At Taranto's request, Media Matters debunks his theory of media bias
SUMMARY: James Taranto issued a challenge to test his theory that the "mainstream media" are "generally biased in favor of liberals and Democrats, but this ends up helping conservatives and Republicans by breeding complacency on the Democratic side." Taranto asked: "Can you find a similar article ... speculating about the possibility of a Republican landslide in 1994, when there actually was one?" Media Matters for America answers Taranto's challenge.
In his May 30 "Best of the Web Today" column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto criticized a May 29 Associated Press news analysis article by political writer Ron Fournier titled, "Democrats Eye November Landslide," and issued a challenge to test his theory that the "mainstream media" are "generally biased in favor of liberals and Democrats, but this ends up helping conservatives and Republicans by breeding complacency on the Democratic side." Taranto asked: "Can you find a similar article -- that is, a news story, not an opinion column, preferably written months before the election -- speculating about the possibility of a Republican landslide in 1994, when there actually was one? How about in 1980?"
Media Matters for America answers Taranto's challenge.
A Nexis search of newspaper articles from May 30-October 31, 1994, turned up the following results:
- "Democrats Struggle to Build Damage-Control Strategy for Fall Elections" [Washington Post, 6/26/94]
Facing losses in the House and Senate that could cripple President Clinton's legislative majorities, White House and Democratic Party officials are struggling to develop a strategy to contain the potential damage in the November elections.
These efforts have been hampered by White House preoccupation with health care legislation in Congress, lack of clear coordination and strategic disagreements over whether candidates in the South and West should distance themselves from Clinton in their fall campaigns.
Some party officials believe the Democrats are in danger of losing control of the Senate and that their losses in the House could leave the Republicans holding the largest number of seats since the mid-1950s.
- "Prospects Look Rosy, But Republicans Warn Against Self-Destruction" [AP, 7/21/94]
Looking ahead to November, the Republicans said they are becoming more convinced that they can pick up the seven seats necessary to take control of the Senate. And the troubles of Clinton and the Democrats in much of the country have Republicans believing they can surpass the average gain of 14 House seats for the party out of power in an administration's first midterm election.
Barbour said the party considered 175 of the 435 House races to be competitive, an unprecedented number. Asked for predictions, he said a GOP House takeover was unlikely but not out of the question. Capturing the Senate will be tough but not impossible, either, he said, adding that major gains would give Republicans "working control" of Congress on many issues even if they lacked a numerical majority.
- "GOP going great guns for the fall elections / Democrats standing on shaky ground" [USA Today, 8/5/94]
With a little more than three months until Election Day, Democrats are facing their worst congressional elections since the Reagan landslide of 1980.
Political pros no longer laugh when optimistic Republicans talk about regaining majority control of the Senate, which they lost in 1986, or winning 200 House seats, a level they haven't reached since the end of the Eisenhower administration.
"Not since 1980 have the congressional election stakes been so high," says Charles Cook, a non-partisan political analyst.
He predicts conservatives from both parties "will claim effective control of both the House and Senate after November" and that Republican control of the Senate and to a lesser extent of the House "is no longer just a gleam in the GOP's eye."
Says Senate GOP leader Robert Dole, R-Kan., "The polls look so good we wish (elections) were tomorrow."
- "GOP Chances to Win Majority in Congress Distant, But Rising" [Christian Science Monitor, 9/30/94]
COULD it be? Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the ebullient Republican phrasemaking machine with the thick white bangs, as Speaker of the House?
With each passing week, the still-remote scenario of Republican gains in congressional races this November winning them control of the House, the Senate, or both, is becoming easier to imagine.
What could make it possible is what appears to be a trend toward even greater Republican gains than forecast a couple of months ago, combined with possible Democratic converts to the Republican fold -- lured by the promise of power through plum committee posts.
- "GOP Stalks Democrats Who May Switch Parties" [Christian Science Monitor, 10/7/94]
AFTER 40 years as the minority party in the House of Representatives, Republicans are daring to dream that this could be their year.
Even if they don't make the net gain of 40 seats in the November elections needed to win an outright majority, Republicans hope that if they get close, they can lure enough conservative Democrats into changing their party affiliation to tip the balance. (GOP chairman predicts gains, Page 3.)
''A number of Democrats have come up to Newt and said, 'If you get close, I'll switch,' '' says Tony Blankley, press secretary to House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R) of Georgia, who is in line to become House Republican leader in the next Congress -- and Speaker of the House if the Republicans take over.
