A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Bias, bias and more bias.

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?
Comments:
Silly Allegory Alert!

The Mainstream Media (MSM) is a diner in 1950's Alabama. But the sign in the window doesn't say "No Coloreds", it says "No Conservatives". NBC, ABC, CBS, NRP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report; they all post guards with the duty of keeping the conservatives out of the diner.

If the MSM were a business or governmental entity, Affirmative Action would be called for, it would only be fair. (Of course, universities would find a way to keep the coloreds, er, conservatives out.) Fully one half of all reporters would be forced to vote Republican, and to issue rightward slants with their stories.

But Life just isn't fair. So rather than Affirmative Action in the newsroom, conservatives found other ways to get their message out. We started our own diners, and ours were so much better than the MSM diner that the MSM diner sits empty, wondering where all their customers went.

And, come on, Abbot and Costello, if the best example of right wing bias you can find is a couple of Ann Coulter footnotes that were wrong, then you are seriously hurting.
 
The way you are screaming about wanting equal time in the media, I think you should rename the site: reactionarylibrarian.

So let me ask this question? Would Dean and the Democratic candidates in 06 (forget 08 because everyone will have forgotten about this by then) be evil for making seperation of church and state an issue? What about making an issue out of supposedly being for less government but then passing laws for one person?
If they bring these up, Terri Shaivo's name will come up as the reason for all of this. Yes???
So why beat around the bush. Let's call this the Republican's Terri Shaivo policy and that the Democrats are going to bring this up when they are running against a Republican with some religious leanings.
And in the end Dean should be commended for calling it what it is and not just saying that seperation of church and state will be an issue in upcoming elections. (Plus, it's a much better soundbite when you use her name.)
One more question on bias. If there is soooooooooooooooooooo much liberal bias in the media, how did a basically religious issue (Terri) become such a huge topic all over the media?
The answer is they care more about ratings than anything else, including their damn bias.
Also, since the ranting is really coming on strong this week, I am changing my posting name to the Stumbling Alcoholic. Now if you don't mind, I need to go get a beer.
 
One more rant about media bias.
I haven't seen any editorials on the amazing comments by the House majority leader and his desires to stop the courts system (especially when the justices were nominated by Republicans and aren't being conservative enough).
To be fair, I hate editorials, so I haven't looked much for them on this subject. But since you seem intent on telling us the lean on every single editorial, you can look for me. I would think that every member of the liberal media would want to jump on this one, since it is a conservative acting like a baby since he isn't getting enough things to go his conservative way. I would think if they all are going to editorialize on this, even I would see one or two of them by accident.
 
One more comment regarding your lack of noticing a distinction between what Dean said and the memo. Do you think that the Republicans should be penalized for what they did in the Shaivo case? (And by penalized, I just mean lose some seats in the House and/or Senate in the next election.) Also, do you believe that there should be seperation of church and state as stated in the constitution?
If you answered no to these questions, then that would explain why you don't see a distinction.

By the way, if you said yes to the last question, then you should also check on your knowledge of the constitution. Seperation of church and state is not specified in the constitution. And I'll bet there would be absolutely no chance of that getting ratified these days.
 
Frankly Troy, the only person ranting and raving and screaming is, well, you. Okay, John a little with the ranting, but I think he just likes to create silly allegories. Chill my friend. Have I ever struck you as reactionary or strident or an unthinking dittohead?

To be honest with you, I don't really mind that Dean said what he said. I don't mind that the aid to Mel Martinez wrote what he wrote. It's what most people were thinking anyway, as you note-- so let's call all the posturing what it is. Fine. Moral posturing for political gain. It's a crass, dirty, ugly profession, so why shouldn't the talk reflect that?

The problem is in how the media presents the two situations. Dean's comments are blandly reported and appear, so far, to be completely acceptable. The memo is roundly denounced as crass, insensitive and completely inappropriate and the guy that wrote it has to resign. Does that seem fair or equitable to you? It doesn't to me, and yes, it bothers me. It bothers me precisely because news outlets are supposed to be impartial, fair and unbiased. They claim that they are, and often they are, but increasingly they seem to be veering off into editorializing when they should be reporting. And the editorializing seems to almost exclusively slant left.

