So you think the media is liberal...

Everytime I hear someone conservative bleat about how liberal and unfair the media are, I cant help but shake my head. I mean, I know it's not, but it's so hard to prove such a thing. For example, how do you demonstrate a lack of coverage? That's like proving a lack of weapons of mass destruction...

But then I ran across this piece over the weekend. The content of the article alone is worth talking about, and I'd encourage you to read the whole thing. However, I do want to draw your attention to the highlighted paragraph.

In summary, the "Rockefeller memo", a memo from a Democratic Senator critical of the partisan investigation of the Senate committee charged with investigating the "questionable" intelligence on which the war on Iraq was based, received extensive and critical media coverage, while the "Gillespie memo", an internal memo describing the activities the GOP plans to use to discredit the Democrats in the run up to the election, received minimal media coverage altogether.

Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/111503A.shtml The Other Memo Scandal By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Saturday 15 November 2003 The wires were buzzing last week over a memo leaked to Sean Hannity at the Fox News Network. The memo came from the offices of Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, who is serving as the ranking minority member on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This is the committee, chaired by Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, that has been tasked to investigate the dazzling lack of mass destruction weapons in Iraq. The Rockefeller memo outlined a variety of strategies he believed were needed to counteract the partisan defensiveness of Roberts and the majority on the Committee. Roberts has declared that all investigations surrounding the claims made about Iraq's weapons capabilities will be focused only on the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Rockefeller is adamant that the investigation should also include questions aimed at the White House, as well as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's special Defense Department organization called the Office of Special Plans. Roberts is not allowing this aspect of the investigation to take place, stating that the probe is already "90 to 95" finished. No questions about the dozens of public statements made by the Bush administration about Iraq's weapons capabilities have been allowed. No questions about the Office of Special Plans, which was created out of whole cloth by Rumsfeld for the specific purpose of re-interpreting CIA and State Department intelligence reports, have been allowed. No questions about repeated visits to CIA headquarters by Dick Cheney, who went there to browbeat intelligence analysts for more aggressive interpretations of the threat posed by Iraq, have been allowed. Roberts has already made it clear that the CIA is to blame for the fact that there are no weapons in Iraq, and is blocking Rockefeller and the Democrats from questioning this dubious premise. The memo prepared by Rockefeller stated that the Democrats need to try to steer the inquiry towards these matters. Failing that, the memo said, Democrats should try to launch a separate, independent investigation into these matters because the Intelligence Committee chaired by Roberts was being used to defend the White House from taint. "We have an important role to play," read the memo, "in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral pre-emptive war." When this memo fell into the hands of Sean Hannity and Fox, a concerted attempt was made to turn the existence of the memo into a major scandal. Hannity railed that this memo would cause several Senators to resign, that it was proof the Democrats want to turn the investigation into nothing more than a political witch hunt. Various members of the mainstream press jumped on this rhetorical bandwagon. The Los Angeles Times, in one example, described the revelation of the memo in terms to warm Hannity's heart: "The tone of the memo could be embarrassing to Democrats and provides new ammunition for Republican complaints that Democrats are seeking to use the inquiry for political gain." Roberts demanded that Rockefeller denounce the memo, but Rockefeller refused to do so. Roberts used this as an excuse to cancel further Intelligence Committee hearings on the matter, and froze completely the investigation. For all practical purposes, the Congressional investigation into the rhetoric surrounding our rush to war in Iraq is over. Little attention was given to the fact that Rockefeller is correct, that the White House and Rumsfeld deserve intense scrutiny for their central role in pushing fictional reports of Iraqi weapons capabilities, and that avoiding such questions amounts to nothing more than a purely partisan whitewash. Instead, Rockefeller's memo and legitimate questions from the Democrats were described as "just politics." Another memo surfaced recently. The Wednesday 12 November edition of the Boston Globe carried a story titled, "GOP Will Trumpet Preemption Doctrine." The story centered around a memo recently prepared by Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie which was disbursed widely throughout the party apparatus. In the memo, the newest GOP strategy was outlined, and talking points were provided. The Globe article states: The strategy will involve the dismissal of Democrats as the party of "protests, pessimism and political hate speech," Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials -- a move designed to shift attention toward Bush's broader foreign policy objectives rather than the accounts of bloodshed. Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests, arguing that inaction during the Clinton years led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This memo received very little media attention. A Google News search using the words "Gillespie memo" yielded nine articles, many from online-only publications. A search using the words "Rockefeller memo" yielded 207 articles, most of which are highly critical of the "political nature" of the document. The Rockefeller memo described a strategy to get to the bottom of what happened in the run-up to the war, a strategy that is required because Senator Roberts and his fellow Republicans are using their majority position to protect the White House from embarrassing questions. The Gillespie memo accused the Democrats of using "hate speech," blamed them for the attacks of September 11, and further outlined a political attack strategy that laments the unpatriotic behavior of the Democrats while painting a joyous picture of what is, in reality, a spectacularly failed Bush Administration policy in Iraq. For the record, no mass destruction weapons of any kind have been found in Iraq, despite months and months of dire promises from the Bush White House and Don Rumsfeld that the stuff was there, and that it would be given to Osama bin Laden for use on the American homeland. The CIA, scapegoated for telling the truth about this for months, has reported that tens of thousands of Iraqis are swarming into the ranks of those who attack and kill American soldiers every day. Paul Bremer, the American proconsul in Iraq, presides over an utterly failed occupation plan that will soon include harsh crackdowns against the Iraqi people, something that will surely fuel the already-seething anger within that populace. A few days ago, American warplanes began bombing Baghdad again. The nature of these dueling memos exposes several deadly problems that face this nation today. One problem is a White House that lied its populace into an unnecessary war, and used September 11 deliberately to make the American people afraid. Another problem is a partisan Congress, exemplified by Senator Roberts, which shields the Bush administration from being called to account for any of this. Another problem is a mainstream news media whose coverage of these issues is wildly skewed in favor of the GOP. The worst problem is the Democratic Party, that loyal opposition which is all too quick to be embarrassed by revelations that they actually oppose the Bush administration. Senator Evan Bayh, Democratic Senator from Indiana and member of the now-defunct Intelligence Committee investigations, stated publicly that Rockefeller should admit drafting the memo was a mistake. "I think the tone of the memo was unfortunate," said Bayh. How about this, Senator Bayh? "What is unfortunate is the fact that members of this committee who are committed to finding the truth about the development of the Bush administration's argument for war have to go outside the normal process, because the normal process has been corrupted by partisan Republicans who abuse their positions by blocking legitimate areas of inquiry. We have pages and pages of statements by administration officials that have turned out to be wildly false. There is plenty of evidence that the American people have been lied to in a process that has gotten a lot of good people killed. Why is the White House hiding? Why is Senator Roberts whitewashing this investigation? We apologize for nothing, and demand that this inquiry be widened to any and all areas that can bring us answers to these important questions." That would be nice to hear. Instead, we hear hangdog apologies from shamefaced Democrats. We have partisan Republicans shutting down vital inquiries for purely political reasons. We have a memo from the chairman of the Republican party calling Democrats unpatriotic and blaming them for September 11, with no notice being given to this vicious political attack whatsoever. We have a fraudulent war that grinds on and on, killing and maiming our soldiers every day. Where is the real scandal here?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Interesting article, sultan. Interesting and informative.

