Cable and broadcast coverage of September 11 anniversary skewed right
A Media Matters for America review of cable and broadcast news coverage of the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks shows that Republican and conservative guests far outnumbered Democrats and progressives who appeared in live or taped interviews during the hours of 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. ET. Notably, Republican guests outnumbered Democrats 5-1 on CNN and just over 3-1 on Fox News. In all, 27 Republican or conservative guests appeared on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and the broadcast morning news shows -- NBC's Today, ABC's Good Morning America, and CBS' The Early Show -- compared with only nine Democratic/progressive guests.
The following tally includes guests who appeared live or in taped interviews that aired during stories dealing specifically with the September 11 anniversary:
|
Outlet |
Republicans / conservative guests |
Democrats / progressive guests |
|
CNN American Morning, Your World Today, CNN Newsroom |
New York Gov. George Pataki (R); former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; White House chief of staff Andrew Card; former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales |
Former Rep. Timothy J. Roemer (D-IN), 9-11 Commission member |
|
Fox News Fox & Friends, Fox News Live, Dayside with Linda Vester |
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Card; New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg; Giuliani; Pataki; Weekly Standard editor William Kristol; former Nixon Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; former Bush Environmental Protection Agency administrator and former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman; Sen. John McCain (R-AZ); Republican strategist Frank Donatelli; former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating (R); Gonzales; Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) |
Roemer; Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY); former Clinton Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat; Democratic strategist Debbie Dingell |
|
MSNBC Imus in the Morning, MSNBC News Live |
Giuliani; Card; Gonzales |
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), 9-11 Commission member; Roemer |
|
ABC Good Morning America |
Giuliani |
None |
|
NBC Today |
President George W. Bush; Giuliani; Bloomberg |
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) |
|
CBS The Early Show |
Rice; Giuliani |
Sen. Clinton |
to make ANY effort to be fair. This close to a mid-term election, at that. How disgusting.
calls for democrats to boycott shows. because even though fox's so called experts and guests are generally right wing, at least some democratic politicians do get on. but with this "path to 9-11" liefest and abc's refusal to correct known falsehoods, i think all democratic politicians should refuse to go on any abc shows through the election. there is little to lose and actually a lot to gain by making a point here. boycotting abc would call far more attention to the fact that the media has had a right wing takeover. 9-11 is such a sensitive subject and to allow conservative partisans to make up lies to blame the clinton administration for it is indefensible. and abc owes the public an explanation as to where all of the 40 million dollars came from. hillary was correct. there is a vast right wing conspiracy to provide paid disinformation. bill's fooling around did not negate the fact that richard mellon scaife was paying money for people in arkansas to lie about the clintons.
one Progressive is worth 3 or more NeoCons.
Excellent point. I'm gonna use that.
How many times does it take Democrats to find a spine and challage these guys and call them out for the RIGTH/left bias? Only Howard Dean will not go near Fox, but the rest are just as bad, in there efforts to protect, promote and serve the RIGHT.
So, as usual the Democratic lines is....................silence.....and lets take the abuse.....may I have another......please ignore us. Until Democrats call Bull on this way of doing business....it will continue.
They let the right wing call them "liberals" and "progressives" and the Dem loyalists eat it all up, never noticing that their party votes FOR all the stuff the Repubs want. It's a con game.
..because then the Republicans would say, "The Democrats are too scared to go on TV because 1) they're cowards 2) they have no ideas 3) they know we're right 4) they love terrorists and communism 5) they have the bible"
that is why i proposed limiting it only to not going on abc.
That Republicans and the MSM are using 9/11 for their own Political gain and to hurt progressive and Democratic causes and candidates.
Hi, I'm a Marine Vet of 15 years, and been to the ME three times... the people of Iraq believe in what we've done and what we are doing .. I respect everyone here at MMFA and respect political discourse. But what befuddles me is our hesitation as a nation, "irregardless" (as my 'boss' would say) of party, to realize we are in this fight for years, such as we are still in Japan, Korea, and Bosnia due to the policies of BOTH parties .. when will we realize there IS EVIL in the world, that who could give a sh#t if you are NEOCON or PROGESSIVE Americans... I have seen the face of evil hand-to-hand, and they wish for all us Americans to die! Sad but true my friends here at MMFA!
