CNN's Phillips drew distinction between "anti-war" Sheehan and "staunch advocate for the troops" Young
SUMMARY: CNN's Kyra Phillips characterized Cindy Sheehan as an "anti-war activist" while casting Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-FL), as a "staunch advocate for the troops." Both women were removed from the visitor's gallery of the House of Representatives prior to the start of President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with political messages.
On the February 2 edition of CNN's Live From..., host Kyra Phillips characterized Cindy Sheehan as an "anti-war activist" while casting Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-FL), as a "staunch advocate for the troops." Both women were removed from the visitor's gallery of the House of Representatives prior to the start of President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with political messages. Sheehan's shirt listed the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq at that point -- 2,245 -- along with the question "How many more?" Young's shirt read: "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom."
Philips did not say how Sheehan's status as an "anti-war activist" or how the message on her shirt differentiated her from a "staunch advocate for the troops" such as Young.
Media Matters for America previously noted other media outlets characterizing Sheehan's shirt as "the opposite" of Young's, and describing Young's message as "more patriotic" than Sheehan's.
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the February 2 edition of CNN's Live From...:
PHILLIPS: Uh, never mind. The great Capitol Hill garment crisis turns out to be a tempest in a T-shirt. Here are the players, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and staunch advocate for the troops Beverly Young, wearing the shirts that got them both bounced from the State of the Union on Monday. Capitol Police chief Terrance Gainer cops to the double blunder, saying his officers were operating under outdated guidance. Turns out political T-shirts aren't unlawful in chambers unless the wearer tries to call attention to the message. Now both women have gotten plenty of attention.
Boy, the conservative misinformation police apparently haven't met their quota yet - why else dig down deep for this?
Hello - when a woman wears a "Support our Troops" T-shirt, she can easily be considered a stauch advocate for the troops. I don't even believe Cindy Sheehan would argue with the term "anti War activist" as an apt description of her. I know, I know, many here will scream that Sheehan supports the troops as much as anyone, and by describing each woman the way this reporter did, it leaves a different impression........but come on, both descriptions were accurate. That cannot be denied.
Tommy, I agree with EVERYTHING you wrote.
Not a thing I can even ADD to it.
You know damn well that reporters (not pundits giving an opinion, but reporters who are only supposed to report the news, like the AP or Kyra Phillips in this particular example) are clearly making a distinction that one of the woman was supporting the troops while the other (Sheehan) was not.
You might not see that as an important form of misinformation, and it may not be compared to other examples. It's still worth noting that the mainstream media (the "Communist News Network" no less) is buying into Republican talking points, and letting the Republicans frame this argument.
The fact is, BOTH women removed from the speech were supporting the troops in their own way.
I mean, how would you feel if CNN portrayed Sheehan as "a staunch supporter of the troops", and listed Ms. Young as "a pro-war activist", thereby making a distinction that one is supporting the troops while the other is just an activist? I can guarantee the Michelle Malkin's and Brent Bozell's of the world would be up in arms about it.
Brian, referring to Ms. Young as "a pro-war activist" BECAUSE she wore a t-shirt would NOT be an ACCURATE description. Simply because it takes MORE to be considered an "Activist"...The fact is Cindy Sheehan is an Anti-War Activist. Certainly using "staunch" to describe Ms. Young's support was a bit much, BUT she obviously does support the troops. That's NOT to say Ms. Sheehan doesn't....But even YOU have to admit Cindy Sheehan as made her reputation as an Anti-War Activist.
Now I'm heading home...IF you reply I'll get back to ya later
"Beverly supported the Iraq war but now has qualms. She has seen too many soldiers and Marines blown up by improvised explosive devices, the bombs used by insurgents."
[link to www.sptimes.com]
I hope the link works. If not you can cut and paste if you feel like it. The article alludes to the fact that Beverly Young is a Republican so she can vote for her husband but she seems more of an independent. She's definitely and independent soul. I think I like her, I like Cindy as well. They seem to have a lot in common. Two spunky outspoken passionate gals.
Lynn, thanks for that. I didn't know anything about her - that story is really amazing.
And you're right - she and Cindy Sheehan have a lot in common. I don't pretend they hold the same views, but...
We are ALL supporting the troops. CNN should get that - they don't.
Thanks for the link Lynn...it was a great article and shows that referring to Ms. Young as a "staunch advocate for the troops." is a indeed a TRUE statement. This is a special lady :-)
I agree, but I also think that applies to Cindy Sheehan. These women are committed to supporting the troops, they diverge on how best to do that. So I disagree that one is being more supportive than the other so I disagree that that lable should have been apllied only to Beverly Young. Al Franken is the only representative from the political punditry out there spearheading USO tours, he's a staunch supporter of the troops he is also a anti-Iraqi war activist. He disagrees with Cindy Sheehan and like minded people that the pull-out should be immediate. There is room for various opinions and we should have a debate and hopefully reach a national consensus. It's sometimes subtle and sometimes overt but I think the media propagates the notion that only if you hold one of these opinions that you're supportive of the troops. Just my opinion.