- "GOP Coup in Congress Could Have a Big Economic Impact" [The Washington Post, 10/12/94]
With less than four weeks before the congressional elections, the widely read Cook Political Report is about to publish a prediction that Republicans have an even-money chance to win a majority in the Senate and a one-in-three chance of capturing the House.
If the GOP does take both houses for the first time in 40 years, the effect on the economy -- and on individual businesses -- could be profound.
- "GOP-Controlled Congress: The Powers That Could Be" [Christian Science Monitor, 10/21/94]
ALONG K Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, in lobbyists' offices around town, polls showing Republican strength in House and Senate races have caused some pencil-sharpening over what the next Congress will look like and what it is likely to do.
[...]
Consider, for example, Jesse Helms as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The conservative North Carolina Republican, a thorn in the side of many administrations of both parties, is ranking Republican on the committee and often a vocal opponent of US participation in international organizations.
On the other hand, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) - a set of proposed rules for world trade - might be law now if Senate Commerce chairman Ernest Hollings (D) of South Carolina had not been in a position to single-handedly block it. Senator Hollings' move has forced the Senate into a post-election session to vote on GATT.
Whether or not Republicans gain the seven seats they need in the Senate or the 40 seats they need in the House to become committee and subcommittee chairs, some characteristics of the next Congress are clear.
- "Calculating Effects of a G.O.P. Congress: More Respect or More Deadlock?" [The New York Times, 10/26/94]
Suppose the Republicans took over Congress. What difference would it make?
To hear Democrats anxious to get their core voters out, it would mean the end of civilization as we know it, with Medicare dollars going to pay for arms spending, a leering Bob Packwood in charge of the Senate Finance Committee and the new Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, third in line for the Presidency.
To hear Republicans tell it, putting them in control would let them cut the power of the Federal Government by undoing the excesses of years of Democratic rule. At the very least, they say, they could prevent any new excesses and establish themselves as the party that stood with the American people when Democrats and President Clinton were forcing gridlock on them and protecting the bad old days.
Then there are some scholars who think that whatever it did for the country, Republican control would be good for Congress and especially the House, forcing both parties to treat each other with greater respect and showing Republicans that power imposes responsibilities and can be much less fun than booing from the bleachers.
It's always been patently obvious to me that the media tend to be liberal in WHAT stories it reports (can we say "gratuitous"?). Ya know, missing pretty white woman of the week. However, as far as policy is concerned, I've never seen the bias - at least none that isn't far offset by some conservative slant. Good job, MM.
How is "missing pretty white woman of the week" liberal? It seems to me to be more conservative. That is, it seems more like an attempt to misdirect people from thinking about hard or complex issues and problems. Conservatism flourishes when people don't think very hard.
According to the independent site www.electionprojection.com, Democrats are projected to win 2 senate seats, and approximately 5 House seats. This, my friends, is not a landslie. I am a liberal. Very liberal, but I hate it when we act overconfident and forget that leaderse such as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have become sissies, as an effort to re-take one of the Houses.
Ha-ha
He asked ....you obligied...
I wish more Repubs would ask for this sort of thing so we can prove once and for all there is NO LIBERAL MEDIA.....
... we will be serving baked crow with a Gucci loafer stuffing and a wild gooseberry glaze.
May I suggest a 1966 Gallo Thunderbird with your meal?
It will be interesting to see what kind of Cirque de Soleil-style contortion Taranto performs in order to dismiss this Media Matters rebuttal.
He makes a baseless allegation on the air but won't put the response to the allegation on the air. So his listeners draw the erroneous conclusion that his allegation is "fact."
"on the air."
He will not acknowledge it at all. How can you? Reality and a conservative fantasy world don't mix well.
is not that it's biased towards Republicans or the right, but it's being staffed by knuckleheads that can't do their own research.
I'm a sportswriter and column writer, and I double check everything that I write about. If I can't get it confirmed, I leave it out. If I find the opposite to be true, I find something else to write about.
It's sheer laziness and apathy.
I don't doubt that what you're saying is true. But it is systemic and it is not an accident.
Wow, he didn't think you'd be able to find horse-race articles in the mainstream press? That's all they write! They're speculating 2 1/2 years out on 2008 and have been doing so for a year!
And this guy gets paid to write for a living. Sheesh.
*BAM!*
Take that, Taranto!
*BIFF*
or maybe
*KAPOW*
Does Taranto do research for his articles? I'm assuming he's a journalist.
He THINKS he is a journalist in the same way Bozo the Clown may have THOUGHT he was a philosopher
Taranto is such a tool. Guess his coffee deliverer really let him down when she perused his manuscript for typos. That, or she forgot the Lexis/Nexis password again.