Semper Fi.
A Faithful Jarhead (AKA Maj JG Payne, JR, USMC) Amphib Group THREE San Diego, CA 619-556-1456
Pardon my skepticism, as I have not been to Iraq and I have not spoken to Iraqis.
I have, however seen the Frontline episode entitled "The Insurgency" in which a Time Magazine reporter is interviewed after having spent time interacting with insurgents in Iraq. To my surprise, the Insurgents that this reporter met were not outsiders, but former Iraqi soldiers who were stripped of their rank and salary by the U.S. and left with no means to support themselves or their families. When a foreign occupying force comes and takes away your livelyhood, how would you react?
I have read and seen other stories of Iraqis who have lost the jobs they had pre-invasion and have no choice but to wait on street corners with their tools with hope that someone will drive by and offer them work, hoping and praying that the vehicles approaching them do not explode.
I can fully respect and appreciate that there are Iraqis who do welcome our presence and are happy to see Saddam gone. I have also seen the footage of troops walking through neighborhoods shaking hands with smiling residients and throngs of children laughing and clamoring for that coveted piece of candy from a U.S. soldier. Let's hope these children do not enter schools that teach the cirriculum of violent Jihad.
I will not put on the blinders and overlook how this war has affected Iraqis. Untold thousands of them are now dead as a direct or indirect result of our actions there. Many are destitute, distrought and enraged having lost their loved ones, homes and jobs.
I agree on one point, we are in this fight (Iraq) for years, I have not hesitated to realize it. There is evil in the world, but the evil that's responsible for the deaths of 2,973 American civilians, soldiers, firefighters and police officers does not reside in Iraq.
I believe in taking up arms against those that have attacked you, not taking up arms based on a cluster**** of lies and faulty information.
Thank you for your service and sacrifice.
...then they believe "stories", and won't believe anyone who's been there unless they follow the liberal agenda!
" Pardon my skepticism, as I have not been to Iraq and I have not spoken to Iraqis. I have, however seen the Frontline episode entitled "The Insurgency" in which a Time Magazine reporter is interviewed after having spent time interacting with insurgents in Iraq. "
And there lies the problem with liberals and their hate for the war effort. The won't even believe a man who has been there actually DOING the fight that's right. You would rather believe a reporter!
One more question, just where do you think Al queda IS right now, if you don't think they are in Iraq?? Perhaps you should go tell someone where they are since you are so knowledgable about logistics of the enemy. Go tell Hillary, maybe that information will get her elected and you can be part of getting us out of Iraq.
the state dept. says they are in dozens of countries all over the world. including many in our good pal pakistan.
Ahhh, so we SHOULD be in Iraq, then?? Pete said he'd support the war if al queda was in Iraq, well pete...start supporting the war. Stop hating the war because you hate the president. Like all liberals as soon as there is a democrat president then the war will suddenly turn into a "righteous" one. Liberalism=Hypocrosy
suggest the war was "justified"? if you have an argument with another poster, take it to them.
Italics OFF
As the title of my post clearly shows I was addressing the following statement: "the people of Iraq believe in what we've done and what we are doing"
I feel this is a very broad statement that oversimplifies a very violent, bloody and complicated situation in Iraq.
I also clearly mention that I have seen footage of positive reaction to our soldier's presence from Iraq's people.
Most importantly, I do not believe reporters first. The concept of a "liberal media" is nothing more than a myth, as proven by the thousands of MMFA posts. I do, however, give credit to a man who put his own safety at incredible risk, and endured the long, tedious process of making contacts, waiting, and persevering to finally come face-to-face with some of the insurgent forces that are killing our soldiers. I have nothing but respect for Jarhead's bravery in fighting such agression, but I am assuming he has never actually talked to the enemy and found out who he is and what his motivation is for killing our soldiers.
In addition, I am a frequent visitor to IAVA's website where I obtain soldiers' perspectives on the Iraq invasion. Believe me, Jarhead's story is not typical.