You guys know the media is clearly making a distinction between the two women. They describe one as "anti-war activist", and the other as "staunch supporter of the troops". Why are they not both supporters of the troops? Why did they not portray Mrs. Young as "pro-war" for the message on her shirt?
They clearly imply that Cindy Sheehan does not support the troops while Young does.
The reason why I pointed out that this is just one example, is because of this MMFA post:
[link to mediamatters.org]
The Associated Press and other publications have even gone so far as to not only describe one woman as anti-war, and the other as supporting the troops, they've even labelled Sheehan's shirt as "opposite" of the support the troops message. The AP even stated Young was "more patriotic".
Like I said, these are not pundits giving an opinion, which would be fine (though still misleading). These are supposedly hard news reporters only reporting the facts of the incidents.
....and CNN and the AP are considered by most conservatives as "liberal media".
The reporter was simply responding to what each woman had on the T shirt they wore to the SOTU speech. One said "Support the Troops", the other spoke to the soldiers lost and asked "How many more........?"
If I knew nothing else about these women except what their attire said then I would say one is a strong supporter of the troops, and the other is anti War......but Miss Sheehan is widely known as being an activist so there was no stretch there.
Both descriptions, standing on their own, are accurate.
So wanting the troops to come home, and not wanting soldiers lives wasted in a meaningless war means you do not support them?
Interesting.
That is the message Ms. Sheehan's shirt contained.
It did not say "Peace", or "No More War" or any other message which would simply be anti-war without any other context. It also did not point out a single casualty from the Afghan War. To me, the message was not simply "I'm against the war", but "I'm against the useless Iraq War and all the soldiers dying in it for no reason".
Also, you're ignoring that Sheehan's own son was a soldier! How would she NOT support the troops? Every single time I've heard her speak, she has talked about how she does not want any other soldier's Moms to go through the same pain she went through.
You're also completely disregarding the other MMFA post which goes much further than this CNN piece. The AP story called Young's shirt "more patriotic" and said their messages were "opposite". That implies Sheehan is anti-troops (clearly, if Sheehan's shirt was "opposite" of the "support the troops" shirt).
My point is, supposed hard news reporters have bought into the same opinion you share; that Cindy Sheehan is different from the woman who wore the "support the troops" shirt.
The fact that you are agreeing with this misinformation shows the conservative bias displayed on CNN, in the AP, in the Baltimore Sun, and in other publications.
Now, if CNN's report supported the liberal point of view, that Cindy's message was "supporting the troops", and that Young's shirt was saying "they should stay and die in Iraq for nothing", you and every right-wing pundit would be up in arms, and you know it.
And you would be incorrect if you said such a thing.
It's the so called "Activist" who lost a son in this war. I wonder if our staunch supported has a child over there? But of course, the media doesn't care that her son died for the very war they are defending. What a bunch of losers. And Couric is just laughable, what a cheap attempt at trying to sound like a real journalist.
Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist. Nothing wrong with that. She's put a lot of time and effort and personal sacrifice into it. So that's accurate. But has Ms. Young done anything to earn the title "staunch advocate for the troops" other than put on a shirt? Does that means that everyone whose personal sacrifice for "the troops" consists of putting a $3 magnet on four square inches of their SUV is also a "staunch advocate for the troops"? Wow, that's a pretty low bar.
Who said anything about a personal sacrifice for the troops? I didn't.
The description was that Ms. Young was a staunch advocate - I will give you the fact that just wearing the T shirt in and of itself may not warrant that description, but wearing it at the SOTU address, where most women are in some designer couture dress, does speak for the woman's advocacy.
Or partisanship.
I wasn't responding to your post.
Give me a break! wearing a tee shirt makes you a "staunch" supporter because everyone else chooses Versace? Not very good logic there.
You say, "Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist. "
Sadly, even THAT is misleading. Sheehan is against THIS war in Iraq, THIS war that was started on FALSE premises. THIS war, which has been so disasterously managed. THIS war, during which the Administration is not supplying the troops with proper armor and equipment.
Sheehan might be a WARMONGER, if the war was JUST, or if the leadership was honest, and the GOALS were clear and true. None of this describes the Iraq war, so we'll never know Sheehan's position on a JUST war. Not yet, anyway.
Even discussing spin, it's difficult to avoid the FRAMING that creeps into the propaganda of the Rightwing Media. Once they have determined HOW an issue will be discussed, they've already essentially WON.
I note that nowhere does it show or say that the other woman, the Congressman's wife, SUPPORTS the war in Iraq. Has any enterprising newsy ASKED?