As to Tom DeLay, theHouse Majority leader, and his commentary on an independent judiciary, what can I say, DeLay is an idiot. And he deserves to be called out for it. I would be perfectly happy if he were to resign.

But that wasn't the question. A search through the same source I used for the Schiavo memo and Dean's comments (Proquest newspaper source) yields denunciatioins within the last week from the Christian Science Monitor, The Oregonian, the News Tribune (Washington state), and David Brooks in the NY Times (though that one is critical of a variety of Republican efforts rececently, not just DeLay). There's also a separate DeLay rebuke in the NY Times that was reprinted in the International Herald Tribune out of Paris. Which still leaves the Washington Post and several smaller newspapers, all of whom also weighed-in against DeLay's conduct and rhetoric.

So, I think we can safely say the media has done a pretty thorough job of writing on DeLay's idiocy. It remains to be seen if they will do the same for Dean's.

Have a beer for me, would ya?

Thanks, man.
 
Hey, I didn't say Howard Dean was justified in what he said.

As a matter of fact, my comment actually predicted that this would actually work its way into an issue used against the Democrats, but that time to fester was still needed. I merely pointed out that immediate outrage was not to be expected. It's more the province of blogtopia.

Having said, that, I still think Troy is right in what he said. The first move was in the Republican's court. Had the effort not been made to turn the fiasco into political gain, Howard Dean could not have made thos comments.

And yes, I did mean to use that word fester.



Aside x 2 to John H: I will take your silly allegory for what it's worth. But until corporate entities are also required to install a like number of liberals as conservatives into positions as CEO, this one sided call to fairness rings hollow.

As you said, life isn't fair. We're talking about bias here, not affirmative action. If conservatives are so concerned about lack of representation in the newsroom, who is stopping them from becoming journalists? Show me evidence of an organized, directed effort and pattern of hiring discrimination, and you may have a case for corrective action.

Would that Ann Coulter's footnotes were the only examples of her errors. I did not use her footnotes as an example of bias; rather it was the reporting that John Cloud of TIME did, claiming that he could find very few examples of inaccuracies in her ramblings.

And yes, your ad hominem attack on my nom de blog is hurting. ouch. ow.
 
Aside x 2 to John H: I will take your silly allegory for what it's worth. But until corporate entities are also required to install a like number of liberals as conservatives into positions as CEO, this one sided call to fairness rings hollow.

JIH: Screw the corporate liberals, surely you've heard of Ben and Jerry? George Soros? Bill Gates? Ted Turner? And dozens more.

As you said, life isn't fair. We're talking about bias here, not affirmative action. If conservatives are so concerned about lack of representation in the newsroom, who is stopping them from becoming journalists? Show me evidence of an organized, directed effort and pattern of hiring discrimination, and you may have a case for corrective action.

JIH: In the good old affirmative action days, you didn't need a pattern of hiring. You only had to show that the 'people of color' were underrepresented in the employee pool. Well, in a MSM workforce that voted 70-something percent democrat in the last election, you have bias against republicans proven. At least to a standard that would trigger affirmative action action.

Would that Ann Coulter's footnotes were the only examples of her errors. I did not use her footnotes as an example of bias; rather it was the reporting that John Cloud of TIME did, claiming that he could find very few examples of inaccuracies in her ramblings.

JIH: So, are you claiming Ann Coulter has a pattern of lies and exaggerations, like, say, former Enron advisor Paul Krugman? Got some proof?

And yes, your ad hominem attack on my nom de blog is hurting. ouch. ow.

JIH: Er, I apologize for that, Elvis.
 
