Exit polling internal review finds...

[Relbeek Einre]

Aww. Sindarre's not getting enough attention on her own merits so she needs to start dumping on others. That's cute.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I googled that phrase and hit "translate page". I confess.

[Sindarre]

Someone with 12,000 posts accusing me of attention whoring. Now that is rich.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think you just got spanked Beek.

[Ddrak]

Lol Embar. I did the opposite. I knew the quote in English (Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence) and found it was Bonaparte's. So I hit babelfish and then googled the key words from the translation until I found the original French.

Intellectual penis waving is far more fun that stupid conspiracy theories, wouldn't you agree Sindarre?

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

heh, pwned. /salute Sindarre. But we smell our own, don't we.

[Relbeek Einre]

OK, here's where I tackle the issue of bias in the media. I said since 2000 - it was actually much earlier, but they swung left again around 1998 for a while.

Let's start with the 2000 campaign.

There were little things - Al Gore in the first debate said he'd gone to a disaster site in Texas with FEMA director James Lee Witt. No, he'd gone with a deputy of James Lee Witt - he'd gone with Witt himself 17 other times, but hey. And the press jumped him about how he lied about James Lee Witt, as if it mattered at all.

Contrast with Bush's lie in the same dabate: "I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten percent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." The "liberal" mainstream press didn't blink at this, despite the fact that the bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent of Bush's tax cut plan. They jumped on Gore for mistaking the Texas fire being one of the 17 disasters Gore went to with Witt, and Bush lied about a centerpiece of his campaign and got almost nothing. Okay.

That's anecdotal, of course.

More statistical - During the 2000 campaign, the Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellence in Journalism tracked stories in the mainstream media regarding Gore and Bush. 13% of the Gore stories had a positive tone compared to 24% for Bush. 31% of Gore's stories were neutral compared to 27% for Bush. And 56% of Gore's stories were negative compared to 49% for Bush.

This means Bush stories had nearly twice the positive content of Gore stories overall, and significantly less negative content. Hmm. Liberal bias. (The stufy examined 1,149 stories from the seventeen leading news sources.)

A large chunk of Gore's negative coverage stemmed from three incidents: The "I invented the Internet" story, the "Tipper and I were the basis for the leads in Love Story" story, and the "I was responsible for the Love Canal hearings" story. In each case, the media simply ran with bullshit, false statements.

The first: In 1999, Al Gore said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." This was an entirely true statement. He was one of a small number of legislators who saw the enormous potential of ARPAnet, and fought for the funding that turned it into what we now know as the Internet. But of course the media ran the quote as "I invented the Internet," when a simple Nexis search would have gotten the true story -- or Gore's repeated clarifications on the matter had they chosen to listen.

Second - Gore read an article in the Nashville Tennessean quoting Erich Segal, the author of Love Story, as saying that Oliver Barrett and Jenny Cavalleri had been based on Al and Tipper Gore. He said so, and when questioned, said he read it in that paper. Segal was misquoted in the Tennessean (he said Oliver was based on both Al Gore and his college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones) but the media leapt on it as Al Gore lying - when a Nexis seach would have shown Al told the truth. And the story, again, had legs in the "liberal" media.

Then the Love Canal story. In January 2000, he told a story to a high school in New Hampshire about how one teenage girl had contacted Gore's congressional office about toxic waste in her hometown, and because of her initiative, "I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing... I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone, Tennessee -- that was the one you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all." He also said that "we passed a major national law[ed: MAJOR NAITONAL LAW!] to clean up hazardous dump sites....And it all happened because one high school student got involved." Gore was speaking to high school students telling them to get involved because they CAN change things if they try.

But the NYT and the Washington Post misquoted Gore, chaging "THAT was the one that started it all" to "I was the one that started it all." The RNC issued a press release cleaning up the grammar to "I was the one who started it all," and the press ran. The Times and the Post issued corrections, but the rest of the media missed it, as the NY Post, the National Journal, NBC, ABC, ran with the misquote and smeared Gore up and down.

And for the record - Gore DID hold the first hearing on Love Canal.

Compare to Bush's lies. In his autobiography, A Charge to Keep, Bush claims to have flown with his unit until 1973, but as we know, his base commander Brigadier Turnipseed says Bush never showed up.

Compare Bush's lie to Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News, who insisted he'd never been arrested after 1968 -- a few months before his drunk driving arrest in 1976 had been disclosed. Then after it was disclosed, Karen Hughes (Bush's spokeswoman) said he was picked up for driving too slowly, but the arresting officeer, Calvin Bridges, told Portland Maine's Fox-51 reporter Erin Fehlau that he had been driving erratically and drove into a hedge. Another lie. But the press took Hughes' explanation and didn't question it, nor did they go near Bush's lie to Slater.

