Time's coverage of U.S. attorney scandal less than one-third that of Newsweek
On the March 25 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Time managing editor Richard Stengel -- despite the many unanswered questions about White House senior adviser Karl Rove's involvement in the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys and possible misrepresentations by administration officials about his role -- criticized members of Congress for seeking public testimony by Rove under oath and with a transcript. Stengel said he was "so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove because it is so bad for them, because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance," adding, "That's not what voters want to see." When confronted later by Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox about his remarks, Stengel claimed in a March 27 email that he had been "caught out speaking as a citizen rather than as editor of Time" and justified his previous comments as follows: "[A]s a citizen, I think it's unfortunate and perhaps short-sighted for Democrats to be perceived as focusing on the past rather than the future. If people see the Democrats as obsessively concerned with settling scores, that's not good for the Democrats or the country."
But notwithstanding Stengel's claim that he was speaking only as a private citizen when he described Congress' investigation into the matter as "focusing on the past rather than the future" and an "obsessive[] concern[] with settling scores," coverage of the story by the magazine he runs evinces a similar lack of interest, particularly when compared with that of its closest direct competitor, Newsweek. In a March 30 post citing comments by Stengel and Time Washington bureau chief Jay Carney, Radar magazine's blog, Fresh Intelligence, noted that the April 9 issue of Time "contains precisely zero stories on the scandal," and asked, "Is Time trying to bury the attorney general scandal that's seized Washington, D.C., for the past three months?" But Time's lack of coverage regarding this story extends beyond the most recent issue. A Media Matters for America search has found that, in its last five print issues, Time has devoted less than one-third the coverage -- 1,007 words versus 3,797 words -- as has Newsweek.
Though Time has published multiple articles about the attorney firings on its website and on its weblog, Swampland, Media Matters' review has found that only three articles mentioning the attorney scandal (amounting to 1,007 words in total) have appeared in the five most recent print issues of Time (March 12-April 9):
|
Issue date |
Article |
Word count |
|
March 12 |
None |
0 |
|
March 19 |
None |
0 |
|
March 26 |
346; 358 |
|
|
April 2 |
303 |
|
|
April 9 |
None |
0 |
|
3 articles |
1,007 words |
That Time has devoted only three brief articles to the story was first noted by the weblog The Carpetbagger Report.
By contrast, during the same period, Newsweek devoted 3,797 words to articles on the scandal:
|
Issue date |
Article |
Word count |
|
March 12 |
436 |
|
|
March 19 |
761 |
|
|
March 26 |
1,773 |
|
|
April 2 |
478 |
|
|
April 9 |
349 |
|
|
5 articles |
3,797 words |
Additionally, the attorney firings were briefly mentioned in the "Conventional Wisdom Watch" section of the April 9, April 2, March 26, March 19, and March 5 Newsweek issues, and in the "Perspectives" sections of the April 9, March 26, and March 19 issues.
Moreover, contrary to Stengel's suggestion that it is only congressional Democrats who are interested in pursuing the investigation and in hearing sworn testimony by Rove, as Media Matters has noted, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) voted with the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to authorize the use of a subpoena to force Rove and other White House aides to testify. And, contrary to Stengel's suggestion about what voters want, on March 26, USA Today released a poll in which 72 percent of respondents said that "Congress should ... investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter."
That whole garbage line 'it's BAD to focus on the past' is soooo 2000... Hey, Stengel- let me break into your home and steal your republican't playbook... when the cops come to arrest me, just remember to 'not focus on the past' because people might see you as a vindictive little snotty-nosed cry baby...
Stengel : "If people see the Democrats as obsessively concerned with settling scores, that's not good for the Democrats or the country."
If "people" see them this way, does the media have any hand in it?
Isn't it interesting how the Republicans are suddenly so set on "moving ahead" and putting and end to the "politics of personal destruction"? They remind me of those guys on "To Catch a Predator" insisting that their intentions were "honorable".
Alone, word counts bother me. However, the complete absence of the story from the April 9th issue would seem unexplainable given the near daily revelations. Citizen Stengel doesn't seem to be leaving his bias at home.
