Note to Scott (McCLellan): Fox Can't Do it All

My Blog - go ahead, call it vanity, I call it patriotism | June 18, 2005 | greg c.

[FreedomFighter1013]

Dear Scott:

I think it’s a pretty well foregone conclusion that there is a tilt towards the Left in the media, something which you battle every day. Some call it the Mainstream Media (MSM). I prefer to call it the Liberal Media Monolith.

http://gregcontreras.blogspot.com/2005/06/note-to-scott-mcclellan-fox-cant-do-it.html

[FreedomFighter1013]

Dear Scott:

I think it’s a pretty well foregone conclusion that there is a tilt towards the Left in the media, something which you battle every day. Some call it the Mainstream Media (MSM).

I prefer to call it the Liberal Media Monolith. But, like Bernard Goldberg in Bias, I don't believe it is a coordinated effort, a grand strategy, a plan created by the media to move the country left. I believe there is a plan and an effort to do that, to undermine America, but it hasn't been hatched by the media, it was hatched, and is continued by the remants of the Comunist Party USA.

Anyway, the problem is that the media can subtly reinforce an untruth, -- an urban legend, if you will -- to a point where it becomes the Conventional Wisdom as Newsweek calls it. "The truth" in quotation marks. And we must face it, an incorrect opinion left uncontested is a fact.

Here are a couple of examples. During the run up to the war, the conventional wisdom was that it was "all about oil" and that Bush was "in bed" with the Saudis. Well, the truth is oil closed today above $58 a barrel. If it were all about oil, we'd have confiscated the oil fields and militarized production. And, if Bush is so tight with the Saudis, then...well you get the idea. I know Brent Bozell must hit you everyday with a list of examples.

It's insidious. Take this report from Iraq filed by Jane Araf for CNN called "View from Afar." On the whole the report was pretty innocuous, just another negative take on the hard, dirty, hot and dangerous work our troops are doing to secure that country. But one sentence leaped to my attention. Towards the end of the story, she intoned: "...there are parts of this country where schools are open and people have jobs." She went on to report, that this town, however, is a dysfunctional hell-hole, where the people are clamoring for the troops to come in a destroy the terrorists. I think she called them insurgents.

Here's the problem, it’s a pretty good story on its face, especially by what we're used to. At least we (Americans, the military) didn't come out looking like baby killing, drug addled, white trash, like we did in Vietnam. The troops come out looking smart and hard-working, the Iraqis look pro-American. But what about that one line? As I understand it, about 90+% of the country (Iraq) is doing just fine. Some __ million people are living in relative peace, a new, representative government has been formed, Iraq's military is taking on more and more hazardous duty, and so on. For me, a devotee of the Administration and its Iraq policy, the Iraq effort has been a success, a positive if difficult step on the ongoing battle on the War on Terror. But not for everyone, especially enemies of the Administration and the war. I’m picturing Katrina vanden Heuvel right now. These are the people who refer to the War on Terror in quotation marks, as if to say, the “so-called war on terror.”

For them, that sentence just reinforces their assertions. For me, that sentence hangs in the ethers like an elephant sipping cocktails in SoHo, it's such a distortion.

I understand it's impossible to fight every single battle, to take on every controversial idea, but I think there is a way.

If once a week you shined the harsh light of reality on one obviously boneheaded, unabashedly biased statement like that, you could shift the discussion to the quality of LMM reporting. It's not taking on the whole report, just a single item. You can even make them feel good by raving about the rest of her work and the grit she has shown as an embed, make her and her bosses feel good. You could call it "Minor Distortions," or "Fact or Opinion?" something like that. Introduce it at the end of the briefing, open it up using some of the language I've used above, show the snipet of tape, then comment on the distortion.

Reinforce the point that it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Agree to how minor it is, but emphasize how someone has got to counter these minor comments before they become accepted as facts.

The sad truth is that many people in our electorate have never seen this report but others may have heard only that one sentence and their impression is, Iraq is a dysfunctional hell-hole. Over as year's time, a weekly piece like this could make a giant difference for the Administration.

With kindest regards,

Sincerely,

Greg C