"Pete said he'd support the war if al queda was in Iraq" FALSE, I never said that. As I clearly said, I was referring to those responsible for 9/11. Osama bin Laden is not in Iraq, he is still at large somewhere else because of the Cheney/Rumsfeld power grab.
"Like all liberals as soon as there is a democrat president then the war will suddenly turn into a "righteous" one." FALSE, the political affiliation of the next president will have no effect on the justification for the Iraq invasion. It may however, have a profound effect on the future of the current policy, but after 3 years and all the reasons for war in Iraq proven false many times over, this invasion will never even come close to being "righteous".
off
I checked and double checked, but it still didn't work. I'll get the hang of it some day.
Italics on Italics off
on off
it's MMFA
" but I am assuming he has never actually talked to the enemy and found out who he is and what his motivation is for killing our soldiers. "
Give me a break! You liberals are such ...well, I better not say in public. Why in the world would he care. He knows the enemy is shooting at him, and he knows the enemy doesn't care about him...what more does he need to know, other than in order to save his own life and the lives of his fellow soldiers the enemy needs to be stopped?
" In addition, I am a frequent visitor to IAVA's website where I obtain soldiers' perspectives on the Iraq invasion. Believe me, Jarhead's story is not typical. "
No, I won't believe you when I hear differently.
" Osama bin Laden is not in Iraq, he is still at large somewhere else because ......"
What are you trying to say here?? That we need to travel the world to find OBL and leave the enemy combatants alone?? You think cutting off the head will stop the beast? Come on, get real. Bush wasn't in NY, Penn., or Wash DC when the US was attacked by OBL. What does WHERE he is at got to do with the fact we are fighting terrorists? We fight the enemy where they are, not where the leader is at.
Allow me to clarify. I'm talking about the big picture...
In the heat of the moment, NO, he should not care about anything but his safety, the safety of his fellow marines and unarmed civilians caught in the line of fire. In the larger picture, not just as a Marine, but as an American, YES, he should care who his enemy is, because those who are shooting at him are mostly Iraqis, the people who we are supposed to be rescuing from a brutal dictator.
"No, I won't believe you when I hear differently.
From who? One Marine reflecting on his own experience by means of a blog entry? How many personal stories from soldiers do you take the time to read? There are tons of them at IAVA.org, a nonpartisan site created and maintained by veterans, under the "Featured Vets" link. These are unfiltered stories told by the soldiers that lived them. I highly recommend them to anyone who wants the straight story on the issues facing our military in Iraq, Afghanistan and here at home. You'll find no hype, no screaming eagles soaring across the screen, no media bobbleheads yelling at each other.
"What are you trying to say here?? That we need to travel the world to find OBL and leave the enemy combatants alone?? "
Again, the bigger picture eludes you...
Many of the Iraqi combatants we are fighting in Iraq simply would not be combatants today if Bush had not executed the invasion per the Rumsfeld/Cheney plan.
YES! We need to find bin Laden. We need to capture or kill the murderer responsible for attacking us. NO! we should not leave the enemy combatants alone, and to assume I meant such a thing is just plain stupid. We are entrenched in Iraq and we can't leave. When Bush broke it, the U.S. bought it.
"Come on, get real. Bush wasn't in NY, Penn., or Wash DC when the US was attacked by OBL."
And your ability to add it all up is still nonexistent...
9/11 was a meticulous attack that took years of careful planning and preparation. Al Queda simply could not have anticipated Bush's travel schedule or confirmed what his exact location would be. It is widely accepted that flight 93 was bound for Washington D.C. and presumably would have crashed into the White House if the hijackers had the chance. I believe Bush was a target, but Al Queda's collective weapon lacked the necessary accuracy.
"What does WHERE he is at got to do with the fact we are fighting terrorists?"
Wow, they just get more elementary as I get deeper into your post, truly worthy of an elementary answer...
Osama bin Laden is the leader of Al Queda, a terrorist organization. Thus, Osama bin Laden, as the recognized leader of the organization responsible for 9/11, the USS Cole and the African embassies, is the FBI's most wanted terrorist.
"We fight the enemy where they are, not where the leader is at.
Fitting that the last line is the most ridiculous, so I'll try to match it in terms of wit...
The general is no less an enemy than the foot soldier.
Italics off!
