Posted on 06/25/2004 5:49:15 PM PDT by MAKnight
Media bias is a tiresome subject. It has been hashed over again and again. Articles and Books, bestsellers no less (i.e. "Bias" & "Arrogance" by Bernard Goldberg) have been written about it, websites have been built dedicated to it, entire organizations have been created to document and expose it (i.e. Media Research Center), and many scholarly studies have been conducted on the subject. It would be well nigh impossible to find a meeting of conservatives anywhere, on or offline, where it is not regularly cursed and bemoaned.
And what has been the effect of all this? Nothing. The Press, if possible, has become even more partisan and biased even as it even more vehemently proclaims and demands acknowledgment of its objectivity.
By any objective standard, and I say this despite the fact that I do have a lot of things I disagree with the Bush Administration on, the Administration has done a pretty remarkable job. On the two major issues of George W. Bush's Presidency, the War on Terror (i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq) and the Economy, the administration at least merits a B+ on the former and at least an A- on the latter, especially, as regards the economy, considering that he entered the White House on the eve of a recession and the disastrous effects the attacks on America on 9/11/2001 had on the economy.
No one can deny that the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have not gone anywhere near half as smoothly as one would have hoped, the achievements there have been very impressive. The United States military and civilian staff in Iraq have, by any objective measure done a magnificent job in helping in the rebuilding of these countries after decades of tyranny and war. Yet, if there is only one thing the Press has reported on when it comes to Iraq and the wonderful job US servicemen and women and civilians are doing, it is the work of a bunch of retarded nitwits at Abu Ghraib.
And it is not just on these two issues that Press have displayed their partisan stripes. From abortion, to gay marriage, to taxes, gun control, racial issues and the environment, the Press have launched attacks and provided launchpads for unscrupulous and slanderous leftist attacks on the President and the GOP without regard for truth, context or fairness. Conflicts of interest are routinely ignored and skepticism discarded when critics of Bush are interviewed or cited (i.e. Richard Clarke, the Jersey Girls, etc.) to give them an air of objectivity while any news that could possibly help Bush's re-election campaign is ignored (UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after, the Economy's excellent performance) or so loaded with caveats that it is no longer comprehensible.
In other words, we are watching the Press doing everything it possibly can to undermine the Bush campaign without getting its hands dirty. It did this in 1988 and 1992 with the first President Bush, and it did it before that with President Reagan. It's been burying the achievements of the Bush Administration in the back pages (often quite simply ignoring them) while trumpeting its missteps on the front page, sometimes even resorting to outright lying (i.e. lying today on page one above the fold (i.e. 9/11 Commission Reports) and issuing a correction tomorrow on page seventy six beside the two page Chrysler ad).
As I said before, Media Bias is a tiresome subject. Because despite all the discussion, books, articles, websites, no one has come up with anything stronger than withdrawing your viewership, cancelling your subscription, writing letters to the editor or calling up and boycotting advertisers. The Press has shown that it has no fear of any of these tactics, largely because they are so ineffective. The market is simply too big and furthermore I strongly believe it would be seriously unhealthy for the whole of conservative America to only watch Fox News and only read the WSJ editorial pages.
The problem is that the Press is not getting hit where it matters most, their credibility with the general public. No matter how egregarious their bias gets, they can just deny it and considering that they largely control what we get to see and hear, that's that. There's no way they would allow the case against them to be brought unfiltered before the public. And, let's make no mistake about it, the case must be brought. Or else, come January next year, John Kerry will be taking the oath of office and, encouraged, the Press would only get worse. No Republican would ever win the White House without slogging through a blizzard of attacks by the Press that would make the current barrage against the Bush campaign look like a lovefest.
Like I said before, the Press would never allow the case against them to be brought unfiltered before the public. They have to be tricked into it. And I believe I have an idea of just how to do it. And a bonus would be that not only would it document for the American public the extent of the Press' campaign against the President, it would also clearly document, for the American people, the achievements of this Administration and set the record straight with regard to issues from Iraq to the Economy and the Environment right up close to the election.
I'm thinking of Spiro Agnew and the speech he gave on the 13th of November 1969, in Des Moines, Iowa attacking the blatant partisanship of the television networks.
What if a really big GOP dog delivered a speech like that slamming both the networks and the newspapers, live and during prime time? I'm talking someone like Dick Cheney or Ed Gillespie, or a governor like Tim Pawlenty at the Republican National Convention in September. I'm talking about having the guy standing behind the lectern and carefully listing out the Administration's achievements (i.e. what we've accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistans vis-a-vis schools, hospitals, power, etc.), carefully listing out the reasons why the Administration went to war in Iraq (liberally using quotes from the Clinton administration, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc. AND pointing out the thoroughly ignored 06/11/2004 story by the World Tribune in which UN weapons inspectors briefed the security council about finding bits and pieces of Saddam's WMD program in the Netherlands, Turkey, Syria and Jordan). Then he could carefully point out (i.e. "if you don't know about all this, it's because the news media, for some reason decided not to report it ..."), how this was ignored, downplayed by the Press in favor of bad news, Abu Ghraib and assertions by the French.