Couple thoughts on bias comments made so far: media never gave the whole story on Terri Schiavo. They covered the story because they had to, but they showed no interest in looking into Michael Schiavo's questionable crusade for Terri's "right" to starve to death. Same way MSM has shown a staggering lack of interest in just who forged the documents that ended Dan Rather's career. Same way Delay gets pilloried for criticizing judges but nary a peep regarding Harry Reid's attack on Clarence Thomas as someone who write so bad it is "embarrassing." No, there's no bias. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
 
Couple thoughts on bias comments made so far: media never gave the whole story on Terri Schiavo. They covered the story because they had to, but they showed no interest in looking into Michael Schiavo's questionable crusade for Terri's "right" to starve to death.

Mr. Schiavo struggled to give his wife peace and fulfill her wishes in extremis. This is questionable? That a man loved his wife enough to want to see her at rest in accord with her stated desires? The MSM did, in fact, fail to report that an investigative body found that all the allegations made against Schiavo were, in actual fact, baseless.

Same way MSM has shown a staggering lack of interest in just who forged the documents that ended Dan Rather's career.

Dan Rather must have precognition, because he announced his plans to retire several months before the presentation of those documents.

And I would also like to see the MSM dig out who actually produced those documents. My interpretation does not point to a Liberal source; there is no need to produce new documents showing Bush's failure to fulfill his service duties - there's more than enough evidence to create doubt.

In fact, I am far more concerned about the staggering lack of interest in finding evidence that Bush did in fact, properly serve his time.

Same way Delay gets pilloried for criticizing judges but nary a peep regarding Harry Reid's attack on Clarence Thomas as someone who write so bad it is "embarrassing." No, there's no bias. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Now I've got to believe you're just being willfully obtuse here. Do you honestly not discern a difference between expressing concern, even criticism, over a candidates' credentials versus makely thinly concealed threats when an official makes decisions you don't agree with?

If that is the case, there's nothing left to do but bid you Good Day, Sir.
 
"Mr. Schiavo struggled to give his wife peace and fulfill her wishes in extremis. This is questionable? That a man loved his wife enough to want to see her at rest in accord with her stated desires? The MSM did, in fact, fail to report that an investigative body found that all the allegations made against Schiavo were, in actual fact, baseless."

Dude, your arguments have no depth, and even worse, you do not support them with facts. First of all, there was no record that Terri Schiavo wanted to die. There was only the word of her rat-bastard husband, a recollection miraculously discovered over a year into her condition. "Oh, by the way, I just remembered that Terri told me she wanted to die rather than reside in a vegetative state for years to come." You believe that?

Secondly, what MSM report found that all the allegations made against Rat Bastard were baseless? I never heard of such a report. Perhaps it came out in the Mother Jones magazine? You can't just say "the charges were found baseless" and not back that up.

"In fact, I am far more concerned about the staggering lack of interest in finding evidence that Bush did in fact, properly serve his time."

That's more shallow thinking. A huge anti-Bush campaign swept the nation before the last election. The likes of Hollywood, Michael Moore, George Soros, Air America, the anti-war left and the entire democrat party were looking for anything to use against Bush, and as we saw in the case of CBS, they'd even make it up. John Kerry was going to be elected at any cost.

And you think all these people, with all the hundreds of millions they had to spend, and the burning desire to throw Bush and Rove out of the White House, would pass up evidence that Bush didn't fulfill his National Guard obligations? Do you really believe that?

"Now I've got to believe you're just being willfully obtuse here. Do you honestly not discern a difference between expressing concern, even criticism, over a candidates' credentials versus makely thinly concealed threats when an official makes decisions you don't agree with?"

JIH: You strain at gnats and swallow camels. You'd have to, to believe the stuff you're spouting.
 
OK. I'm separating these into separate posts to make them easier to read.

Dude, your arguments have no depth, and even worse, you do not support them with facts. First of all, there was no record that Terri Schiavo wanted to die. There was only the word of her rat-bastard husband, a recollection miraculously discovered over a year into her condition. "Oh, by the way, I just remembered that Terri told me she wanted to die rather than reside in a vegetative state for years to come." You believe that?

calling the Husband rat bastard with just your own beliefs to base that on is unsupported by facts. If the husband was as egregious a squeezebag as has been claimed, he would have walked from this problem long ago.