The won't even believe a man who has been there actually DOING the fight that's right.
Being skeptical isn't disbelieving, it's being skeptical. One man's perspective, valid as it is, is still just one man's perspective - whether that man is soldier or reporter.
To the major, I'm sure he's telling what he perceives to be the truth. I'm sure there are others serving with him and under him who see the war differently. He gave one man's opinion and he deserves our thanks and respect.
Thank you too Major for treating us with respect. As you say, there is a need at this time for political discourse. All sides should be more tolerant of the reasonable voices coming from their opponents, but also point out when the other side is just spouting hatred and talking points. We could use more voices like yours.
The CIA listed 60 countries al Queda was active in in 2002 and Iraq was not one of them. Bush lied and distorted to take us into a war. Stop justifying lying and deception to get Americans killed because of your Bush idolotry and start making sense
there are plenty of journalists who have been to Iraq who report exactly the opposite of what this purported veteran of the marines is claiming. Plenty of places in Iraq are off-limits to U.S. patrols due precisley to the level of hatred and antipathy directed at the occupying armies.
Furthermore, there are also a growing number of reurning veterans who are apalled at the U.S. presence in iraq, so this marine is certainly not the overwhelming voice of U.S. servicemen.
You are a douchebag scumball, Republichater.
If I don't believe a Frontline and Time reporter. Both entities are skewed left and I'm sure they're not there pushing the "agenda".
They say Iraqi soldiers were "stripped of rank"? Did they elaborate on why the mean ol' US of A did this? That smells like BS to me. We need Iraqi soldiers and police more than ever now. I'm willing to bet the soldiers in question might just have been former Republican Guard? Just a guess though.
no proof that these individuals are skewed left. And if they are, what does that say about the commitment of right-wing journalists to get to the bottom of what is occuring on the ground in iraq? Righties are to scared to fight the wars and see the consequences of their neoliberal imperialist agendas.
Here is an article about the U.S. decision to disband the Iraqi Army: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
This is one of Bush's biggest blunders of the war and it has cost us dearly, both in lost opportunities to prevent outside influences on postwar stability, and to retain the much needed favor of the Iraqi people.
The reporter I spoke of is Australian journalist Michael Ware, Time Magazine's Baghdad bureau chief. He risked his life to painstakingly gain the trust of insurgent leaders so that he can bring their story to us . How many of your beloved Fox journalists have been brave enough to dig this deep and work this hard to get this kind of access and give us firsthand understanding of our enemy? And why would Ware work this hard only to skew the story to fit an agenda?
Face it, you have no basis, no facts, no game. Educate and inform yourself, then comeback with something tangible, because you're making this too easy.
Disbanding and "stripped of rank" are two very different things. In light of the US bringing back commanders from the former Iraqi army, they were brought back at their former rank and sometimes promoted. The troops that were disbanded were ill paid, fed and led to start with. Most were poor conscripts who could carry a rifle , but were poorly trained for US standards. This is from the Asia Times:
"It was an inefficient machine, made up of autochthons and tribesmen. It was also a melting pot, representing all segments of Iraqi society, and a mosaic very different from the Republican Guards, the Special Forces or Saddam's Fedayeen - well trained, well equipped, brainwashed and high performing units. Asia Times" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I will agree that it has been hotly debated whether the US should have stood down the existing army, but you can't discount the fact that especially in the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen ranks there were probably loyalists. Not to mention the poor training of the conscripts I mentioned above.
Here are a couple of links that will help you understand what happened and is taking place on the ground:
[link to fpc.state.gov]
[link to www.military.com]
Why do polls show that about 80% of them want us gone? Perhaps they were happy we got rid of Saddam but now we are like that houseguest THAT WONT LEAVE.
I agree with ya. We have done our job there. Iraq is liberated, and it is time to move on. Let those fools wipe themselves out. I can not wait for another two years to pass........
that shows just how committed you are to iraqi human rights. let 'emall die, what do I care. You are a sick, twisted psycopath, another con unable to deal with the consequences of the irresponsible policies they support.
the 3,000 + iraqis dying in the streets due to civil war would disagree with your view of "liberation."