The guy could talk about the economy and compare its performance to that of the last administration at the end of its first term and show what the Press said then (5.7% unemployment: "The best job market in the history of the universe!") and what they're saying now (5.7% unemployment: "The worst job market ever!"). He could also talk about the continuing improvement in air quality as measured by the EPA and other organizations and contrast them with skepticism-free New York Times stories featuring left-wing environmentalists claiming that America air quality is identical to that of London in the 18th Century.
Like Agnew, he should defuse the argument the New York Times would inevitably shriek in the morning, i.e. the GOP is advocating censorship, and cheerfully yield the floor after brutally citing and exhibiting front pages and specifically calling out the names of the worst offenders in the news media.
I think the effect of such an undertaking, if done right, could radically alter the dynamics of the race in Bush's favor and slash the credibility and integrity of the news media to shreds. What do y'all think?
send them back to those European super states where the rates are closer to double this
The wheels of the gods grind slowly ...
I think a class action lawsuit should be filed against the major newspapers for
'malpractice in journalism', 'distorting the news', and 'selectively editing content'. Maybe Judicial Watch could start the ball rolling.
searching for my violin....;)
Well, something. Look at circulation figures. Look at the number of newspapers that have gone out of business. Look at the number of newspaper jobs that have disappeared.
That is why we should have vigorously opposed the FCC rule to allow a newspaper to own one TV station in its ccity. As the paper dies, the organization will still drive revenue with the TV station.
This isn't simply a question of ultra-left wing bias. In many markets, it is a question of suicide. Why subscribe to a daily paper just for the auto ads? Buy it on the weekend, if you must. You think the recently discovered falsification of newspaper circulation figures is a sign of health?
These neocommunist editors are driving their left-wing rags into oblivion. Sure, they'll blame everybody but theselves and Willie (and blacks) but their bias is hitting them in the pocketbook and will continue to do so.
Agree. You've nailed it... and this needs to be done for the sake of the country, not for political gain.
The attack on the press wouldn't actually be reported, or to the extent it was it would be buried and glossed over. Furthermore, how many people do you think are actually going to be watching speeches at the convention? And how many of them are not already aware of press bias?
LOL We know what our Veep would tell them! ;)
Sounds like a good idea. I'd like to see it myself. However, makes me wonder: this has obviously been discussed as a strategy before. No offense, but I doubt that it's a brand new idea to those whose job it is to think of such things. Must be a reason why no one has done it......be right back....unrolling my tin foil.
Great idea. But I think we should use the money that would have otherwise been spent on political ads if not for CFR and advertise like crazy against them. Point out how they worked to gag the rest of us. Remind voters of their heavily liberal endorsement records. Etc... Just get the public to CONSIDER THE SOURCE. If we deflate their power then it won't really matter what they say.
The attack on the press wouldn't actually be reported, or to the extent it was it would be buried and glossed over. Furthermore, how many people do you think are actually going to be watching speeches at the convention? And how many of them are not already aware of press bias?
I've heard rumors that the lame stream press isn't even going to cover the conventions, especially the Republican one. Anybody heard this?
The event will be covered in the Socialist Liberal way.
Which means, the original event won't be covered.
You will NEVER see:
'Cheney blasts Liberal Media Bias', not even for a single news cycle.
But the Democratic response will be covered in spades.
'Democrats assail lunatic VP comments'
'DNC charges VP with censorship'
'Senator blasts "Nazi tactics and intimidation"'
'President Clinton ridicules Mr. Bush'
'Nobel prize winner President Carter chides illegitimate lying VP'
I'd hazard a guess...that more than half of America has no clue...as to the depth of the DemoSocialistMarxistLeftistLyingClymerLibs bias.
FRegards,
Part of the game of Liberal scumsucker bias is to never give the original play to a conservative opinion, not for a single moment.
Thus, any criticism of Clinton during the impeachment crisis was always introduced to the public in the first place via the DNC defense and attack of the Republicans.
Elian's sordid kidnapping by Reno got independent airplay for about 30 seconds - the Socialist media countered with photos of 'loving Dad and son' propaganda immediately, followed by the supportive claims of pseudopsychologists and helpful polling of Hispanic-haters.
Anyone with sense is not influenced by media bias.
But the great fat muddle-headed middle voting populace does not have sense.
Therefore, the only way to counter the effects of media bias is to:
1. Ridicule and discredit the media every single hour of every day;
2. Raise the profile, voice and influence of alternative media;
3. Get more Conservative media investors.
You can imagine that a certain ambitious witch is working to do the exact opposite - we have already seen the beginning of this.
Expect even more intimidation of talk radio and Internet media alternatives, left-wing entry into these markets, marginalizing of Fox news, Hollywood propaganda, and further claims of vast-right wing conspiracies.
OK, here's some counter-intuitive analysis:
I remember reading an article explaining the 2002 election-- how it shocked the Dems and the press-- it pointed out that media bias may have worked against the Dems by making them overconfident.
The press would only report good news for the liberal side, do polls that oversample Democrats. The Dems thought they would re-take the House, the Senate or both.
The bias keeps the Dems out of touch with what the American people think, putting them at a severe disadvantage.
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.