When a liberal complains of bias, it's because liberal opinion are being kept out of the discussion or marginalized, while only the conservative opinion is allowed to be expressed fully.
When a conservative complains of bias, it's because liberal opinion is allowed to be expressed fully, while the conservative opinion is also allowed to be expressed fully.
Basically if liberals are allowed to talk, it's "liberal bias."
Somebody in Taranto's corner should throw in the towel after an butt whuppin' like that!
MMFA responded to the challenge and found several examples that refute Taranto's "Show me one..." claim. Yup, he goofed. Do a dance in the streets.
However, the theory of (liberal) media bias is not debunked (shown to be false) by these citations. That is an overreach. Eight documented examples of media reports of possible Republican successes that actually occurred. Stack that on one side of the ledger. This says nothing about what is on the other side of the ledger, so claims about a liberal media bias (tilt) are not debunked by this batch of info on 8 articles. I wonder how many total articles were published during that campaign by the MSM.
I agree that MMFA did not necessarliy debunk the liberal media bias theory. I think you misread the article. MMFA debunked Toranto's theory (that there wouldn't be any articles speculating about Republican congressional victory) based on the obviously faulty premise of liberal media bias.
I think we can agree that Taranto's theory was amply debunked.
The theory as stated by MMFA:
his theory that the "mainstream media" are "generally biased in favor of liberals and Democrats, but this ends up helping conservatives and Republicans by breeding complacency on the Democratic side."
Not debunked by the evidence presented!
To some of the other responders:
Where have I stated whether I agree more with the charges of liberal or conservative bias?
Some of you are making a faulty argument:
MMFA documents conservative bias.
Therefore there is conservative bias.
Bias is a TILT, like a seesaw. It matters both how much there is and how far out it is.
If your only source about bias is MMFA, you are only hearing one side of the story.
There are other controversies where people align themselves solely with one side, such as unions versus companies and various legal battles.
If you just listen to defense attorneys and their facts, everybody is innocent who is charged in court. If you listen to just the prosecutors, you will believe that every charged person is guilty.
Neither extreme is true.
I am more open minded than some people give me credit. However, when strong words like debunked (or proven) are used without adequate support, I like to knock those pillars a bit.
yes and no.
I appreciate your posts.
"If your only source about bias is MMFA, you are only hearing one side of the story."
MMFA gives actually two sides: it provides the initial information and its alternative ones. Thre reader of MMFA can decide whether the initial info was valid or not. In my opinion MMFA is doing a great job to debunk a lot of misinformation. As for left-side misinformation: O'Reilly, Gibson and the like are trying to expose those, but are very limited in succeeding to provide adequate examples and are aven less adequete to provide additional info to debunk left-side info; its merely 'left-wing nut talk' etc.
"If you just listen to defense attorneys and their facts, everybody is innocent who is charged in court. If you listen to just the prosecutors, you will believe that every charged person is guilty.
Neither extreme is true."
Yep, we saw that in the Schiavo case. However, she cannot be both very much alive and very much unconcious. Attorneys (including in that case her parents' attorneys) but also some pundits and politicians wants to bring the message that facts do not exist, only opinion! However, the moon is still something you can land on even though you bring the message it is actually a cookie.
--"Not debunked by the evidence presented!"--
In fact, it was Taranto himself who established the terms upon which his own theory could be debunked:
Taranto: "Here's a way of putting our theory to a test. Can you find a similar article ..." (etc.).
Media Matters accepted the challenge, found several -not just one- similar articles, and clearly debunked Taranto's theory.
all you have to do is read every item that MediaMatters has posted since its inception. The rightwing bias in the media is well-documented.
*I* wanted to be the first to point out the blindingly obvious to "showme".
--"This says nothing about what is on the other side of the ledger"--
You seem to want to read (baseless) complaints (fabrications) about left-wing bias to support the (unsubstantiated) charge of a "liberal media". Media Research Center has lots of (false, fact-twisting) examples that a right-winger can wallow in.
Your "theory" of liberal bias isn't a theory, it's an idee fixe -- pardon my French, but that means, a fixed idea that is impervious to evidence. Evidence of mental disease of the kind evidenced by the preznit.
What would convince YOU that the media wasn't liberal? I think if you spent an entire year listening to TV, radio, militia shortwave, and so on, and did not hear a single word that your conservative brain disagreed with, then maybe, just maybe, you'd change your mind. Though I think you'd be like the right-wing talkers who derided the Latino marchers for their Mexican flags, and then, when they pretty much disappeared, hinted darkly that "they had been told" to carry only American flags.
Your "fixed idea" fits the rightwing mindset.
