Skip to comments.Bush supporters renew vigor in lambasting media
Posted on 07/04/2004 10:08:34 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
WASHINGTON - With the presidential election likely to turn on developments in Iraq and the U.S. economy, one of the summer's hottest political issues is whether news-media coverage of those topics is fair or biased.
That's nothing new, but what's different is the renewed vigor of conservatives angry at the media and saying so, in e-mails to journalists, letters to the editor and even in social settings with news executives. Last month Brent Bozell, a conservative activist, launched a $2.8 million advertising and talk-radio campaign to discredit what he says is an anti-Bush bias in newspapers and television news. His conservative Media Research Center is running newspaper and billboard ads depicting a stern-faced Uncle Sam warning: ``Don't believe the liberal media!''
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
This guy's a little behind the curve.
In fact, many news organizations, including the New York Times, have been examining their coverage of the run-up to the war, wondering whether they accepted too easily unverified assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Do they still believe there were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion?
Back at home, while the economy is indisputably strengthening, not all Americans sense the improvements, a perception rooted in much more than news media coverage. In a new survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and Republican pollster Ed Goeas, 45 percent said they knew someone who would been out of work in the past year.
You mean 55% of us don't know anyone who has been out of work in the past year? I know a woman who quit her job and hasn't gone back to work yet. Does that make me think President Bush is doing a bad job on the economy? Actually this statistic and this spin tells me a) the 5.6% unemployment number may be overstated, and b) this editorial is a good example of liberal bias in the media.
In other breaking news, sun rises in east.
BTW, the second time I went to the site I had to register. But not the first time.
I can't get in at all.
Thanks for posting this. It served as a reminder for me to opt in with the Media Research Center.
An alternative route is to go to http://www.mercurynews.com, scroll down to Opinion on the left border, click on Perspective and then click on the second article.
Presence of Malice.
No, leftwing bias is very clear as it has been for decades. Only now there are other sources for news that make the inherent bias of the major media even more evident. Skewed coverage of Iraq and the economy are only subsets of a more pervasive bias that the liberal media is still reluctant to acknowledge.
The SJ Mercury news is a super lib rag. I can't read it without getting fired up
Let's see.... Wall Street Journal and New York Post are essentially the only growing papers in the country, all the others are losing subscribers quickly. NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times are all on bad spirals down.
It's not just "Bush supporters" that are disgusted with the liberal media, average customers are seeing themselves.
The media's bias is at an unprecendented level. What's most disturbing about it isn't the fact that they are just blatantly dishonest...but that they are deceptively nuanced and discriminatory in their analysis and straight news coverage.
As this author notes, while the economy is "indisputabley strengthening," it is still the media that is running around and focusing on the minority of those discontent. There would be no problem with this except that when there is a democrat in the White House, the media never shows that same discontent. In fact, during the 8-years of Clinton, you would've thought that homelessness and poverty were things of the past..even thought those numbers rose during Clinton's first-term.
Bush is fighting a war on terror that has severe national security implications. Despite that, this media has shown the greatest skeptisism as they have also continually misrepresented simple facts. From Bush's "16-words" to the recent flap over the 9/11 Commission's "staff" report, the media has intentionally misled the American people.
While the initial intentions of the war in Iraq had little to do with Saddam's inhumanity to his...and other's, people, it is the height of hypocrisy that a media would support a war in Kosovo (and all of Yuogoslavia) based on the claims of genocide and mass-graves, and then turn a blind-eye to even worse atrocity in Iraq.
It's ironic that a media would help justify a war in Kosovo based on claims of 100,000 mass-graves...having never been found, and yet try to descedit the war in Iraq, where at least 300,000 mass-graves have been found. With Saddam's long history of aggression towards his people, neighbors and the US...I'd say that Saddam posed a greater threat to this country than Slobo ever did. You wouldn't know that, though, as our media has deceptively manipulated the news and ignored any incriminating evidence to point to Saddam's guilt.
Even this week, as Saddam made his first appearance in court, all the media could talk about was Saddam's claim that Bush was the criminal...as the news media never informed the viewer of just what atrocities Saddam was guilty of. WMDs, the WOT, violations of UN resolutions, the threat Saddam posed the US, etc., may have been why we went to war...but the main reason he is being tried in Iraq by Iraqis is because of the atrocities he committed against them and others.
As the Nuremberg Trials proceeded, the people of the world were reminded of the Nazi's brutallity, as video after video was shown of atrocities committed against the Jews. I have yet to see an indepth news story on the mass-graves being exhumed in Iraq...even though they've been doing this work for well over a year in the presence of that same media.
Instead of interviews with family members, weeping at the grave-sides of their loved-ones...speaking ill of Saddam, we get a news report from a call-in talk radio show that 41% of the callers wanted Saddam released. This isn't just deceptive...it's disgusting. The media will intentionally confuse our reasons for deposing Saddam (WMDs, UN violations, national security, etc) and the reasons he is on trial in Iraq. In doing this, they will essentially be trying to marginalize the real death and damage Saddam caused.
