Quote of the week: “The press has let the country down. It's taken a very amoral stand, in that essential issues are often portrayed as simply one side says this and the other side says that. I think that Fox News and the Republican right have intimidated the press into an incredible self-consciousness about appearing objective and backed them into a corner of sorts where they have ceded some of their responsibility and righteous power.” -- Bruce Springsteen

Week ending September 24, 2004
www.mediamatters.org
action@mediamatters.org

This week:

War Stories: Media misinforms Americans about Kerry's record, $87 billion vote

Media recklessly promotes conservative spin that terrorists support Kerry; ignores evidence they prefer Bush

Great American Humorists: Mark Twain, Will Rogers ... Michael Savage?!?

Bush continues to benefit from media double standard

SBVT returns; lies continue; media continues to take liars seriously

Misplaced priorities: CBS document mea culpa got four times the coverage of NYT's confession of faulty Iraq war coverage

QUOTE OF THE WEEK:

“The press has let the country down. It's taken a very amoral stand, in that essential issues are often portrayed as simply one side says this and the other side says that. I think that Fox News and the Republican right have intimidated the press into an incredible self-consciousness about appearing objective and backed them into a corner of sorts where they have ceded some of their responsibility and righteous power.”
-- Bruce Springsteen

War Stories: Media misinforms Americans about Kerry's record, $87 billion vote

As the war in Iraq and the war on terror have become increasingly important issues in the presidential election, the media has been awash in conservative misinformation about John Kerry's positions, his vote on the $87 billion appropriations bill to support U.S. troops in Iraq, and his alleged popularity among terrorists.

On CNN's Inside Politics, for example, host Judy Woodruff reported, “today, John Kerry said, among other things, he said, 'I -- my answer is no' to the question whether he would do again what he did before: authorize that the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, given -- knowing now what the circumstances were then, whereas one month ago John Kerry said he would have voted for the authority to go to war in Iraq. This doesn't seem to be consistent.”

Woodruff's statement was a distortion in two ways: First, by saying Kerry “authorize[d] that the U.S. should have invaded Iraq,” Woodruff suggested Kerry voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq. In fact, as she noted a moment later, he voted to authorize the use of force, if necessary. Second, as Media Matters for America noted, Woodruff was flatly wrong about the question Kerry was answering. What the senator actually said was:

President [George W.] Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Kerry's “my answer is no” comment clearly wasn't in reference to whether he would do the same thing again. He was speaking to the question of whether Bush should do the same thing again. In fact, in the same speech, Kerry specifically reaffirmed his vote to authorize the use of force:

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president -- any president -- would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

Having completely misrepresented Kerry's comments to her viewers, Woodruff falsely accused Kerry of being inconsistent. In light of CNN's recent obsession with CBS's journalistic mishaps, we expect that an apology from Woodruff is forthcoming, and will be accompanied by an investigation into how she could have so thoroughly misrepresented Kerry's statement. Did she do so after talking to Bush-Cheney '04 campaign spinners? Did she do so on the basis of sloppy work by CNN staffers? Will anyone at CNN be disciplined for this obvious and irresponsible smear of Kerry?

Woodruff wasn't alone in falsely suggesting that Kerry voted to go to war. On FOX News Channel, Weekly Standard executive editor and FOX co-host Fred Barnes said: “When you voted for that resolution, as everybody knew, you were voting for war. You weren't voting for what Kerry wanted. He [Kerry] was voting for war. That's what the resolution was about.” On MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman said: "[E]verybody at the time knew precisely what that vote was for. It wasn't just for authorizing. It was for going because everybody knew that Bush was already aiming to go so that's what he voted for. There's no question about it."

But, as MMFA noted this week, on the very day Bush sent the Iraq resolution to Congress, he specifically said the vote was about “keep[ing] the peace,” not going to war:

QUESTION [asked during Oval Office photo opportunity]: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

BUSH: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

Media recklessly promotes conservative spin that terrorists support Kerry; ignores evidence they prefer Bush

On September 19, CNN senior political analyst and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Bill Schneider claimed that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda “would very much like to defeat President [George W.] Bush” in November. Schneider then revived the much-repeated myth that terrorists determined the outcome of Spain's March election, saying: “But the question is: Can they pull off the same trick that they pulled off in Spain?”

As Media Matters for America has noted, while little evidence exists suggesting that Al Qaeda has a preference regarding the upcoming presidential election, Reuters reported in March that a letter from an Egyptian terrorist group claiming a link to Al Qaeda stated that group supports President George W. Bush's reelection. Moreover, as MMFA has also explained (on July 15 and August 5), the assumption that terrorists sought successfully to bring about the defeat of Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, a supporter of Bush and the Iraq war, is highly questionable.

Further, just this week, the British Ambassador to Italy reportedly described Bush as “the best recruiting sergeant ever for al-Qaida,” adding, “If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it's al-Qaida.”

The nonpartisan Columbia Journalism Review's website The Campaign Desk joined MMFA in taking Schneider to task for his irresponsible speculation:

First, Schneider -- whose own credentials as a “neutral” include his employment as a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a book co-authored with the now largely discredited foreign policy analyst Richard Perle -- makes clear that he agrees with [Speaker of the House Dennis] Hastert [who had suggested Al Qaeda hopes for a Kerry victory.] Al Qaeda, Schneider says, “would very much like to defeat President Bush.” Schneider, like Hastert, can believe whatever he wants. But in his alleged role as a supposed non-partisan analyst, he might think twice before endorsing a charge as incendiary as Hastert's in front of millions of viewers.