I certainly have no problem believing that this man held out hope for recovery as long as he could, until the overwhelming data produced by the medical professionals convinced him that his wife was, in fact, gone forever. At that point, he revealed the discussions he and his wife had regarding the situation. Although a written Livning Will would be preferable, Why is this not proof enough?

Why is the husband unbelievable, just because his statements go against what you want to believe? If you said that your and your wife discussed something, why should I not believe that your recollection of the conversation was in fact accurate?

As for evidence, although I don't think you will find it believable considering your comments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59521-2005Apr16.html
 

That's more shallow thinking. A huge anti-Bush campaign swept the nation before the last election. The likes of Hollywood, Michael Moore, George Soros, Air America, the anti-war left and the entire democrat party were looking for anything to use against Bush, and as we saw in the case of CBS, they'd even make it up. John Kerry was going to be elected at any cost.


That's more shallow thinking. A huge anti-Democrat campaign swept the nation before the last election. The likes of Wall Street, Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch,Fox News, the energy industry and the entire Republican party were looking for anything to use against Kerry, and as we saw in the case of the Swift Boat Veterans, they'd even make it up. George Bush was going to be elected at any cost.

I dont think either of those paragraphs is any less meaningful than the other.

And you think all these people, with all the hundreds of millions they had to spend, and the burning desire to throw Bush and Rove out of the White House, would pass up evidence that Bush didn't fulfill his National Guard obligations? Do you really believe that?

No, I don't think that. In fact, as I said there's already been plenty of evidence unearthed suggesting that he did not fulfill those obligations, and little evidence proving that he did. What I contend is that considering the nature of the Armed Forces, there really should be ample evidence that he fulfilled his obligations; what has been produced to date does not.

The information available points to inconsistencies and omissions, and the burden of proof is now to actually demonstrate that he did.


And because I know you like to see some evidence, here you go:

Swift Boat Vets: http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040821kerry,1,7582568.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html

Fearless Leader's record, or lack of it:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671
http://www.awolbush.com/
http://www.hereinreality.com/commander.html
http://www.glcq.com/
 
JIH: You strain at gnats and swallow camels. You'd have to, to believe the stuff you're spouting.

no reply necessary.

BTW camels taste okay. Little like mako shark, texture like old chicken. But All in all, I prefer a nice pasta, with a glass of sauvignon blanc.
 
Snark eggs! I'm telling you man. Can't beat 'em.
 
Hey, Elvis Costello, I don't have time to respond now (its the weekend!) but I'll try to later.

I must say I like your style. You employ many of of the same rhetorical tricks I use. You even provided a buttload of links, a nice trick to keep an opponent busy while you laugh.

I still think your points are shallow, but I honestly salute your technique.
 
I see this discussion has developed somewhat since I last chimed in, but here is another $.02 from me.

Schiavo -- yes TC I find it questionable what Michael did. I find it questionable to want to starve your wife to death, and I find it questionable to rule as a matter of law that this point was proven by little more than Michael's word on it, especially when he has other interests.

Dan Rather -- did he announce he was retiring in June last year? I do not know otherwise, so I will assume you are right. So, I think the MSM showed a staggering lack of interest in finding who destroyed Rather's reputation.

Delay -- Congress has the constitutional right to impeach judges, and has done so (though probably not for poor legal thinking). Congress also has the right to define jurisdiction in federal courts, which it did in the Schiavo case. Delay was pretty ticked that the district and circuit court judges essentially ignored Congress. So he reminded them that they are not unanswerable to another authority. That is not a threat. Reid on the other hand, could not even articulate what about Thomas was "embarrassing." At least Delay could tell you what he doesn't like about the judges in the Schiavo case. Reid's critique is similar to the emperor in "Amadeus" who criticized Mozart's work because it "had too many notes." So federal judges in the Schiavo case are beyond criticism, but an absurd and hostile critique of Thomas goes by with a yawn. Bias.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?