Comrade Stengel is doing his duty by not embarrassing the State's most honorable leaders in a time of war... he should be commended and be given medals.... those that disagree must justly be called traitors and be taken from their homes in the middle of the night for 'reeducation and patriotic rewiring'
Time's responsibility is to their readers and their stockholders. If they happen to have covered this story lass than their competitor, they are making an editorial decision based on what they feel best serves those to whom they are accountable.
Considering they have apparently covered it extensively on their internet arms as opposed to their print copies, perhaps they feel the fluidity of the situation is better served there.
Perhaps your fall back line of 'it's all corporate interest- capitalism at it's best' reasoning is most tiresome...
At least he didn't say, "Why is this here?". His rubber stamp must be in disrepair.
prag,
Very off topic.
Looks to me like you are engaging in online bullying... hahaha...
Nah. Just pointing out Tommy's flaws. He's a big boy. He can take it.
Perhaps we should label the first ten years of the new millenium the decade of plausible deniability. But perhaps you're right...perhaps Time simply is writing to a neocon, pro-Bush audience.
Tommy,
As you say, "Time's responsibility is to their readers and their stockholders."
However, just as there's an innate tension between freedom and equality, there are times when those responsibilities are in irreconcilable confict, and editors must choose between the two. In a matter as grave as this, I would hope that most editors would put the longterm health of the Republic foremost in their minds, and risk short term damage to the bottom line.
conchobar,
Very well said and unfortunately never it seems, acted upon.
Thanks, AA.
You're right. Ben Bradlee comes to mind, but few others.
Tommy didn't present any facts, just his normal conjectures.
What FACTS?? I was commenting on Tommy's psychic abilties into Time's boardroom... he often brings out the 'it is corporate interest to do/not to do something because of economics' while completely IGNORING the relevance of the information, the background to which it applies, and peoples' PAST behavior that indicate WHY they are doing/not doing something... coorelation does not mean causation, but Stengel and Time have REPEATEDLY been shown to be hostile to any type of liberal or democratic people or ideas...
I find that funny because I cancelled my subscription to Time a while back because I was tired of it's left leaning bent.
The silliness of the thread is such that many people consider this supposed scandal a non issue. Me included.
As we all should know Presidents can hire an fire these lawyers anytime they like. I've been away but I would imagine it's been pointed out that Clinton fired all of em when he came into office.
Just because Time is not as rabid about this as Newsweek. (Which I later canceled due to its prediliciton to show pictures of dead people,) does not indicate any conservative bias. It only shows a different sensibility. Tommy illustrated that easily. To argue with Tommy about that shows to me that some in here have lost any ability to be objective.
However I enjoy reading the silliness of MMFA's threads and many of the posts. It shows me how far off the beaten track the looney left has gone. (I use that term affectionately.)
God bless free speech. God bless liberals.
I've been away but I would imagine it's been pointed out that Clinton fired all of em when he came into office. (AA)
Yes, that talking point was exposed as BS quite a while ago.These threads might not seem so "silly" if you weren't so misinformed.But keep posting, you're very entertaining.
What's wrong with showing dead people?
Is showing them actually worse than causing their deaths?
Another American:
It's true that these attorneys are appointed by the President, and can be fired by the President as well.
However, this is not an absolute power, for a reason more basic and fundamental to the process.
The President is sworn by oath to enforce and uphold the Constitution of the United States, and all its laws. If, by firing these attorneys, the President is VIOLATING this oath ... and is attempting to obstruct justice or inject partisan politics into our judicial system, then there is a problem separate from his hiring/firing powers.
The investigation will show if these firings were FOR CAUSE, meaning the attorneys were performing poorly in ways that any rational person could agree. OR, it will be shown that they were fired for PURELY POLITICAL reasons, which the president can DO, but which also can be examined and exposed as an example of the President's violation of his oath of office, to enforce the LAW.
The president CAN fire these guys, no question. And the Congress CAN enforce their oversight, and of that there is ALSO no question. If there was an attempt at obstruction of justice, or lying to Congress, or Partisan considerations which sought to trump RULE of LAW being competently carried out ... then the President has committed an impeachable offense. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD, or that you should be free of accountability for that action. Get it?
"I find that funny because I cancelled my subscription to Time a while back because I was tired of it's left leaning bent."
-----
To you, Soldier of Fortune probably has a "left leaning bent."
If the fact is that Tommy is tiresome, what to do? should we steal a page from Time and not cover?