The Rightwing carry what they claim as their "Christian faith" into politics, where it becomes "the gut". Bush has these "fixed ideas", and they cannot be shaken, no matter how much reality or evidence is amassed to contradict his stated conclusions.
With "faith", there is no need for logic or reasoning, and any empirical evidence is simply dismissed as heresy. Ergo, tax cuts are ALWAYS good. Period. Preemptive WAR is good as well, it needs no justification. And there is a "liberal media" dominance. These and other articles of rightwing FAITH cannot be dislodged from the minds or rightwingers.
It works like this: The rightwinger can read ten page one stories and hear twenty pundit "opinion" rants that claim Bush is doing a great job. This is considered "truth" and completely objective. Then, they might see one story which criticizes the President. This is seen as PROOF of a "liberal media bias".
It's called willful self delusion.
Liberal bias? Absolutely not. It's simple. There is so much more crime, corruption, and malfeasence to report among about conservatives and Republicans than Democrats.
The media never gave Clinton a break concerning his lie about a B-J. They scutenized Ted Kennedy about his car wreck. And there are many other examples. Real news outlets, networks and newspapers report FACTS. They don't care for one second who it is about as long as they get their story.
There is an easy way to stop the perceived reporting imbalance that the right is always whining about -- stop giving the media negative things to report.
...you're talking about, but if it is the latter, I heard very little after the fact. And let's not forget, he claimed to be under the influence of prescription drugs. So, all is well, because he "wasn't at fault". It was those evil doctors who put him on drugs.
Now, I don't know about media bias. I'm sure you can make a case regardless of which side of the fence you are on. BUT, (and I'm no fan of Rush) let's look at how he was, and still is, persecuted for his prescription drug addiction...and Kennedy gets a pass.
How does that work?
He never said Kennedy gets a pass. He was contrasting the treatment of Democrats who foul up in public versus Republicans.
Limbaugh deserves every moment of scrutiny he gets because he's a hypocrite. He railed for years about drug abusers but wants mercy when he is found to be one.
The whole Taranto thing is really a straw argument. One could argue the Press puts in certain arguments at strategic times even by being manipulated or on their own. They might play down Democratic chances or play up Democratic chances to create complacency for the Democratic party and i think this does and has happened. They also nigh simly print what seems true. In the early and minineties this problhappened more. My guess is attempts to give Democrats advantage through straight news stories even through manipulation stories was a very rare practice in the early '9os and now. I actually think stories today that are totally sure of Democratic route in 2006 are through manipulation or purposely designed to rally the Republican base and make Democrats complacent. I think if one lo0ks at advantages and disadvantages at this time the 2006 races look like they will offer at best relatively small gains for Democrats, not a taking of even one or two houses of Congress.
This is an article of a strange kind of twisted faith.
It should be noted that a nexus search probably would not pick-up a considerable about of stories and data due to the fact that the internet boom started two years later. There's probably much more. In addition, in 1994 there was only one cable news network at the time. I think it is seriously disengenious to try to compare the two dates in regards to information distribution. If the WS morons want to say that the media was biased towards liberals in 1994, I would give that to them. But it is certainly not biased today. All of the major networks are either owned or controlled by rich white Republicans, which was not so much the case ten years ago. In addition, rules prevented rich people from manipulating politics through the controlling political speech on the radio and television. The absence of those laws was only starting to be abused by the likes of Limbaugh in the early nineties. A lot has changed. The Republican canard that the media is biased is a false cry. It has led this country into a war that is false, a presidency that is corrupt and false and a country that doesn't know what the truth really is.
Just because it was being SAID so much. See *I* am a liberal and have NEVER seen my point of view expressed as conventional wisdom in the media as conservative though has ALWAYS been. A perfect example was the Contra support in Nicaragua. It was never really popular, polls at the time showed that but you could rarely find an editorial or newstory of their attrocities nor of support for the sanctuary movement which was HUGE nor of the position we should end support for them. THAT was the 80's. Actually I think the liberal/conservative model doesnt work so well to explain media bias. A better model would be that the media supports elite opinion. Those opinions of the wealthy elites. THAT tends to be socially liberal and economically and therefore foriegn policywise very conservative.
"Republican control would be good for Congress and especially the House, forcing both parties to treat each other with greater respect and showing Republicans that power imposes responsibilities and can be much less fun than booing from the bleachers."
Did this writer miss the bullseye or what? Did you know that when the GOP got control there would be more respect?
Let the laughter begin.
Media Matters layeth the smaketh down!
I was a big MPR listener in the summer of '94, and had to sit through hours of "Talk of the Nation" with new host Ray Suarez cowering under his desk while his long line of Republican guests enjoyed an open mic, discussing how they could, should and would win in november. This kind of uncritical reporting gave the right wing an advantage that year and ever since.