And then there's actual policy matters. He lied about having supported Texas Patients' Bill of Rights and hate crime bill (he vetoed both) and the press didn't bite - and those were actually germane to the campaign, unlike the other cited Bush lies and the cited Gore not-lies-but-reported-as such.

So, that's the story of "liberal" media bias in 2000 in a nutshell. The press was nicer to Bush, harder on Gore, and the meat of the major Gore-bashing stories was rotten, while ample Bush lies were glossed over.

BTW, here's more on that "liberal media bias"... Dr. David Croteau of Virginia Commonwealth University, in 1998, surveyed 444 Washington-based journalists, including 31 bureau chiefs. The responses showed that journalists, on economic issues, were significantly more conservative than the public - wanting 56% to reform social security by slowing spending compared to 35% of the pubolic, wanting 39% to protect it as a top priority compared to 59% of the public, 24% strongly agreed with the statement that too much power is in the hands of a few corporations compared with 62% of the public, on NAFTA's effect on the United states believed 65% to 8% positive/negative, compared to 32% positve 42% negative with the general public.

The story that cites "liberal" views from journalists, by the way, is 19 years old. A Los Angeles Times survey of 3000 journalists nationwide that shows they're more liberal on things like gun control (78 percent to 50 percent of the public), prayer in public schools (74 percent of public supported, 75 percent of public opposed), the death penalty (75 percent of public suppoted it, 47 percent of journalists). However, editors and publishers -- the ones who have final say on the stories -- tend towards the conservative. Editor and Publisher magazine published a study that showed more than twice as many newspapers endorsed Bush as Gore - Bush endorsements accounted for 58 percent of all national circulation, when the election itself had Gore with a slight lead amongst the populace.

OK. That's enough background for now. We'll see about talking more about the last four years depending on the responses to this.

[Embar Angylwrath]

blah blah blah we were robbed! blah balh balh it ain't fair! blah blah blah Bush got special treatment! blah blah blah we coulda' been a contenduh!

[Ddrak]

[Relbeek Einre]

Funny when you lay out the facts, that's what they revert to.

[Eidolon Faer]

Contrast with Bush's lie in the same dabate: "I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten percent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." The "liberal" mainstream press didn't blink at this, despite the fact that the bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent of Bush's tax cut plan. They jumped on Gore for mistaking the Texas fire being one of the 17 disasters Gore went to with Witt, and Bush lied about a centerpiece of his campaign and got almost nothing. Okay.

Once again defeated by basic math skills.

Relbeek, you're confusing two separate things here: Bush was talking about the marginal rate in the lowest income tax bracket. Your "bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent" is not directly comparable, since it's talking about the overall tax burden across ALL tax brackets.

Perhaps the reason the "Vast Right-Wing Media Konspiracy" didn't rip into Bush about that being a lie is because his statement about the bottom tax bracket was absolutely true. As was your statement about the overall tax burden.

Nice try, but we've had this debate before. Don't make me whip out that old story about the five guys going out to lunch and splitting the check.


As for your Pew Charitable Trust stuff, please be so kind to link the study so I can examine it in detail. Not only am I suspicious of these things in the wake of our lovely 2004 exit polling data, but I'd be curious to see how they're getting their sample.

I've also seen quite a few other studies that look at the way sources are identified in the mainstream media and the way quotes are introduced. Things like a Republican position being identified as coming from "Right Wing Senator..." while Barbara Boxer is merely identified as "Leading Senator". They're eye opening and have changed the way I look at the language of news stories.

Also, regarding Al Gore's rather embarrassingly megalomaniacal assertion that he invented the internet: I regard it as something like Kerry's boneheaded "I voted FOR the $87 Billion before I voted against it." Yes, if you look into both statements, there's a complicated truth behind them. Al Gore did sponsor legislation which helped shape the early growth of the Internet. Kudos to him. And Kerry made a protest vote for some complicated political reasons that aren't worth going into at length. But both statements were sufficiently awkward and tangled that an indifferent or hostile listener was just going to scoff and fling poo at them instead of bothering to get at the kernel of truth in their origins. It's rather like you and the Bible.