You say, "Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist. "
Sadly, even THAT is misleading.
**************************
You have got to be joking? Where is Sue when we need a defnition. Let me help you, when you are opposed to the War - you are "anti War", ok? And you have done all the media grabbing antics of Miss Sheehan, from camping out in front of Bush's ranch to cozying up to Chavez, then you are an "activist", ok?
This conservative media bias train is running rampant these days, how can it be stopped??
Between objecting to a specific war and being against all war. I think that's the distinction Tex was going for. I don't know which view Cindy Sheehan holds...do you? Are you sure?
"Let me help you, when you are opposed to the War - you are 'anti War', ok?"
-----
No, not OK. Do we know Sheehan's position on World War I? World War II? Vietnam? Korea? No, we don't it is possible to be against this war and not be "anti-war." And the fact you purport not to understand this speaks volumes about the rest of the nits you attempt to pick with MMFA daily.
Rusty, go to Lynn's link above.
I give this woman a lot of credit. I know that stories like this are often sops, but the St. Pete Times is a good paper, and this seems sincere.
Again, I don't pretend she and Cindy agree on much, but the VAST majority of conservatives in this country care for the troops.
I just wish they would say the same about us.
Thanks, I went to the link and was quite impressed by Ms. Young. If the article is to be believed (and the SP Times is a good paper, so I don't see any reason why not), Ms. Young is a staunch supporter of the troops in her preferred way, spending considerable amounts of her free time with them in the hospital and encouraging her husband to pass legislation favorable to soldiers, and does not seem to be pro-war. (Guess I should say, "pro-Iraq-war.")
The Republicans don't do nuance, remember? Except in their reporting - very nuanced language to create an impression. Their political campaigns use sound bites and slogans which make no sense, but convince the easily swayed. And then they use very subtle, less obvious language that conveys - for lack of a more appropriate term - disdain for anyone who does not support Bush's agenda. Although some of what they say may be technically accurate, the words chosen are very subtle slams, in this case, against Sheehan. The cumulative effect of these subtle attacks are very strong, unless those watching are educated and observant enough to detect it. I think it's important to make note of these items.
I wonder if CNN reported the different treatments accorded each woman by the capitol police. Ms. Sheehan was handled roughly, was not even given the option of zipping up her jacket to cover her T-shirt, and was booked and fingerprinted. Ms. Young, on the other hand, was treated gently and not booked nor fingerprinted.
My local Hearst-Argyle TV station, true to form, even reported (I quote) "They said Sheehan tried to unfurl a banner." Who they was was not said.
An innocent reporting error, or a deliberate attempt to portray Sheehan as wildly radical -- going even to the extreme of trying to disrupt a State of the Union address -- even if the specific charge was not true?
Equally as "staunch [an] advocate for the troops" would be "anti-war" (does this mean Young is pro-war?) Cindy Sheehan-the person who questions how many more people have to die in this senseless, un-winnable war.
Phillips should simply have reported the facts of the matter, rather than tossing-in a jab at Sheehan.
It's a jab to call Sheehan an anti War activist? I would imagine she would wear that label proudly. Imagine the gall of such conservative media bias! Well, I never.
I was referring to the "[Young is a] staunch advocate for the troops" comment, which implied Sheehan was not-which I believe she is. I'm sure Sheehan is proudly anti-war.
Next time, maybe you ought to count to ten before you click "Post".
It still wasn't a jab, in my opinion, at Miss Sheehan........but you clarified what you meant and if I misinterpreted, sorry.
That's obvious.
Hmmmm... lets look at a few words :
activist vs. advocate supporter vs. protestor anti-war vs. pro-military domesting spying vs. terrorism surveillance program Deficit Reduction Act vs. Student loan and medicaid cuts
anyone can say its just "semantics" - I would argue, that different words applied to the same thing create a vastly different impression.
Before I figured out the mission of MMFA, I would have noted this as a petty oversight not worth mentioning. Today, as I look at the massive right wing misinformation machine as compared to anything to counter it's effect, I welcome MMFA's commitment to setting the record straight, and at times, wish I was a part of that process. To be true to this cause, you must be relentless and simply committed to setting the record straight. I know the CNNs and the O'Reillys of the world think twice before they blurt out their form of misinformation knowing that there is some organization relentlessly committed to exposing their right wing propaganda. In fact, I would love to see a Newsletter additions to such a cause as a way of giving this idea of exposing the right a physical permanency.
Right Joseph- by itself, in a vaccum, the semantics of this one event can be debated endlessly. However, when you think about the BIG PICTURE of propoganda, misinformation, carefully parsed statements, and yes, semantics, it paints a picture of DELIBERATE, PLANNED DECEPTION.
Don't fail to see the FOREST because you're too busy talking about ONE TREE- that's the point of MMFA.