I guarnatee that the Left in this country...along with their media brethren, are just drooling over the prospect that Saddam will somehow implicate Bush and America, so they can use him to do their dirty work for them.
The media will happily report every word out of Saddam's mouth as gospel, while of course, dismissing or completely ignoring the evidence that points to this tyrants guilt and crimes against all of humanity. And these people have the nerve to thing that there ISN'T a liberal bias in the media. Please!
I also think people should start mentioning that on election night, that any state that is too close to call, they should know Bush has won it. We all know that Gore's states were called the minute the polls closed, but red state decisions were not called for a long time.
I think if that message can sink in across the country, the media may actually try to be a little more cautious in their pronouncements.
Some further thoughts: The liberal media begins from the assumption that Bush is wrong, and sees it as their duty to prove that assumption by any means available. Just like Billy Jeff Clinton, who perhaps understands them best, for the liberal media truth is only valuable when it can be used as a tool for accomplishing an agenda. Truth is what you want it to be and reality always nuanced.
" The most believable sources for Democrats are ABC News, CBS News and National Public Radio. "
Why did they leave out NBC News ?
I hope the White House is not deluded into the false belief that NBC is balanced and thus should get interviews with President Bush.
Brokaw was being floated as a Kerry VP because he's so anti Bush ,
Andrea Mitchell, Brian Williams ( he showed black and white footage of men on bread lines in the 30's, when he talked about " terrible the US economy was," a few months ago-no bias there ,)
David Gregory,Campbell Brown, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert,Katie Couric -need I go further ?
NBC News continues to show pictures of Abu Graib almost every single night -long after the story had run it's course.
NBC Nightly News showed clips from Moore's movie as a news item twice in the space of one week.
Although, we expect ABC News to be biased, I watched one newscast about 10 days ago, that was incredibly balanced.
That cannot be said of NBC or CBS.
Because they're still getting mileage out of it. I was at a party in Oakland just a couple of weeks ago. Eventually, the subject of Iraq came up and predictably, all the locals were strongly anti-Bush and strongly anti-saving-their-dumb-asses-from-our-motal-enemies. I recall one old friend from that crowd saying that pictures from Abu Ghraib resemble footage from Auschwitz. I just walked away instead of trying to point out some of the subtle distinctions between Nazi death camps and U.S. military prisons. I owed it to the host not to stir up controversy. Besides, I'm not up to taking on this sort of invincible ignorance.
No verification of the numbers.
President Bush is holding his own in polls showing both his performance in the WOT and on his chances of relection. Doesn't this prove that Noam Chomsky and those of his school of thought are WRONG. If I understand him correctly (a big if) everything we think comes from the media propoganda machine, rendering us virtual slaves to the dominant media culture. At least half of the country simply seeks out alternative sources of information when Dan Rather becomes too much to bear. And how do you account for freepers? Are we able to think independently only by virture of our tinfoil hats?
My local newspaper in Temple, Texas (left wing rag of Gannet) had headlines yesterday that said,
"JOB RECOVERY STUMBLES".
The headline gave the impression that we were losing jobs. When you read the article you find the new jobs did not grow as fast as anticipated but there were more jobs.
No bias (not)
" I owed it to the host not to stir up controversy. Besides, I'm not up to taking on this sort of invincible ignorance."
I had a similar experience with the blindingly ignorant and had to maintain my cool, as it was neither the time nor place.
A lifelong friend of mine passed away recently.
He was conservative( he loved Ronald Reagan )but, from a family of big Democrat fund raisers.
At the reception after the service, we were gathered around the dining room table-must have been 25 to 30 of us at that time-all liberals except for 2 conservatives, my wife and myself.
Someone asked me whom I was voting for in November.
I replied George Bush.
One woman had hosted Jeb Bush in her home for a charity fund raiser and announced that George Bush was " stupid " because at that fund raiser, "Jeb " Bush spoke baby talk-to an infant.
I cannot follow that logic,but, I am not a Democrat.
She then said that Jeb's wife, " Columbia ," is smart.
I was tempted to say, " You stupid woman, her name is Columba," but, it wasn't the time or place.
This same woman informed me that George Bush is nominating someone to the federal bench-" who only speaks in Bible verses."
She gave me the Bible speaking judge's name and after an exhaustive Google search-I could not find his name anywhere.
Obviously part of the great Democrat urban myth machine.
The woman did allow that George Bush has surrounded himself " with good people, however."
None of the assembled has ever had the inclination to surf the net and validate the drivel that Rather and Michael Moore and the DNC feeds them.
As Rush says, they are intellectually lazy.
If the dopes ever decide to educate themselves, the Democrats will be in big trouble.