I will admit this: It certainly seems that the illusion of a nonpartisan media is a thing of the past. But this is nothing new. In fact, the idea of a nonpartisan media is something of an anomaly in American history, emerging only in the wake of World War Two. Prior to that, the broadsheets and newspapers were blatantly, bitterly partisan in ways that would seem shocking even in the wake of the worst muck of 2004. Now, as then, the consumer will need to read several sources on a given story and do some research of his own and / or guesswork to get a picture of the truth.

[Ddrak]

At least pre-WW2 investigative journalism meant more than reading two press releases and interweaving them.

Dd

[Burz]

OK, here's where I tackle the issue of bias in the media

Biases are all in the eye of the beholder (or eye and minds of the viewer). One's political leanings can easily put meanings that are otherwise unintended 'in between the lines' of a news report. And that has nothing to do with comprehension, intellect, or what have you. My problem with the MSM as a whole is their insessent focus always on the negative while rarely reporting the positive, and trust me, there are a lot more positive than negatives going on -- this is about Iraq reporting for the people with the tin foil hats on too tight.

The old 3way circle jerk (ABC, SeeBS, NBC) and red headded step child (CNN) are falling to bloggers, internet sites (du, freepers, 'indy' media, etc.) and most noticably to Fox News Channel (Hannity and Colmes = best weeknight show for politics~).

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001
Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005

CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration, overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demo.

Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over 2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.

In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over 2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total coverage ratings yesterday.

PRIMETIME:

FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01)
CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01)
MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)

MSNBC is suckin ass. Chrissy Matthews must be bumbin. Maybe he shouldnt have freaked out on Zell Miller, Michelle Maulkin, and the highly decorated Swift Boat guy. I'm waiting for a "How Fox News is a Right Wing Propaganda machine of the Republican party" or something to that effect. Hell, they could even be Dirty j00s or Evil Nazi's. Use your imagination.

[Relbeek Einre]

Once again defeated by basic math skills.

Relbeek, you're confusing two separate things here: Bush was talking about the marginal rate in the lowest income tax bracket. Your "bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent" is not directly comparable, since it's talking about the overall tax burden across ALL tax brackets.

And once again, Eidolon is defeated by basic ignorance.

The people at the bottom - to which Bush said "the vast majority by far" of his tax relief went - don't pay income tax because their incomes are below the threshhold, or get back more than they pay in due to the Earned Income Tax Credit. They weren't affected at all by Bush's tax cut. And we've already established in past threads that Bush's tax cuts altered the marginal tax rates so that those at the top, even percentagewise, got more relief than those at the bottom of the taxpayers' scale.

No matter how you interpret it, "the vast majority by far" of Bush's tax cut plans were not those at the bottom - not those at the bottom of the workforce, the citizenry, or the taxpayers. It was a lie, no matter how you interpret it (unless "the bottom" you intepret as "those making $200,000 or more".)

The Pew Trusts are online. I told you the exact study. You can go find it.

And here's a statement which just makes me shake my head:

Not only am I suspicious of these things in the wake of our lovely 2004 exit polling data,

Please, never ask me again why I say there's a resurgence of anti-intellectualism amongst Republicans. The laughter I respond with might break my lungs.

Also, regarding Al Gore's rather embarrassingly megalomaniacal assertion that he invented the internet:

Wow. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," an entirely true statment, is, according to Eidolon, an "embarrassingly megalomaniacal assertion that he invented the Internet." Read the statement, read the interpretation. Then do it again. Then do it again. Repeat until cognition.

I think it simply burns some Republicans up that Gore was a legislator with the foresight to see the amazing potential of ARPAnet, and fought hard to fund this visionary effort that changed the face of history forever, so they prefer to buy into the right-wing media lie because that way they don't have to acknowledge that Gore did something awesomely cool for this country and the world.

I've also seen quite a few other studies that look at the way sources are identified in the mainstream media and the way quotes are introduced. Things like a Republican position being identified as coming from "Right Wing Senator..." while Barbara Boxer is merely identified as "Leading Senator". They're eye opening and have changed the way I look at the language of news stories.

Great. Cite them. Don't even have to provide links if you don't want.

It's rather like you and the Bible.

Once again, you're very disappointing, Eidolon. I feel embarrassed for you. Especially ironic given your rather infamous inability to see political truths that don't fit your worldview.

I will admit this: It certainly seems that the illusion of a nonpartisan media is a thing of the past.