Would you two just get a room and be done with it.... just joking around, there, buddy- I'm taking a break from displaying logic and facts to make a funny- relax...
Funny. No offense taken although I'd prefer Doris...
I think you missed it...I wasn't actually agreeing with Tommy.
" attack you not for the content of your posts"
What content? To me, "Why is this here?"...."If you don't like them, ignore them" etc ad nauseum is not content.
Prag, Do you criticize the posts that are nothing more than a humorous quip on the topic. I would say, no. Why not? They are not addressing the meat of the content either, but rather a swipe at the person being highlighted. Yet those and the ones I label "why......." go to the topic or the person's validity. Why is that not "ad nauseum" to you.
The reason is because what I write doesn't cater to your ideology, while the others embrace it......so take your tiresome selective outrage elsewhere.
A good joke is at least original. Your persistent hall monitoring here is boring.
Feel free to ignore what bores you.
You too. Like threads you think are superfluous.
hahaha.. then there would be no threads on which to comment!
Exactly. He thinks they are all superfluous. Yet, when we comment on his repetitive posts, we are picking on him.
On the contrary, superfluous threads are anyting but boring.....so it is important for their validity to be questioned at times, in my opinion - even if it is uncomfortable for you.
That's why you are a hypocrite.
AA,
Goes with the territory......but it is interesting that many who criticize me for the "why is this here" posts, never seem to address the actual topic's validity. And they accuse me of rubberstamping.
But you would have to ask them about their take on my posts, I suppose.......some don't like anything that challenges their ideology, and you'd have to ask them for their reasons on that too,
Glad you're back......
Tommy- you get called out all... the... time... for not having facts by people PRESENTING facts... please step down from the pedestal, now and get back to helping America get rid of liars, crooks, and immoral people... WHAT?!?! I didn't say republicans! You just thought it...
btw.. how do undo a bold or slanted text.. I clicked on the slant and couldn't get rid of it...
here's an idea.. stop posting.
(heheheh.. couldn't resist.)
hightlight the text you wish to un-itialicize, or un-bold, and the appropriate legend will light up; click it, and the magic is undone.
The carry-over at the end of a highlighted set of characters can be beaten by carefully typing the next word(s) before highlighting the text to be made bold, or italicized.
Thank you
I am not suprised that Time is neglecting to report on this scandal. They enable the GOP talking machine.
Well 5 articles vs 3 articles isn't a huge discrepancy, and the word count isn't worth much unless you're comparing 5 vs 5 or 3 vs 3.
That said, I am a bit surprised that Time hasn't included articles every week. Whether one considers this story of tantamount importance or not...it is being covered extensively by most of the rest of the media. BOTH publications are a summary of the week's news & events.
I don't think Time or Newsweek lean mostly Left or Right. Some weeks they irk Conservatives, other weeks Liberals.
I'm relatively new to the phenomenon that I am currently experiencing - an affliction, actually. I have just had a cognitive seizure arising from dissonance: I see reports in many blogs, of indicators that Lam was doing more immigrant-prosecutions than anyone else, far more than her predecessor; yet I read the testimony of the DOJ, that she didn't do immigrants. I read the report to Congress, indicating that total violence and civilian deaths in Iraq have gone up, month-to-month, despite the surge; that attacks on the Green Zone have multiplied; that even areas away from the Baghdad centre are, at least selectively, more deadly since the troop increases - don't forget there was a second surge to support the surge, despite Administration assurances that would not happen; yet today, I am confronted by claims that the surge is producing peace and prosperity across the country of Iraq, that Baghdad has become so stable that even Americans can safely walk the streets - although, apparently still cannot use the Embassy pool - and my head is about to burst. Something I know in conflict with new "information", indeed.
Would that a class of journalists would arise, to help me deal with my problem, to ferret out the truth and report it without fear or favor. Surely someone must have seen that need before me?
Oh, right! I DO remember something from some arcane document - "Constitution" or "Bill Of Rights", or some such, something undeniably quaint - about Freedom Of The Press.
And some loose prattle in the Federalist Papers, or somewhere, about the essential nature of that guarantee, to produce a lively debate about the issues.
Stengal is a hypocrite. He obviously didn't have a problem digging up Bill Clinton's past. So what is different about now? Is it because the scandals involve a Republican administration?
Should I cancel my Time Subscription?
That's entirely up to you, of course.