The entire body of work of MMFA is in the process of debunking it. This is just one more example. Debunking the charge of liberal bias is an on going matter and day by day, charge by charge.
you can point to bias against your position, regardless of your position. However, I think most have missed the point. While most of the articles pulled by MM hint of Republican victory, none of them actually stated a "landslide", which is to what Toranto eludes. I could be wrong, but I didn't see the articles yelling landslide.
Of course, you get what you want out of written words. I see most reporting as junk jounalism, so liberal bias or conservitive bias mean little to me. Either may exist, but never to the extent that either side will claim.
Another dubious "It doesn't matter because it's a wash" argument. It's the position of lazy asses and scoundrels.
I too am from the Show Me state
Just wondering how Watergate MIGHT have been covered IF it had happen today. Would the MSM have ignored it? Are there ANY Woodward & Bernstein's out there that would have dug further into the story? And IF there are [though I seriously doubt it] would the MSM have followed their lead and investigated the story thoroughly?
Another thought...since Watergate was covered EXTENSIVELY by the MSM, does that mean the MSM had Liberal Bias back then? Or were they simply doing their job?
When the media writes about politics, and in this case whether Democrats or Republicans will or will not pick up seats in the House or Senate, is it based on BIAS, or simply a REFLECTION of what the "buzz" inside the beltway might be?
Just like I doubt there are ANY Woodward & Bernstein's in our midst, I wonder just WHOM we consider the MSM to be now a days...Seems to me [sadly] that MOST of the media have taken very OBVIOUS sides.
BOTH the Democrats & Republicans point at the MSM and accuse them of being bias. Bias may be in the eyes & ears of the listener/reader. It's been suggested that Conservative Talk Radio grew out of the need to COUNTER what some defined as a Liberal bias in the MSM.
I THINK what we're seeing [in some cases] might be laziness rather than BLATANT bias. AND more interest by the Press in personal scandals rather than in the more COMPLICATED government policy, business corruption or military variety.
>>BOTH the Democrats & Republicans point at the MSM and accuse them of being bias. Bias may be in the eyes & ears of the listener/reader. It's been suggested that Conservative Talk Radio grew out of the need to COUNTER what some defined as a Liberal bias in the MSM.
This statement doesn't mean anything. We all know that both sides have claimed bias for many years, but that doen's make both sides right. As another poster pointed out, "When a conservative complains of bias, it's because liberal opinion is allowed to be expressed fully, while the conservative opinion is also allowed to be expressed fully."
The media is supposed to play the referee between contending sides. If one party claims the earth is flat and the other says it is round, the press is supposed to say something like "While party A claims the earth is flat, no scientiest we found believes this to be the case." Instead, the media gives equal press to both sides, hence giving validity to some very stupid claims.
The press are like the clueless who watches a batter swing and miss but does not want to call a strike because the same batter struck out last time and the referee does not want to be deemed unfair.
The MMFA post on Friday, wrapping up the weekly events, gave a very detailed and convincing argument on why the press is biased against the Democrats.
The media isn't really supposed to be the referee. Actually, we (journalists) are taught that it's not up to us to tell you (reader or viewer) how to think, but what to think — and do it before the competition.
If you go back and look at what has been reported over the past 10 or 12 years, it's all really about what we should think about (missing blonde girls, happy thoughts about war, the evilness of people with brown skin, etc.)
The reason it comes across as a bias has a little to do with corporate media, with a dash of laziness (more if you work for FOX), and a lot more of apathy.
The problem lies when reporters simply flat-out fail to get both sides of an issue. If reporters actually gave both groups an equal due, reporters in general tend to be a bit liberal, balanced by more conservative editors, and this actually works.
However, nowadays, editors aren't pushing for both sides of the story to be fully told, but launch into a can-we-get-this-story-out-before-the-competition mode (thanks OJ). Thus, it fosters down to the reporters.
>>Actually, we (journalists) are taught that it's not up to us to tell you (reader or viewer) how to think, but what to think — and do it before the competition.
(I'm going to do some mind reading and project what I think you mean. Telling a reader what to think seems amost exactly the same as telling them how to think.)
But this is exactly the problem. If journalists simply give both sides of the story (usually there are more than two sides anyway), the people in power have a wonderful oppurtunity to manipulate the press. I don't want an in depth report on intelligent design. It is bogus science. If some Joe off the street invented a similar theory, he would be laughed at. But because powerful people repeat silly theories, the press feels like it has to cover both sides.