I would say that's true, but the idea of a "nonpartisan" media has changed dramatically from the end of WWII to the modern day. It used to be that a "nonpartisan" media was one that would report the truth regardless of political implications. It became, gradually but more rapidly in the wake of Vietnam, that "nonpartisan" meant "balanced in its treatment of Democrats and Republicans." Which means that if, say, Democrats in the Senate got caught in a massive moneylaundering scheme to give money to terrorists, a "nonpartisan" media, after reporting all that and its fallout, would need to seek out Republican foibles and report them heavily, to even the scales. (I'm oversimplifying here, but bear with me.) I believe that it had to do with Vietnam, mostly. The US press showed the bare truth of what was happening there, and the people of America recoiled in the horror of what some of our soldiers and the South Vietnamese we were supporting were capable of doing. (Think Abu Ghraib times 100.) Because at the time the media got involved this deeply, Kennedy was dead and Johnson was retired, and a Republican was President. And Nixon (dare I say it?) and his Administration took the heat for something for which the administrations of three Presidents, two of them Democratic, were responsible.

You see, a truly nonpartisan media is going to appear biased towards the party which is, well, more truthful, and less mired in scurrilous practices, and whose policies are better for America. And because partisans like Eidolon and myself have fairly different ideas of what those things are, a truly nonpartisan point of view is most likely going to be somewhere in between - definitely to the left of Eidolon, and definitely to the right of me. (If the political spectrum is skewed badly in America, the nonpartisan point of view could fall to the left of me or to the right of Eidolon, but that's a tangential point.)

Somewhere along the line the focus of nonpartisanship became less about the facts and more about presenting the POV from each political party. If, on a show like the Sunday Morning talking head shows, the moderator/anchor sees that one of the people presenting a POV is lying, and calls him on it (such as when Tim Russert put the lie to Bush's claim, as repeated by Budget Director Mitch Daniels, on June 9, 2002's Meet the Press, that Bush said during the 2000 campaign that he'd allow a deficit "only in times of war, in times of economic insecurity as a result of a recession, or in times of naitonal emergency," (important because as of June 2002 we had experienced what Bush called "a trifecta" thus justifying the deficits) he's accused, as Russert was by Ari Fleischer, of being biased. (Karl Rove apparently told Fleischer to muzzle it. A wise move, given the fact that Russert was dead on accurate and his reputation sterling.)

Lennier said on Babylon 5 when asked whose side he was on, "The truth. Is there another?" When it comes to American journalism, there is, sad to say.

An interesting thing in modern American journalism is that we know there's a right-wing media. Nobody credible would dispute it. Rupert Murdoch's New York Post and FOX News, The Washington Times, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal,, et cetera. They're right wing. They're biased. We expect them to lie, so reporting false statements or factually questionable incidents by them raises no eyebrows. (Contrast and compare with CBS News. If a forged document about Kerry appeared in a FOX News story, it'd have made a minor blip and gone away, or -- in the case of Smear Boat Liars for Bush -- ignored and the lie perpetuated anyway.)

There is also a liberal media that enjoys the same "soft standard" - the Nation, Mother Jones, the new Air America Radio network, etc.

But the media which the Right accuses of being "liberal biased" - CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS/NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post - is held to a higher standard of journalistic integrity than either the right or left wing media. Which tells me that on some level, the righties of this country know the "liberal media" line is, beyond a point, bullshit.

I think journalism needs to drop the goal of "balancing" the news between Democrats and Republicans, and simply go after the truth, political balance be damned.

[Eidolon Faer]

Actually, Relbeek, the "higher standard of journalistic integrity" media you cite...CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS/NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post ...gave up its' claim to a higher standard long before Rathergate.

Walter Cronkite was the first so-called "impartial journalist" to go partisan in a big way, when he stepped up to openly oppose the Vietnam war. He stopped reporting the facts and started advancing an agenda. And the impartial media has been evaporating ever since.

As for your other points, you've provided no new information, either restating old nonsense regarding the Bush tax cuts or simply launching personal attacks. When you have something meaningful to say, I'll respond.

[Relbeek Einre]

You attacked the integrity of Walter Cronkite? Excuse me while I blink in disbelief.

*blink*

*blink*

Okay. Better.

I'd like to thank you for this gem:

As for your other points, you've provided no new information, either restating old nonsense regarding the Bush tax cuts or simply launching personal attacks. When you have something meaningful to say, I'll respond.

The sheer layers of irony in that paragraph have folded into a Zen koan that blasted me into Nirvana so fast it unclogged my sinuses. I need a hanky.

[Relbeek Einre]

More on the so-called "liberal media"...

Inauguration Day.

Between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Republican and conservative guests and commentators outnumbered Democrats and progressives 17 to 6 on FOX, 10 to 1 on CNN… and 13 to 2 on MSNBC.

How about that.