[...]

More than one John Kerry partisan has argued that al Qaeda might want President Bush re-elected, given that his prosecution of the war on terror has been a boon to terrorist recruitment efforts. But it's hard to imagine a “neutral” political analyst on any major news outlet feeling confident enough to express agreement with such a darkly conspiratorial view. For some reason, though, the reverse is perfectly acceptable.

As Media Matters for America has documented, Schneider's reckless charge was just the latest in a long line of irresponsible and unfounded media speculation about terrorists' electoral preferences.

More on Schneider's comments, including his response to our criticism, is available at MediaMatters.org.

Great American Humorists: Mark Twain, Will Rogers ... Michael Savage?!?

Defending his two on-air claims that former President Bill Clinton survived his recent heart surgery because “hell was full,” right-wing radio host Michael Savage compared himself to author and humorist Mark Twain, claiming his comment was “good political humor” and “as good as Mark Twain in his heyday.”

In his “heyday,” Twain wrote The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, about which Ernest Hemingway once said: “There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since.”

Savage's “heyday” hasn't been quite as accomplished; he is the author of The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military, of which a Publisher's Weekly review concluded: “Fixed in print, his words are even more startling, resonating with hate and intolerance.”

Bush continues to benefit from media double standard

Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted that President Bush benefits from a media double standard that might be chalked up to what Bush himself famously referred to as the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” For example, his abrupt changes in position on crucial issues get little attention and generally aren't portrayed as flip-flops.

This week, Paul Waldman, editor-in-chief of the online magazine The Gadflyer noted another media double standard that helps Bush:

Here's how effective spin works: it creates a filter through which reporters see statements, positions and events in ways they probably don't even think about. Here's a small but telling example from today's New York Times, about John Kerry's appearance last night on David Letterman:

Asked on the David [L]etterman show whether, had he been president, he would have led the country to war, Mr. Kerry at first said simply, “No.” But as the audience erupted in applause, Mr. Kerry backed away from that clear statement, with a complex explanation of what circumstances he would have required before invading." [emphasis added]

Notice how an explanation beyond a single word becomes “backing away from a clear statement.” It goes without saying that President Bush is not held to the same standard - he can say something simple, then elaborate on what he said, without having a reporter accuse him of “backing away” from his original statement.

Reporters have adopted a perspective that is in perfect synch with the Bush campaign's spin. So what can Kerry do? He has to realize that the press' caricature of him is locked in cement. It's not going to change in the next six weeks. That doesn't mean he's doomed, but if he wins it'll be in spite of the fact that there isn't much doubt who's getting better coverage.

SBVT return; lies continue; media continues to take liars seriously

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth returned this week, with a new ad and a 1,700-word opinion piece published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The ad contains more lies, unsurprisingly, and the media continues to give them sympathetic and frequent hearing.

SBVT spreading lies isn't exactly breaking news, though; nor is it news that once again the group is getting excessive media attention. More surprising is FOX News Channel's Linda Vester's claim that her network vetted SBVT before giving them air time:

RICH MASTERS (Democratic strategist): I mean, FOX News ran to the air with the Swift Boat charges as well, without anyone thoroughly vetting those charges, which have now proven completely false.

[crosstalk]

VESTER: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Rich, I love you to pieces, but you are going straight at me, and I spent a long time talking to John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans, and, yes, we vet them, so I'm gonna make you, to walk back on that one, my friend.

If FOX News Channel really did vet SBVT and found the group credible, that suggests serious flaws in FOX's vetting procedures -- flaws that are at least as worthy of independent investigation as CBS's recent document slip-up.

Misplaced priorities: CBS document mea culpa got four times the coverage of NYT's confession of faulty Iraq war coverage

Media Matters for America this week documented a shocking disparity in the coverage of CBS's statement that it “should not have used” memos purportedly written by Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian in a story about Bush's National Guard record and The New York Times' admission that its coverage of the Bush administration's justifications for going to war “was not as rigorous as it should have been”:

If media coverage bore any relationship to a story's significance, The New York Times' May 26 admission that it too readily accepted administration claims about weapons of mass destruction would have received at least comparable coverage to that of CBS's September 20 mea culpa regarding National Guard memos. It did not. Not even close.

In the 48 hours following reports that CBS would announce later that day that it “should not have used” memos critical of President George W. Bush's military service because of unresolved questions about their authenticity, that acknowledgment was reported 167 times in U.S. newspaper and wire reports and 57 times on cable news broadcasts. In the 48 hours after The New York Times published its acknowledgment that it “was not as rigorous as it should have been” in investigating the Bush administration's claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that story was reported 38 times in U.S. newspaper and wire reports and seven times on cable news. Notably, while no FOX News Channel primetime program reported the Times acknowledgment during those 48 hours, every FOX News Channel primetime program has addressed the CBS memo story.

Consider again the substance of the two admissions: The CBS acknowledgment, which received wall-to-wall coverage, involved the questionable authenticity of documents that -- if proven authentic -- would merely add to the extensive body of evidence that Bush did not fulfill his National Guard responsibilities, that he benefited from family connections, and that he has been less than truthful regarding his military service; conversely, The New York Times' acknowledgment, which received notably less coverage, involved inadequate reporting on what was ultimately proven to be a false pretense for going to war with Iraq.

Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.