Truth! You can't handle it, so let the press think for you.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:32 am

There is a definite attempt by the mainstream press to facilitate Kerry's election.
Their lack of questioning him on important votes he has made in his record of 20 years in the senate...instead they let him run away and play monday morning quarterback on all the issues.
It's most evident in the way they use a double standard when deciding on how and when to report the news depending on how it affects each candidate.

Here is an example of how it works internally. How a boss in the network will tell his reporters and producers to go easy on Kerry when they catch him in a lie and the lame rationalization he uses to disguise the favoritism he is instructing his workers to build into the *reporting* they do.

This is a serious problem when the peoples source of factual events is actually spinning the *facts* because the source has decided they are elite enough to know how to 'help us evalute what the candidates are saying in the correct way'.

***************************
An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave

I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
*********************************

from here

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:04 am

what a wonderfully damning memo, you were brilliant to find that one will, where'd you get it? rush limbaugh.com?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:12 am

Will Robinson wrote:Well I can't help myself, when I see someone defecate in public I feel compelled to complain a bit.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:39 am

Zuruck wrote:what a wonderfully damning memo, you were brilliant to find that one will, where'd you get it? rush limbaugh.com?

Actually Zuruck, I heard about the memo on Fox News. It will be interesting if any of the network news proggy's report on it...like maybe CBS? It is exceedingly sad when major news organs will go out of their way to present a slanted view or even outright manufactured news to discredit a political candidate. The first step to a dictatorial state is the co-opting of what a population hears as "news".

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:46 am

wait woody, you're asking for a non-slanted news agency and you just said you got something from FOX? Oh let me guess, they're the ONLY real "fair and balanced" news channel right?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:01 am

Here's an example of fair and balanced. After the first
presidential debate a number of polls came out to reflect how the debates affected the candidates standing. Most of the polls (which Fox showed) showed Bush dropped and was now even with Kerry. One poll though, showed no change in standings (which Fox also reported). This particular poll was the Rasmuessen poll and was the one that even the Dems. said was the most important.
Switch channel and go to CNN and the only polls reported were the ones showing Bush dropped. No mention of the Rasmuessen poll. Since I don't watch much network news any more I can't attest to what they reported, but the way CNN reported the polling results shows quite clearly how selectively reporting (as the ABC memo clearly indicates is their policy) the news can attempt to influence the viewing audience.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:23 pm

You know, I've been saying for years that the press is way too soft on Bush.

I think the problem is the media in general. There's a lack of pressing anyone on important issues. When they spit out an answer that doesn't answer a question, the media will just move on. That's not the way it should be.

Anyway, continue with your "liberal media bias" delusions

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:29 pm

Birdseye wrote:Anyway, continue with your "liberal media bias" delusions

Many RW people think the media is Liberal.
Many LW people think the media is against them.

With the media trying to help Kerry get support and win, how can you call it a "delusion" that the media isn't liberally slanted, at least in support?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:36 pm

If anyone believes that the media isn't slanted or "interest oriented" really should take a couple of course in critical thinking.

Bird, this is NOT a slam on you. It's just that there have been a number of folks I've run into recently ... figuratively

... that think that mainstream news and the papers are a fair source of news. Getting real facts out of the said organizations blather is like picking rice out of noodles.
JMTC (just my two cents)

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:49 pm

"With the media trying to help Kerry get support and win, how can you call it a "delusion" that the media isn't liberally slanted, at least in support?"

Because I don't see any widespread conspiracy. There are the Bush lovers on Fox and radio that constantly try to get Bush elected. Then there are some lovers of Kerry on CNN and Air America radio.

With Kerry winning the debates in all the polls, everyone (including the media) is taking another look at John Kerry. It's the first time he has been on the same stage as Bush, and at the same time shown he's clearly the better speaker. Of course that's going to get him some press.

Recently 20/20 decided it wasn't going to air a negative special on Bush because it didn't want to air any more negative press on Bush before the election.

Remember, as a republican/conservative person you are going to forget when bush is covered and unconsciously think "rightly so" and when Kerry is covered you will get notably agitated and remember it.

Anyway sky, your icon shows your silly bias--that whole garbage of the terrorists preferring Kerry is a load of campaign crap. Enjoy being spoon fed from Rove

Bird, this is NOT a slam on you. It's just that there have been a number of folks I've run into recently ... figuratively ... that think that mainstream news and the papers are a fair source of news.

