Posted on 10/27/2004 10:42:20 PM PDT by neverdem
Edited on 10/27/2004 10:47:51 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
THE NEWS MEDIA
Practicing cheap and dirty politics, playing fast and loose with the facts and even lying: Accusations like these, and worse, have been slung nonstop this year.
The accused in this case are not the candidates, but the mainstream news media. And the accusers are an ever-growing army of Internet writers, many of them partisans, who reach hundreds of thousands of people a day.
Journalists covering the campaign believe the intent is often to bully them into caving to a particular point of view. They insist the efforts have not swayed them in any significant way, though others worry the criticism could eventually have a chilling effect.
Many of the Internet writers say they have been empowered by the Web to begin serving as a long-needed real-time check on mainstream outlets and reporters who they say wield too much power, sometimes irresponsibly and often with hidden partisan motives.
"The traditional players, including the press, have lost some of the control or exclusive control they used to have," said Jay Rosen, chairman of the journalism department at New York University, who keeps his own Web log, or blog.
But, he added, "I think there's a campaign under way to totally politicize journalism and totally politicize press criticism."
"It's really an attack not just on the liberal media or press bias, it's an attack on professionalism itself, on the idea that there could be disinterested reporters," he said.
The criticism comes from both sides of the political spectrum and from an array of perspectives - middle-of-the-road independent critics like those at the Columbia Journalism Review; unabashedly partisan blog authors; and even from within the mainstream news media. ABC's political Web site, The Note, frequently critiques individual reporters.
The harshest criticism comes from sites with openly political leanings.
The conservative Media Research Center posts a daily list of supposed infractions on its Web site. A typical item, posted last week: CBS News did not identify a Sept. 11 widow voicing support for Mr. Kerry, Kristen Breitweiser, as "an outspoken, anti-Bush activist." Sandy Genelius, a CBS News spokeswoman, said the report was "straightforward, fair and accurate."
New to the scene and financed by liberals to combat groups like Media Research Center is Media Matters for America. Among the items posted this week was one accusing "Meet the Press" on NBC of "skewing its media roundtable discussion to the right," an assertion a spokeswoman for the program called "absurd."
But the most personal critiques originate among the political blogs - especially from the left - run by individuals who use news media reports for their often-heated discussions.
Many sites urge visitors to personally call reporters and news organizations and send e-mail messages, which can number in the hundreds daily.
"Most of us now realize that this is a constant conversation, and I think that largely that part of it is good," said Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek. "Some of the stuff includes very personal and nasty things about people - they go after people's physical characteristics, they'll say somebody's ugly - and you just have to ignore that."
Still, he said, "I would be lying if I didn't say it could be hurtful."
A recent posting on DailyKos, a liberal Web site visited by more than 500,000 people daily, according to blog rankings posted on a site called The Truth Laid Bear, declared that Mr. Fineman "loves the G.O.P. and hates gays just like all of the press." It went on to call him "wimpy," a "slime" and worse.
He has plenty of company. On Democrats.com, an Associated Press reporter, Nedra Pickler, is "Tokyo Rose" and an "anti-Kerry propagandist."
Ms. Pickler had no comment but Sandy Johnson, the A.P.'s bureau chief in Washington, said, "We get lobbed at from the left and the right, so I think probably that puts us squarely in the middle, which is where we want to be."
The New York Times is also a favorite target of critics of all political persuasions. The paper came in for particularly harsh criticism on conservative sites this week for its article about the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives from an Iraqi military complex. The article quoted the Iraqi interim government as saying that the disappearance occurred after the fall of Baghdad.
The White House has said the explosives may have been removed while Saddam Hussein still held power. Bloggers have questioned the timing and accuracy of the report, done in conjunction with the CBS program "60 Minutes," with one posting on FreeRepublic.com saying the paper "has no interest in accuracy or integrity" and others directing people to call and write the paper en masse.
On a Web site named after Adam Nagourney, The Times's chief political correspondent, contributors mix crude personal insults with accusations that Mr. Nagourney and other Washington-based reporters are too easy on Mr. Bush.
Bob Somerby, a comedian who runs a Web site called The Daily Howler that often accuses the news media of being shallow, lazy, bullied by Republicans and unfairly critical of Democrats, said a more genteel approach would not be effective. (He has referred to this reporter on his Web site as "dumb" and in "over his head" for being blind or turning a blind eye to Republican spin.)
"I've come to feel the only way you can really deal with the press corps is to beat up on them," Mr. Somerby said. Most political reporters interviewed for this article insisted that outside forces did not sway them from being fair, though a couple admitted they could not rule out having pulled punches in small and even subconscious ways.
Some effects are more obvious.
When "60 Minutes" reported on documents purporting to show Mr. Bush received preferential treatment in the Air National Guard, questions about the documents' authenticity originated and caught fire on the FreeRepublic and PowerLine blog Web sites; mainstream outlets followed. CBS News admitted two weeks later that it could not authenticate the documents. The NBC anchor Tom Brokaw recently likened the tone of the Internet coverage of the CBS National Guard report, presented by the anchor Dan Rather, to a "political jihad." In an interview last week Mr. Brokaw said CBS News had clearly made mistakes. But, he said, "I think there were people just lying in the Internet bushes, waiting to strike, and I think that particular episode gave them a big opportunity."