A journalists is supposed to be a referee. A journalist is supposed not just be a stenographer. They are not supposed to just report that Bush supports intelligent design. They are supposed to do research and inform the reader that all scientists reject it. Unfortunately, we have this stupid idea of reporting in this country (absent in others) that a reporter must tell both sides of the story, and he ends up helping the propogandist.
I think you are spot on, with the exception of a few, the apparent bias seems more about laziness then political. I think there are very few REAL journalist anymore. However, I think the laziness is heavily on the side of the viewer. Today's viewer wants it quick and snappy and entertaining. The media seems to be giving them what they want. I always found it curious that the news segments are getting increasingly shallow AND short when we now have 24 HOUR NEWS! It seems they just keep running the same short segments and never seem to go any deeper. The question is who is to blame? The media OR the viewer --who appears not to be interested in in-depth reporting.
I AGREE that the viewers/readers should take SOME responsibility in what they allow themselves to be FED by the MSM. There seems to be a lack of interest by BOTH the Public and the Media in covering stories in depth.
24/7 Cable News has indeed "desensitized" the news process. One hardly has time to fixate on a story BEFORE it seems to vanish from the headlines. Like a crazy pack of animals the media is onto it's next big hunt. AND the newspapers & magazines seem to be following suit. You'll read a story one day and look for a follow-up the next...and you NEVER find one.
Sadly I think the public has simply gotten used to THIS type of [non] coverage. The only recourse is OFTEN to go to the internet where for the most part you'll find the stories covered from either a Right or Left slant.
Trying to find UN-BIASED reporting is nearly impossible. And the so-called MSM, which should be providing THAT function, has instead often provided only lazy reporting and an ineptness in supplying straight non-partisan information or in investigating important stories in depth.
Watergate as elites panicked. Greg Palast one of Americas foremost investigative journalists was forced to go to Britian to make a living. Sydney Shambourg pulitzer prize winner was FIRED from the NYTimes a supposed liberal newspaper for pushing a story about a bypass highway in New York that would benifit elite interests at the expense of the poorer sections of New York city even though it was highly unpopular A woman named Cerra was fired (actually she lost her assignment and was never given another) for digging into and finding the scandals associated with the power plant in Long Island even though every single thing she wrote was vindicated as the story unfolded.
There is a built in bias people tend not to notice when speaking of the media. It is paid for by advertising. Therefore it will have a built in bussiness bias. Did you think you BOUGHT a newspaper? No about 60% of a newspapers revenue comes from advertising they are selling YOU to advertisers so when a newspaper writes a story no matter the validity of it that puts some part of the bussiness communities activities in a bad light how will that effect the advertising revenue. THAT is always a consideration. The Kwitney report won a POLK award for its stories about Guatemalan death squad killings of union workers and their association with US industries there specifically Coca Cola. The next year they went off the air because they could not get anymore advertising. Now its hard to believe people dont want to SEE such stories so exactly who is being served?
>>Watergate as elites panicked. Greg Palast one of Americas foremost investigative journalists was forced to go to Britian to make a living.
I don't know about these facts, but I do have a book called *The Secret Government," the thesis of which is that the media censored themselves after Watergate, feeling that they went too far.
Called fear and favor in the newsroom. Shambourg, Cerra and Kwitney stories were all covered there. All of them AND the people involved in their ingnomious ends were all ON the documentary along with supporting evidence. Its a very good documentary if you ever get the chance to see it.
I'm sure ADVERTISING plays some role in how certain stories are covered.
Here in Massachusetts we have 2 major newspapers. The Boston Globe, and The Boston Herald. Both should fall into the category of MSM...YET the "general" consensus is that the Globe slants Left, while the Herald slants Right. While BOTH offer op-ed columnists from the Left & Right, the editorials (and most stories) do reflect their [biased] slant 99% of the time. And you can almost ALWAYS be certain that when it comes to endorsing political canditates the Globe will choose a Democrat, while the Herald goes for a Republican.
I've NEVER paid much attention to whether BOTH papers share some of the SAME advertisers or IF certain businesses etc are only featured in one or the other. And what those businesses might be. It certainly could be an INTERESTING thing to check into.
Since both dems and the GOP are two arms of bussiness parties elite and bussiness interests are served either way. Did either of them support Nader? A truly anticorporate candidate. I dont have to know their history to guess neither did. When is the last time you saw either of them run a story that attacked GE? Or TRW or anyother corporate interest? THAT is what I am talking about. Read many stories about the corporate collusion with death squads lately? Just a couple of years ago Coca Cola was again implicated in collusion with just such a paramilitary squad killing and forcing employees to sign anti union pledges in Columbia. I am betting neither newspaper covered that story. Check the Nation magazine for documentation of this event
frank mankiewicz' "u.s. v. richard nixon: the final crisis" (1975) devotes 2 chapters to the press coverage of nixon's watergate years.
his conclusion? that the beltway elite journalists missed the boat.
