Posted on 02/16/2004 6:17:55 AM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
I was watching C-SPAN on Sunday morning and the N.Y. Times Marketing Service had a panel on to discuss “media bias.” The panel was described as containing the “sharpest minds” and a “wealth of wits.” The panel was supposed to be made up of two conservatives and two liberals with one Patti Cohen moderating between the two sides. The panel was made up of Al Franken, Eric Alterman, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson. Right then and there I knew Franken was going to sideline the debate with his obnoxious witticisms, Alterman was going to drown us by repeatedly referencing to “rightwing,” Ingraham would half-heartedly be stuck responding to the two liberals, and Carlson would be agreeing with his liberal counterparts with minor conservative points.
If you wanted to really get a thorough conservative take on the media having a liberal bias, why not bring Brent Bozell from the Media Research Center? He has been monitoring, tracking, and arguing about liberal bias in media, however, he has set up a secondary web site to monitor to specifically monitor bias at the N.Y. Times. So I suppose that the N.Y. times setting up the discussion, with this kind of panel, would have a vested interest in not having a critic like Bozell in such a discussion because he can present a vast array of bias in a very articulate manner.
Anyhow, the discussion led with Alterman bemoaning the “conservative media,” which he claimed is more powerful. Then he chided it the typical liberal catechism that it’s less “open-minded.” Evidently supporting the constitutional right to bear arms, wanting tax cuts and lots of them, wanting limited government, and wanting a strong military to combat, say terrorism, is not indicative of open-mindedness. Maybe the culprit here is his own rigid, narrow left wing views. It was shameless reinforcement of his twisted viewpoint and it was completely irrelevant to media bias.
The crowning piece of evidence for this vast, powerful “conservative media” was to start out by saying William Safire writes for the N.Y. Times. I’m just wondering why Safire is deemed a “conservative,” but he voted for Bill Clinton. What about the rest of the N.Y. Times Editorial Page? From Krugman on down it is wall-to-wall liberalism. Of course I don’t recall him meeting any resistance on that example. He did cite Carlson, another liberal approved “conservative” as an example of the “powerful conservative media.” This is just absurdity.
He moves on to say that the N.Y. Times endorsed Governor Pataki, but they haven’t endorsed a republican presidential candidate in the past 50 years as some conservatives have noted. More importantly, who would claim Pataki is a “conservative.” He sides with liberals on a host of issues such as abortion. Yeah, and liberals like Alterman also want you to believe Jeffords was a moderate republican. Of course he wasn’t challenged on these examples, but he went on to proclaim these “powerful” conservatives who make people “believe their propaganda” were cowing the media.
So, to cap it up, his examples were erroneous, unchallenged, and he basically alluded to some fictional “media” found in examples such as Carlson, Safire, and Pataki. It was a whole lot of loaded rhetoric and a whole lot of nothing. They pointed out he is the author of, “What Liberal Media?” and this was the shoddy opening.
Carlson, as I alluded to, didn’t challenge his examples. He made the point that journalists have these liberal ideologies, but then he made a powerful argument - he doesn’t think they conspire to help the democrats. Wow! This is who conservatives had to count on to voice their side of the argument. Remember Clinton blaming Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City Bombing? Dan Rather, Bryant Gumbel, and others clearly echoed him. This is just one example, but Carlson doesn’t believe any of them.
Franken admitted he parroted what Alterman says “with jokes.” He follows up with this “no bias” in media. In his books he admits a bias, but like other liberals he uses this excuse that they “know” gay people and aren’t “afraid of them.” One wonders why they chose a self-described “satirist” to discuss media bias. He briefly mentions the debacle over Clinton and Monica being covered 24, 7. I remember Hollywood actresses saying they wanted to take Monica’s place, Linda Tripp was viciously derided for being among many things “ugly,” and Dan Rather still maintains Clinton is “honest.” A sitting president sodomizing an intern barely older than his daughter in the oval office was outrageous and warranted coverage, but the coverage had a liberal media bias while he argues covering it period is bias the other way around. Also, there was the matter of obstruction, perjury, and bribery.
Not surprisingly Franken ranted about Fox News being “right wing.” He trotted out a quote from Brit Hume. It was a quote about statistics using the murder rates in the U.S. in California versus the stats on troops in Iraq getting killed - Hume says they’re safer statistically. Hume was trying to make a point, however poorly made, that things weren’t as bad over there as the other outlets were claiming. He prattled on using that to call Fox “shameless,” to make a point that they were “right wing,” and even called Fox News a “tool of Bush’s Administration.”
