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?
When Helen Thomas, that stupid Irish broad who just interviewed the prez, and Dan Rather are standing out on the street, maybe then the adversarial situation will be brought to the forefront.
I just don't know what this means. Based on what febrile imaginings did anyone think things were going to tie up like a one hour TV episode? I find this really irritating.
Spiro Agnew's fiery rhetoric became legendary: he famously called the press "nattering nabobs of negativism" and referred to war critics as "effete, impudent snobs." I guess we need a modern day Spiro speech.
Thank you for remembering Elian Gonzalez.
In my lifetime as an American citizen, the day our country committed a terrorist act by taking this child at gunpoint and relegated a free child to slavery has to be the most shameful moment in my memory or our history. President Reagan would have stood by Elian Gonzalez.
You are absolutely right,the press trumpeted the "rights" of "fatherhood" (since when has the press ever accorded fathers any rights?), and sadly way too many conservatives (for whom freedom should be our first and foremost cause) followed the media line like sheep. Except in this case the wolf ate the boy.
Why are we so afraid of Castro ? Why do we tolerate this communist outpost 90 miles from our shore? I don't buy the mass exodus theory. If we took over the island no one would leave and democracy would be restored in an instant.
In the meantime Dan Rather waits and waits and waits to deliver Castro's eulogy which no doubt will be aired 24/7 without the slightest concern of over-emphasis (ala Reagan's funeral).
The media is Evil. If you are not for us, you are against us.
"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.
"
It's much easier NOT to do it. That's why it hasn't been done. Lack of leadership. Lack of courage. Once they get to D.C. they like it and don't want to rock the boat etc. etc. I'm sure 'they' could give lots of 'good' reasons why this would be a bad idea.
"Based on what febrile imaginings did anyone think things were going to tie up like a one hour TV episode?"
Good point. Given what has happened in history, I don't know why anyone would think that Iraq and Afghanistan would be turned around yesterday. People need to start thinking in the long term and need to look to history.
Germany and Japan did not recover overnight from WWII. Some of the former Eastern Block countries are still recovering from communism. Even our own country did not have our Constitution ratified until years after the end of the Revolutionary War.
I blame this on a press that fosters public ignorance and an out of power party that exploits ignorance of history for its own political gain.
Rather than get any focus on the major networks or papers,
why not try focusing on the smaller regional publications, free papers, etc. to get out the message. We know the cities may be a lost cause, but work them (cities) from the outside in by hitting all the surrounding areas first. Give the smaller papers good content pieces to print with the real issues and answers.
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.