Libertarian Librarian

I'm sorry, but the distinction between what Howard Dean said and what the memo written by a mid-level republican senate staffer wrote escapes me. The important passage in Dean's comments:

"We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on," Dean said of the brain-damaged Floridian who died last month amid a swarm of political controversy after her feeding tube was removed.

The important passage in the memo:

This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

And what Dean said is less offensive because he was merely referring to the Republicans' crassness? So, as long as one side is crass and insensitive first, it's okay for the other side to be as well? Maybe that's what Dean is thinking, and maybe Troy and TC as liberals feel that those are the groundrules and democrats have to "fight fire with fire" and while I respectfully disagree, this is not the point. The point is that the media, a purportedly neutral observor and commentator, is treating the original "crime" much harsher than the subsequent "crime." Troy's reason for that is that the follow up crassness is less offensive than the original. I'm not really sure how. The original said this is a "great political issue," the latter that we're going to "use Terri Schiavo." Perhaps Dean meant to say, "We're goint to use the Republicans ridiculous power grab in the Schiavo case aginst them." But that's not what he said. Perhaps the aid that wrote the memo meant to say, "the Schiavo case just exemplifies the Democrats' unwillingness to stand up for life and that can be useful to us." But that's not what was written. Does the media somehow know that Dean meant to say "we're going to use the Republicans ridiculous power grab..." while the staffer meant to imply that they should politicize Schiavo's case? Please.

Both individuals imply that their party should use Schiavo to their political advantage. In one case, the media ripped on the party, in the other they have yet to do so. Indeed, the only places that have even mentioned Dean's comments so far are the L.A. Times and the blogosphere. I'll keep checking at least through next week to see if there is a lot of (any?) media condemnation of Dean's comments. That should be enough time for them to respond as, for the record TC, Dean made his comments on Friday, April 15, not Tuesday, April 19, and they were reported in the LA Times on Saturday, April 16. If there is, I'll let you know and apologize for jumping to conclusions. If there isn't, will you guys at least consider the possibility that the huge perponderance of liberals in the media might, just might, have an unbalancing effect on their coverage?

Also, please bear in mind that while the original crassness was a memo meant to only be seen by Republican senators and written by a senatorial aid, the subsequent "it's okay for us to make an issue out of you making it an issue because you started it, nyah" was voiced by Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, former Presidential candidate, and former Governor of Vermont. This would seem to more than outweigh the fact that the original "crime" was not his-- Dean should know better, and his office is far more influential than that of the originating talking points memo that received so much media condemnation.

Try this exercise: Imagine after the Matthew Shepard murder in 1998, the Democratically controlled congress (yes, I know it wasn't-- we're imaging, remember?) rammed through a bill that made it illegal for straight people to go to gay bars. This law is later overturned as unconstitutional, but after the fact a memo meant for Democratic senators is discovered to have the phrase, "This is a great political issue because Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Republicans." There is much hue and cry about the crassness of this and how terrible it is to politicize such a tragic situation. A month later, the chairman of the RNC publically states that, "We're going to use Matthew Shepard later on," and there is no media commentary to speak of.

Would that still be okay? Would that still be the media just being smart enough to "see through" to what is really happening?

Troy, TC, for all you go on about my "incredible bias" and shortsightedness, I'm the one openly condemning both parties. I think the Republicans were horribly out of line with their legislation, and I think Howard Dean and, to the extent he represents the Democratic party as the Chair of the DNC, the Democrats are horribly out of line with their intention to make the Schiavo case an issue in '06 and '08. So, who's bias is clouding their vision?

Regardless, none of this answers my original question. If the vast majority of journalists have the same biases, the same world view, why wouldn't we expect that the news reporting would be slanted to reflect those biases and that world view? If everyone reading and writing here ABOUT bias is incapable of rising above it (not necessarily the case, methinks), why would people writing about other things and not even thinking of their own biases be more able to do that very thing?