Laura Ingraham pointed out that a survey showed 43% believe there is a liberal media bias. She pointed out that on NBC, CBS, and CNN, that they lack ideological diversity and have this narrow liberal agenda. She also pointed to Rooney, a liberal, admitting Dan Rather is “transparently liberal.” Then she cited that the editor of the L.A. Times had to urge his underlings to be objective after finding they were biased and slanted towards the pro-choice side of the debate. All and all, she made some good points and then she fell into the Carlson argument that Fox News slants a little to the right, but she followed up that the rest are liberal.
Alterman then admitted that socially there is a liberal media bias. You know - abortions, gays, and so on. Then he just repeats the accusation of a “powerful conservative media” coupled with saying they pushing this angle and that it somehow driven by big bucks. The public is being misled according to Alterman with the same loaded rhetoric, not even a fraudulent example this time, and he concedes a bias on “social issues.”
Al Franken brought up examples based on some survey or poll on “misperceptions about Iraq.” He listed three points: Iraq and al-Qaeda being connected, I believe he sad Muslim support for the war, and WMDs. Bodansky’s book connects al-Qaeda and Iraq, the London Telegraph found documents, and a lawsuit filed demonstrated among other things that Iraq had foreknowledge of 9/11. Of course his angle is an example of bias. The news networks or Fox News aired neither of those points.
As for the second charge, since I’m hazy on my recollection of what it was, I’ll refrain from it. As for WMDs, intelligence from around the world, the U.N. and in the U.S. concluded he had them. Clinton, Daschle, and other democrats said he had them. We’ve got millions of documents to pour through, Saddam had a year to hide them well, Saddam could have shipped them out of the country, and so on. The misperception comes from these reactionary morons who all of a sudden claim he didn’t have them.
Franken went on to say 80%, for example, of Fox viewers believe Iraq and al-Qaeda were connected and he added Fox Viewers are “dumb.” Of course the misperceptions was this “Saddam is secular and Bin Laden is religious” angle that the media, liberals, and others regurgitated every time the topic came up. Needless to say, Fox viewers were being called “stupid” and NPR viewers were being called “smart” based on this flimsy, BS assertion. The crowd applauded Franken predictably.
Carlson didn’t challenge any of these alleged “misperceptions.” He simply pointed out Fox has, “at the most, 2 million viewers,” and he pointed out the broadcast networks have 13 million. His big retort consisted of saying Coulter, who he described as a “thin blond,” represents a “small segment” and that they [Alterman and Franken] think she represents a large portion of America or conservatives. It was his big appeasement move - he minimized Coulter and brushed her off. Of course this is the “conservative” offering his “retort” to Franken and Alterman in a discussion about bias in the media brought to you by the N.Y. Times. Alterman echoed himself and talked about the public being “misled” on things such as the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection.
Then Carlson went on to make this point that a lot of news comes out of the wire service and that there isn’t time for any thing to be injected into it even though the AP has proven it can insert its bias. He said Bush and the Administration can release something and that you have to blame Bush? So he said blame Bush, not the media, for misleading people.
Ingraham did point out the nuts on the left. She just made the point that viewers are tired of the establishment media, which is very true, and made a point that she tried to give both sides on her show and she invites liberals on. She also raised the fact that NPR is liberal and it has 750 stations. Franken of course says that you can’t compare NPR to Limbaugh. Of course you can that one leans right and one leans left, but I guess he is right in the sense that NPR is overtly liberal and won’t admit it. NPR is partially funded with your tax dollars.
I’m sad to say this was the gist, a recap of some of what I recalled from the event, and as you can see this appears to be a concoction by the Times to pit a childish “satirist” against a spineless Carlson was agreeing or appeasing him. If they were serious, they would have had on Bozell and Savage (or how about Limbaugh) and they wouldn’t have bothered with Franken. The entire discussion seemed to be Franken and Alterman decrying the war in Iraq and even the host said it was obvious. It just confirms the bias of the Times. I also forgot to mention an encounter where Franken was making deliberate faces, like Gore did during the first debate, and Ingraham zinged him with a Stuart Smalley crack.
Tell it like it was... the fat little nazi was 'aping' her. Franken is a socialist thug who yearns to have lived in pre-war Germany. He's nothing more than a beer-hall buffoon and a failed comedy writer.
Garbage like him were abound in Rohms 'brownshirts' and in the gay-clubs of Berlin. A frustrated small man in size and mind
Thanks for the report.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.