 1985, 55 percent were willing to call themselves liberal, far outstripping the 17 percent who said they were conservative.

- In 1992, Weaver and Wilhoit conducted another national survey of journalists, and noticed the group had moved farther to the left. Writing in the Fall 1992 Media Studies Journal, they pointed out that 47 percent of journalists now said they were ?liberal,? while only 22 percent labeled themselves as ?conservative.?

- The Freedom Forum?s 1996 poll of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents found 61 percent labeled themselves as ?liberal? or ?liberal to moderate,? compared with only nine percent who chose either ?conservative? or ?moderate to conservative.?

- As for the notion that business reporters might be more conservative than their brethren on the political beat, that possibility was put to rest by a 1988 poll by a New-York based newsletter, The Journalist and Financial Reporting. The survey of 151 business reporters from newspapers such as the New York Times and USA Today, and business-focused magazines such as Money, Fortune and BusinessWeek, discovered six times as many self-identified Democrats as Republicans ? 54 percent versus nine percent.

- In 1996, the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 journalists at 61 newspapers. They learned that newsrooms were more ideologically unrepresentative than they had been in the late 1980s: ?In 1996 only 15 percent of the newsroom labeled itself conservative/Republican or leaning in that direction, down from 22 percent in 1988,? when the ASNE last conducted a comprehensive survey. Those identifying themselves as independent jumped from 17 to 24 percent while the percent calling themselves ?liberal/Democrat? or leaning left held steady, down one point to 61 percent.

- In the July/August 2001 edition of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research?s journal Public Perspective, Washington Post national political reporter Thomas Edsall summarized the results of a poll of 301 media professionals taken earlier that year by Princeton Survey Research Associates (PRSA) and sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation. ?The media diverge from both the public and from the policymaking community in terms of partisanship and ideology,? Edsall reported. ?Only a tiny fraction of the media identifies itself as either Republican (4 percent) or conservative (6 percent). This is in direct contrast to the public, which identifies itself as 28 percent Republican and 35 percent conservative.?

- In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a survey of 547 journalists and news media executives, including 247 who worked for national news organizations. The poll reprised many of the questions asked by the same group (then called the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) back in 1995. Pew found that the proportion of liberals in the national media had actually grown over the previous nine years, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of conservatives remained minuscule: just four percent in 1995, seven percent in 2004. As for local reporters, liberals outnumbered conservatives by a nearly two-to-one margin (23 to 12 percent).

- A Pew survey conducted in the final weeks of the 2000 campaign showed further deterioration in the media?s public image. According to the report, ?over the past eight years, there has been an increase in the number of voters who say that reporters often allow their political preferences to shape news coverage. Fully 57 percent of voters hold that view now, compared to 49 percent in September 1992. Nearly nine in ten (89 percent) say that journalists at least sometimes let their political views affect coverage, while just 9 percent say this seldom or never occurs.? As the earlier surveys had shown, much more of the public detected a pro-liberal tilt than a pro-conservative skew in the press. ?Twice as many voters [47 percent] say the media is pulling for a Gore victory compared to those who think the media is hoping for a Bush win [23 percent],?the survey revealed.

- A Gallup poll conducted in February 2003 asked whether, ?In general, do you think the news media are ? too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?? As the other polls had discovered, far more respondents identified liberal bias as the problem (45 percent) as worried about a conservative tilt (15 percent), while just 36 percent said coverage was about right.

- In their 1986 book, The Media Elite, political scientists S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda S. Lichter reported the results of their survey of 240 journalists at the nation?s top media outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. When asked about their voting patterns, journalists admitted their preference for Democrats: "Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent. In 1972, when more than 60 percent of all voters chose Nixon, over 80 percent among the media elite voted for McGovern. This does not appear to reflect any unique aversion to Nixon. Despite the well-publicized tensions between the press and his administration, leading journalists in 1976 preferred Carter over Ford by the same margin. In fact, in the Democratic landslide of 1964, journalists picked Johnson over Goldwater by a sixteen-to-one margin, or 94 to 6 percent."

Bottom line: most of the media, televised, printed, and published online, have a distinctive liberal slant in their reporting. Their views shape what you see or read. Their facts, or those facts left out, help shape what the viewers read and hear. The media has an agenda, one that mainstream America doesn't have.

As near as I can make out: Anybody who is smart/and/or educated leans to the left.

How about using numbers from today of the supposed "liberal" media, rather than numbers that are 25 or 30 years old?

BTW, the reporters report. It's the editors that decide what make it to print.

???

- In the July/August 2001 edition ...
- In May 2004 ...
- the final weeks of the 2000 campaign ...
- in February 2003 ...

I tried to get a cross section of the last 30 years, both recent and past. Did I not succeed?

Geez, that darn Brother Maisky is trying his best to make me pop an artery. Nah, the statements are all of the media, not of doctors/lawyers/scientists, etc. The only logical conclusion that can be made is to media types, not smart or educated (since it's neither the case that 'all smart/educated are media types', or 'all media types are smart/educated'; Logic 101: subset P != subset Q). Nice try, but it missed "just a bit to the left".