"inner club" members like robert novak (yes, the one and the same of plame fame), joseph alsop and william safire poo-pooed the special prosecutor's investigation and dismissed the congressional hearings as cheap political theater. outsiders like joseph kraft, william raspberry and george will correctly reported the events as an increasingly serious political, criminal and constitutional dilemma.
sound familiar?
isn't is ironic that former "outsiders" like george will and bob woodward now glibly espouse the conventional bunkery once peddled by their discredited predecessors? is this the price of joining the club?
it must be something in the cocktail weenies.
Nobody in their right mind should ever challenge Media Matters on topics dealing with actual fact. Good show, folks. This one must have felt great. Has it been delivered to Taranto yet?? My suggestion is that you insert it anally for him to better understand
I objected to MMFA's claim that the 20th century included the years through 2005
You would think after awhile these dummies would eventually learn not to challenge you. You would think they would know you can back up every charge you make. But, since they don't You may want to do a story on the learning challenged Rightwing. I know you have plenty of material to back that up.
-in it's reporting as well as comentary. The party that holds the office of president always gets the most attention. What he has to say always gets out as quickly as it can be done. When it's noticed that he's doing damage control, selling an agenda like Iraq, that sort of thing the media is said to be biased against him. It's both ways in that case. He gets the press and the press tells the whole story. That's the way it's supposed to be anyhow.
Media Matters is forever saying they left out some crucial part or otherwise misrepresented the story. Seems that is the case here, made a claim that is without foundation. Maybe Taranto is a lousy researcher. The media at least appears to lean towards the conservative side, tilt even. Taranto makes that case better than the one he intended, show the media to be liberal. Maybe he doesn't know what the word liberal means. Saying the GOP is in trouble isn't liberal. It's a fact. What's the press supposed to do, lie about it?
Case in point, the Fair Tax rally and associated interview. They changed the form of the Fair Tax so as to say that it would need to be implemented at a much higher rate. Also, MM stated that it was misleading because it is an "inclusive" tax, and most are used to an "exclusive" tax. Yet, the income tax is an "inclusive" tax.
As written, the Fair Tax law would instill the set tax rate. MM assumed entitlements would be added by Congress, which of course would increase the tax rate. Did they add this to their story...of course not.
Not to mention, MM examined the 1999 version and not the 2005 version.
It happens everywhere. Whatever it takes to make the point you want to make.
Yeah...You just did it yourself.
I find it amusing that Taranto's rhetorical question was so eagerly lapped up by MMFA.
MMFA conveniently left out the rest of Taranto's article... which started with, ""Democrats Eye November Landslide" reads the headline of an "analysis" by the Associated Press's Ron Fournier. "Republicans are three steps from a November shellacking," Fournier claims.
Yeah.. MMFA found the articles, I'm not denying that. But by only finding eight articles in six months leading up to the '94 election and none in '80, they are doing Taranto's point better than he did in his original article. Hahahaha....
Taranto goes on to say, "... Hey, it could happen! And actually Fournier's article includes so many caveats that even if the likely happens in November, he'll be able to deny making a wrong prediction (not that that'll stop us from mocking him)."
Taranto made the point that Fournier's article was so dependent on four things that had to happen for the Dems to win big as to make the article almost worthless.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems obvious to me that Taranto was being rhetorical. It doesn't take much to to do a Lexus/Nexus search to find some articles out there from '94 speculating a GOP takeover especially as the election neared.
The key point Taranto was making was the use of the term "Republican Landslide". I don't seem to see that term used in any of the articles MMFA produced.
Anyone who looked at the polls especially in the month before the '94 election had to consider the possibility of the GOP taking over. But what Taranto wants to know is if any of them used the term "landslide"? Maybe there are some out there.. if there are, I would have thought MMFA would have found them.
On top of that MMFA foun only eight articles? (And then three of them from the Christian Science Monitor.)
Like a little kid sneering "Nyah Nyah" MMFA proves Taranto's larger point. That there was very little talk by the mainstream press about "a Republican Landslide" in '94... and apparantly no talk of it in '80.
>>Yeah.. MMFA found the articles, I'm not denying that. But by only finding eight articles in six months leading up to the '94 election and none in '80, they are doing Taranto's point better than he did in his original article. Hahahaha....