Please, be direct instead. Spare me no pleasantries. Woody and I clash, but at least I know where he stands

You're misinterpreting me. Every single human has a bias. If I had my way, every journalist would be required to identify their political affiliation. I think everyone in the news is biased. There isn't just the journalists, but the owners of the companies, editors, producers, etc.

You're getting some liberal bias, some conservative bias, some waffling centrists, etc.
There just isn't really any evidence for *overall* liberal media bias. It's a conservative pipe dream, and oh do they love to hit that ★■◆●. Rush and Hannity serve good stuff!

(waits for someone to post MRC or other republican think tank paper to "prove" liberal bias)

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:10 pm

Oh, I didn't misinterpret you, I didn't want to be misunderstood myself not knowing eveyone thatwell here.

I'm not in the habit of being rude nor am I much of an arguer. The comment you posted caught a nerve that was attached to something else.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:54 pm

Birdseye wrote:Recently 20/20 decided it wasn't going to air a negative special on Bush because it didn't want to air any more negative press on Bush before the election.

This was right after 60 minutes ran the Bush National Guard memo story. We all know how that turned out -- the memos were forged, and CBS's credibility tanked.

The 20/20 negative special was going to be about Bush buying into the forged yellowcake memo (which, it turns out, was forged by a French double agent.) Oooh, look, the President made the mistake of falling for the same thing Dan Rather did, shame on him!

You might see it as 20/20 deciding not to air any more negative press on Bush. That's the line they put out there. But the timeline suggests there's more to it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:00 pm

Birdseye wrote:Recently 20/20 decided it wasn't going to air a negative special on Bush because it didn't want to air any more negative press on Bush before the election.

No, they decided that in the wake of having been busted for using forged documents to sabotage Bush just a few days before they were better off not testing that water again. Basically they questioned their own credibility with the viewers at that point and *why they doubted their own credibility* is the result of their bias coming back to bite them!

As to the memo:

Interesting that the author can say:
"Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."

But since 'Bush is trying to win by doing it he must be exposed'?!?

Do you think that is a reasonable distinction between the two candidates?
Do you really believe Kerry, for example, inflates the ratio of dead americans in Iraq by nearly 100% for some harmless or altruistic reason?!?
Or does he do it so he can falsely claim america is bearing the brunt of the casualties at a ratio of 90% as a campain point to accuse Bush of not waging the war properly?

Come on, make my day and address this specific question I've raised...I dare you!

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:02 pm

Oooh, look, the President made the mistake of falling for the same thing Dan Rather did, shame on him!

I tend to care more when the President makes a mistake then a news reporter. *shrug*

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:06 pm

Realistically, the news has nearly as much power as the President.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:08 pm

Duper wrote:Realistically, the news has nearly as much power as the President.

And you can't vote them out...ever.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:10 pm

You can cast your vote by not watching. And no individual in the media has near the power of the president.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:13 pm

Gooberman wrote:You can cast your vote by not watching. And no individual in the media has near the power of the president.

No but when they act in concert, as they are starting to do in this election cycle, they are much more influential than the president. When they own the presidency they have the power of both!

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 6:21 pm

Birdseye wrote:Anyway sky, your icon shows your silly bias--that whole garbage of the terrorists preferring Kerry is a load of campaign crap. Enjoy being spoon fed from Rove

I think he has it as a joke dude.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 6:27 pm

Birdseye wrote:Because I don't see any widespread conspiracy. There are the Bush lovers on Fox and radio that constantly try to get Bush elected. Then there are some lovers of Kerry on CNN and Air America radio.

To clarify: a lot of the media. To say that the entire media is liberal is outright false, of course. The opinions on Fox News, like you said, are conservatively slanted.

Btw: http://www.thatliberalmedia.com

Birdseye wrote:Remember, as a republican/conservative person you are going to forget when bush is covered and unconsciously think "rightly so" and when Kerry is covered you will get notably agitated and remember it.

I'm not irked by being called a Republican/Conservative. After all, I support them and have made it known. I'm actually a centrist, with a slight lean toward the Democrats. Believe it or not, I won't be voting for anyone.

Ferno wrote:
Birdseye wrote:Anyway sky, your icon shows your silly bias--that whole garbage of the terrorists preferring Kerry is a load of campaign crap. Enjoy being spoon fed from Rove
I think he has it as a joke dude.

It's funny as hell. Same goes for ones busting on Bush.