As to the "liberal bias" of the media, I've often complained about that myself. However, I'm talking about mainstream, national news media (primarily TV news programs and certain widely read newspapers). One thing I will admit is that any "liberal bias" displayed by such media is usually done in a more subtle manner. It is rarely blantant. For that reason, Fox News (or Faux News as a good friend of mine calls it) tips the balance FAR back to the conservative side all by itself. I am a staunch conservative, but even I have to laugh at the byline of Fox News as "fair and balanced". PUH-LEASE!!!! Of all the media that show any bias (in either direction), Fox News is - by far - the most blantant in their unified support of the conservative cause. I guess the reason all the charges of "liberal bias" sprang up in the first place is because somewhere along the line newspapers and TV news reports STOPPED being objective in how they covered the news. Instead, there was a gradual shift to present the articles or news stories in a fashion that would appeal to the widest group of thier audience. It became less about being "fair and objective" and more about increasing circulation or ratings. I see it in every paper or news program I watch. The news presented is catered (in a fashion) to the tastes of the viewing or reading audience.

As for the investigative committe itself, I really don't think the Democrats have anything to worry about as far as the issue of WoMD's are concerned. I don't think anybody buys the excuse that it was the CIA's fault. You can mark it on the calendar that the WoMD issue will be a MAJOR point in the upcoming elections....because this whole thing has really blown up in Bush's face. I was a strong supporter of Bush and the war. I honostly believed the WoMD's existed (although I realized there was NO direct connection between Saddam and Osama and I honostly didn't feel the WoMD's were an imminent threat to the U.S.). While it wasn't the only reason for our invasion of Iraq, it certainly was the most loudly trumpeted cause. Bush pounded it into the media's head every single day. Now, no matter HOW they try to "spin" it...the Bush Administration is NOT going to be able to lay the blame for the LACK of WoMD's in anybody else's lap. This issue is going to come back to haunt Bush in the next election.

The only problem is that it still may not matter. The same friend that used the label of Faux News also has a degree in Political Science and is a strong supporter of the Democratic party (for the most part, although he'll be the first to admit that there are some bad apples in that cart as well). According to him, the current group of Democratic Presidential hopefuls are all pretty weak when faced with the task of taking on Bush. Then again, nobody thought that some no-name governor from Arkansas stood a snowballs chance against Bush, Sr back in 1992 either.

Bush's major flaw is his glaring lack of diplomacy. We had worldwide support after 9/11 and he managed to erode that almost completely in just 18 mos. (actually, less than that as we still had fairly unanimous support in attacking Bin Laden in Afghanistan). Now, he is managing to erode the confidence of the conservative party (in MY opinion anyway) in his abilities. He has an almost phobic aversion to criticism.....No discouraging words allowed....and the way the Administration enforces that policy is creating a lot of political backlash.

While I can only speak for myself, I can tell you that, in the months following the Iraq War, I've gone from a definite vote for George Bush, Jr. to wanting to see what the Democratic Party has to offer.

So I wouldn't worry too much about the polical spins being sent out by the Bush Administration. So far, most of their endeavors in that area have only hurt them rather than helped them (again, in my opinion)

[Timber Loftis]

In reply, let me point out liberal Chicago Tribune front-page headlines as of Sunday, and offer a reply to show liberal media influence.

Chicago Tibune, front page, Sunday, Nov. 16, 2003;
83,310: Number of foreign visitors from Muslim countries who registered with the government after Ashcroft required them to do so.

13,740: Number of those 83,310 who were ordered into deportation proceedings.

0: Number who were publicly chargered with terrorism, although officials say a few have terrorist connections.
________________________________________
I propose to re-frame this (remember my "framing the issue" arguments) to fit reality:

83,310: Number of immigrants/vitors (non-citizens) from Muslim countries which were required to register with the government.

About 18% of those were found to be illegal immigrants or otherwise (due to terrorist connections) ordered into deportation proceedings.

Though none have been officially charged with terrorism, several were found to have terrorist connections requiring deportation.
_________________________________________
A very different framing of the issue, and ergo a different issue, is it not? Read between the lines, folks.