You are providing a moving target. Taranto's challenge was to find an article that appeared six months before--not sixteen years! Since papers are not predicting a Dem landslide, 6 months before the election, it is only fair to use the same time-frame, six years, to see if any papers predicted a Republican landslide.
>>Taranto made the point that Fournier's article was so dependent on four things that had to happen for the Dems to win big as to make the article almost worthless.
This is totally irrelevant.
>>The key point Taranto was making was the use of the term "Republican Landslide". I don't seem to see that term used in any of the articles MMFA produced.
It depends on what the meaning of is is. You are parsing words. The articles clearly implied a landslide. They predicted huge losses for the Dems and huge gains for the Repubs. That is a landslide.
>>Anyone who looked at the polls especially in the month before the '94 election had to consider the possibility of the GOP taking over. But what Taranto wants to know is if any of them used the term "landslide"? Maybe there are some out there.. if there are, I would have thought MMFA would have found them.
Except Tarranto didn't think anyone was predicting it.
>>On top of that MMFA foun only eight articles? (And then three of them from the Christian Science Monitor.)
Only 8? That's seven more that Tarranto said existed.
Woops. Paragraph should read:
You are providing a moving target. Taranto's challenge was to find an article that appeared six months before--not sixteen years! Since papers are now predicting a Dem landslide, 6 months before the election, it is only fair to use the same time-frame, six months, to see if any papers predicted a Republican landslide.
"It depends on what the meaning of is is." funnymanpants
Oh my God--I can't believe someone here actually wrote that.
Is that you Bill Clinton?
I saw nothing posted by MM that showed the prediction of a Republican landslide.
Of course, as I stated before, you will see what you want to see, which in not always what is actually there.
Parsing out what the theory was to make the case the theory is not debunked?
Just read his question: "Can you find a similar article--that is, a news story, not an opinion column, preferably written months before the election--speculating about the possibility of a Republican landslide in 1994, when there actually was one?"
He's obviously implying there is no such article. MMFA showed there are such articles. How is that not showing he is wrong?
Forgive me, but I didn't see which article speculated about a Republican "landslide" in 1994.
What I would really like to know is what the administration and its cohorts hope to achieve by being deceitful to everyone about everything. I believe that the only goal it seeks is to take care of itself in the short term.
As long as it has the license to steal and the liberty to break whatever laws it chooses to, for its own gain, and protection it will continue to do so regardless of the long term consequences. The members of the current administration are not great thinkers with a vision, but are petty men and women covering their own butts at the expense of everyone else.
Their goals are mean, the methods are corrupt and their manipulations have proven disastrous. Incompetence is not their problem; their problem is wrong headedness.
The way they think would be hilarious if it was not for the damage they are causing in the process. They begin with a conclusion and then attempt to make reality fit their delusions. This does not make them strong on national security, it only makes them belligerent. Belligerence is a sign of ignorance and arrogance.
Why half the nation would put these fools in charge is beyond reason. Though it is important to point out that the people did not choose this crowd of ignoramuses, the Supreme Court appointed them in one election and voting machines created a second election fraud.
"You can't fool all of the people, all of the time." - Lincoln
elephty wrote: "They begin with a conclusion and then attempt to make reality fit their delusions. This does not make them strong on national security, it only makes them belligerent."
Methinks the bell tolls for thee. :-)
You may not know it, but you are way out there on the fringe. Don't you see you are manipulating the facts to fit your conclusions? No. I guess you don't.
Okay, so I'm not happy with the current adminstration, either, but I don't get the nonsense of election "fraud". Of course, had Gore or Kerry won either of those elections, I'm sure the Republicans would be playing the same game.
Hate to tell it to you folks, but the president is not a majority votes issue. The founding fathers saw the general public as relatively too stupid to elect the president directly (and rightly so), so they created the electoral college. So, a majority, by law, does not equal a victory. Stupid as this concept may be, it is the law. If you don't like it, lobby to change it, but don't give me this nonsense about a "stolen" presidency.
As far as illegal programs, why is it Clinton used them and no one batted an eye, yet Bush gets hammered with them? Even the Judicial System has said that the wire taps were legal, just as they were under Clinton.
I think this applies to most politicians, not just the current administration. Just goes to prove the rediculous belief that "the politicians I vote for are good and trustworthy...it is all the other politicians that are evil and corrupt."
If only it were that simple. Do you think we would be any better off had Kerry or Gore had won the election? It's a nice thought, but I seriously doubt it. We are no longer a gov't "of the people, for the people, by the people," but a gov't in control of the mass of sheeples.
There is no such thing as liberal bias! Dan Rather was a registered Republican hack!!!