We don't see many military types on these boards. If you are going to be posting here, well, stand by. LOL
I was an SDV Team 1 guy when I was in the Pac.
Go Easy.
---"the people of Iraq believe in what we've done and what we are doing .."---
Would that include the 50,000 or 100,000 dead Iraqis and their surviving families? The 1,500 dead Iraqis just in August ALONE? Their children and families?
ps: you've prowled around on this forum previously, having fun ridiculing progressives with the "semper fi" schtick. Other folks here have served also, FYI-it's not your exclusive property.
Sounds a bit inflated, but you feel free to correct me on it.
[link to www.iraqbodycount.net]
They do say the deaths are 'reported'.
I think the true deathtoll may never be known.
Just where do you come up with those unsubstantiated numbers Dave? 100k? You guys have been spewing that number since '03. Show us the links big guy.
The war STARTED in 2003:
[link to www.cnn.com]
LONDON, England -- Public health experts have estimated that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year.
Your article said:
"There has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000." _______________________________________________
No official figure, but 10k to 30k doesn't even add up to 100k...no matter how you try to spin it.
It went on to say:
"While the researchers said the sampling was small, in an editorial alongside the survey, Lancet editor Richard Horton said interviewing more households would have improved the precision of the report, "but at an enormous and unacceptable risk to the interviewers." _______________________________________________
So they admit it was a small sample, but we'll inflate those numbers to get the most mileage out of this obviously slanted story.
More good tidbits:
"The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths." _______________________________________________
Wow...mostly women and children. I'm just surprised they didn't add the infirmed also. Where are all the men?
More:
"The researchers said the findings raise questions for those responsible for launching a pre-emptive war...
The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher told The Associated Press he wanted it that way.
"I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives," Les Roberts from Johns Hopkins told AP.
But Richard Peto, who is professor of medical statistics at Oxford University, cautioned AP the researchers may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq.
The researchers called for further confirmation by an independent body such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the World Health Organization."
_______________________________________________
Admits to releasing this during a presidential election...Using data in a hotspot of a WAR ZONE...Admits to being against the war...HMMM...looks like typical left wing talking points to me.
Of course the researchers call for more CONFIRMATION, but hey, let's not let THAT get in the way of a good Bush bashing story.
Put it at 100,000 LAST YEAR. Certainly limiting your count to REPORTED deaths will be an undercounting
Did someone drop it and leave it somewhere?
Sure, conservatives outnumbered progressives with regard to the coverage of 9/11, but there are some pretty good explanations for it. Mainly, the many of the conservatives interviewed were central figures of 9/11 and/or its aftermath. Bush, Giuliani, Rice, Card, Gonzales, Fleisher, even Bloomberg and Pataki to a degree were or are still central 9/11 players. If a democrat were in the White House, the mayor of New York, Governor of New York, etc., the media would probably want to hear what they had to say as well.
That being said, there's no reason to have someone like Bill Kristol anywhere near coverage of 9/11, and either Bill Clinton or John Kerry should have been present somewhere. Their absence reinforces the absurd GOP claim that Democrats don't care about America and national security.
Another issue is the networks' desire not to turn rememberance of 9/11 into a partisan debate. I understand the networks' feeling that 9/11 should be treated with reverence, and whether it is fair or not, airing equal numbers of conservative and liberal viewpoints would inevitably be seen as partisan squabbling.
Is it unfair to Democrats? Absolutely. Do Republicans essentially have carte blanche to advance their conservative views? Of course. This is just something that progressives have to deal with. Take our lumps and live to fight another day. Conservatives have hijacked 9/11 (ok, poor choice of words) for their own political gain for 5 years, and giving a liberal a few words edgewise is not going to derail the conservative free-for-all 9/11 has become. If Bush gave a speech about terrorism every day of the week, he would probably be the most popolar president in history. But a week from now, 9/11 coverage will go away and the true issues of the day will resurface, which can only benefit Democrats.
September 11, 1973....a CIA-backed coup in Chile overthrows the socialist government of Salvador Allende and installs General Augusto Pinochet as military dictator. He then proceeds to kill 20,000 political opponents in the next few years.
but you don't see any commemorations of THAT event in the leftist/socialist media do you?