The liars at the NY Slimes must be passing out as this story unwinds:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1259507/posts
MSNBC BREAKING NEWS: RUSSIANS MOVED EXPLOSIVES
MSNBC
Posted on 10/27/2004 7:58:47 PM PDT by MichaelTN04
Just saw on MSNBC Scarborough Country, Pat Buchanan said that the Wash Times is set to report that Russian Troops helped move the explosives and weapons to Syria before the invasion...
The thing is, they are not MAINSTREAM, they are LEFT STREAM.
Bloggers have questioned the timing and accuracy of the report, done in conjunction with the CBS program "60 Minutes," with one posting on FreeRepublic.com saying the paper "has no interest in accuracy or integrity"...
I agree.
Wow, an article on the NY Times that doesn't have that stench of bias.
The story about the Russians moving the explosives has international legs:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1259571/posts
The Financial Times: Russians ‘May Have Taken Iraq Explosives'
The Financial Times ^ | October 28, 2004 | Demetri Sevastopulo, Guy Dinmore and James Harding
Posted on 10/27/2004 9:04:27 PM PDT by quidnunc
Washington DC and Lancaster County, Pennsylvania – The controversy over Iraq’s missing explosives intensified on Wednesday as the Bush administration rejected charges of incompetence and a senior Pentagon official claimed the munitions may have been removed by Russians before the US-led invasion.
Breaking his silence over an issue that has dominated headlines since Monday, President George W. Bush accused John Kerry, his Democratic challenger, of making “wild charges” over the 350 tonnes of explosives and weapons.
The Pentagon is still investigating their disappearance. But Scott McClellan, White House press secretary, said there was a “very real possibility” the munitions were taken by the Saddam Hussein regime before US troops arrived at the munitions facility at al-Qaqaa, south of Baghdad.
At a rally in Iowa on Wednesday, however, Mr Kerry claimed that Mr Bush had allowed the explosives to fall into the hands of Iraqi rebels. Later, his campaign conceded that the Hussein regime might have removed the munitions before the invasion.
But in a further development, John Shaw, a deputy under-secretary of defence, suggested that “Russian units” had transported the explosives out of the country.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Shaw said: “For nearly nine months my office has been aware of an elaborate scheme set up by Saddam Hussein to finance and disguise his weapons purchases through his international suppliers, principally the Russians and French. That network included. . . employing various Russian units on the eve of hostilities to orchestrate the collection of munitions and assure their transport out of Iraq via Syria.”
Tough shit brokaw. Wet your panties!!
It is our duty to bring the MSM to justice after this election. seeBS and NYT take notice!
Ironically, the NYT's big story about the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives also turns out to be political Jihad. And just like CBS, their big story is blowing up in their faces.
When you deal in forged government documents with DNC fingerprints all over them, I guess that could qualify as "a big opportunity".
Notice that the examples of personal attacks and bad manners come from leftist blogs against others they don't consider liberal enough. Gotta chug that koolaid by the gallon.
Politics of personal distruction coming from the left? Who would have thought?
the A.P.'s bureau chief in Washington, said, "We get lobbed at from the left and the right, so I think probably that puts us squarely in the middle, which is where we want to be."
Percetage is the key. What is the percentage of complaints from the right and the left? Washington Journal on C-Span once said that 90% of their complaints about bias came from the right with 10% coming from the left.
I saw the post. Somewhere on the forum I saw a comment that because its source is the Wash Times, the MSM won't give it any coverage, at least not until the election is over. I'm afraid that's correct.
A report says that the Russians moved the explosives and furthermore, documents from Jan 04 show that there were only 3 tons of the stuff not 380...Sattelite pics supposedly show the Russian Military taking munitions out of Iraq before the war started. They were trying to cover up their involvement with Iraq, selling weapons etc. There is a speculation that they might have also moved WMD. Sounds reasonable...
Actually pretty good.
Did you see the tactic used in the article - "include both sides" - cancels everything good out - it is what the media does all the time - Especially on Fox - that's a big one for them -
There are some web sites where you have to "log in" in order to see the postings - might be a good idea starting like this Monday - :)
I do agree with one part of the article - people do have a habit of attacking in a personal way - I've seen that more than once - how a person looks should have nothing to do with anything - and as was just written - it works to hurt a site that is really trying to make a difference for the people -
Nice find! Much harder to ignore.
"It's really an attack not just on the liberal media or press bias, it's an attack on professionalism itself, on the idea that there could be disinterested reporters."
Rosen, I occassionally read your blog, but this is just idiocy.
I respect real journalism and consider it one of the most important professions and one of the most vital to a free society.
What I don't respect is biased trash and lazy "he said, she said" back and forth reporting without some real legwork.
And most of the media does both these days.
Too bad. Real journalism....like that practiced by Hume, Gertz, Bret Baier etc...can have an impact and shine some light on the truth without shilling for one point of view.
I wish these guys would just quit lying about trying to be fair and balanced or professional (ethical) journalists, etc. There's no such thing and never has been. The first amendment does not demand fair and balanced and neither do the citizens. Newspapers from the very beginning have been politically oriented. The New York Times simply happens to be the paper of ^liberal^ record.
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.