Halperin Memo (aka ABC, Fair and Unbalanced)

Great Debates
1

Here’s the internal memo, apparently leaked, from ABC NEWS Political Director, Mark Halperin, as captured by the Drudge Report. Halperin’s memo shows this guy to be mighty blessed. Mighty blessed! Much more blessed than the “common man” and as such, Halperin apparently feels a great burden and a great corresponding duty. In fact, his insights are such that it appears he comes very close to reading the minds of Kerry and Bush, as well as those in the Kerry and Bush camps, and discerning their deepest motivations. In Halperin’s words, Kerry’s “distortions,” “out of context” statements, and “mistakes,” which Halperin indicates Kerry makes “all the time,” seem innocent enough to Halperin, at least their not intended as “central to his efforts.” Any similarities between Kerry and Bush when discussing “distortions,” “out of context” statements, and “mistakes” are actually the mistakes of the common man – ‘the people’ Halperin, with his much greater abilities, in a much wiser skin, has been burdened with. Hence, Halperin concludes while It’s up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right. That “right” being, in Halperin’s burdened mind - that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides “equally” accountable…

Thank you Mr. Halperin for not holding the sides “equally accountable,” and thank you for keeping your politics out of your reporting. God bless you Mr. Halperin -

Here’s the Halperin Memo mentioned, provided at Drudge –

http://www.drudgereport.com/mh.htm

Let me add, I would have no problem with Mr. Halperin’s internal memo if, for example, he had provided specific instruction like “…the Bush camp is lining up behind the Swift Boat Vets, Kerry isn’t lining up behind the Moveon.org group, we should cover that and these specific issues fully, since these are now major issues. We have a duty. Let’s find what’s there, if anything” The instruction Halperin gave to his underlings wasn’t of that kind. The issue I have with the Halperin Memo is that he makes a general statement, not a specific one. A general statement, with no specifics, that the two candidates should NOT be held equally accountable. No more. A general statement with a general instruction issued to his underlings. Look, I expect specific types of bias coming from certain “reporters” when issuing reports related to specific stories. I suppose it’s this ‘encompassing blanket statement’ Halperin has thrown over this entire political campaign that is troubling.

2

T2B1: A general statement, not a specific one. A general statement, with no specifics, that the two candidates should NOT be held equally accountable. No more.

ISTM that the point Halperin was trying to make was that you shouldn’t hold both sides “equally accountable” for misstatements that are not equally serious.

In other words, if Bush says “Senator Kerry pulled a pencil out of his pocket” and it was actually a pen, and Kerry says “President Bush is a spy for Ariel Sharon” and he isn’t, you should not hold the two sides “equally accountable” for their factual distortions. The second misstatement is obviously a much more serious and malicious one than the first, and should be jumped on much harder.

What Halperin seems to be saying is that the Bush campaign is going “way beyond” the Kerry campaign in the seriousness of its misstatements. So he’s telling the staff not to let artificial attempts at “balance” prevent them from making that clear.

3

I was very glad to hear about this memo. This idea that everything is equal, is nonsense. Right now, if one candidate tells 20 lies and the other tells two, the “fact checking” reports will report on the two from one and pick two from the other, giving the idea that they were equivalent. Additionally, as has been noted already, they will balance two lies, even if one is demonstrably more misleading or serious.

I wrote an email in support of ABC News to them as soon as I heard about this. Now let’s work on “he said/she said” reporting.

4

vs
"We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides “equally” accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.’

One of these things is not like the other.

5

Gasp! He said they shouldn’t exaggerate charges against Kerry just for the sake of saying both candidates are equally culpable when they aren’t?!?!? That rat bastard!

So, aside from pointing out that ABC news is so biased towards the right that they have to be reminded not to reflexively take Bush’s side, what were you hoping to get out of this one?

6

Exactly what SimonX and kimstu said.

As an example in another context, take the issue of climate change. If the media follow the typical way they report a story (which they have to some degree, although fortunately not too badly) then they’ll balance the view of the IPCC and NAS with the view of a few skeptics with connections to right-wing/libertarian organizations and the fossil fuel industry like Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer. This might be considered “balance” but if done giving equal sides the same weight it is actually a perversion of “balance”. For one thing, the IPCC and the NAS do not have an agenda; the fact that their conclusions lie closer to what Greenpeace is saying than what Western Fuels Association is saying is a reflection of the fact that this is where the peer-reviewed science is actually coming out. And, second, of course, the IPCC and NAS reports represent the views of most of the scientists actually publishing in the field while Michaels and Singer’s views are pretty much on the fringe. So, it would not be correct to present these as two equally balanced or credible scientific viewpoints.

(bolding mine) I don’t think I could say it any better than Halperin did.

7

Well that is a suprise.

Still, we should give propers to ABC for ‘coming out of the closet’. Now we know, beyond any doubt, that CBS and ABC are anti-Bush/pro-Kerry.

8

The correct inference is that there was a hesitancy to call a spade a spade when it came to Team Bush.

9

So goes the Kerry party line, I am sure. But when ABC comes out and says that it is up to them to slam Bush since gollygoshgee Kerry doesn’t deserve to be slammed, don’t expect people to see ABC as a shining paragon of impartiality.

10

I must assume from the memo that when the facts do warrant it, both sides will be held equally accountable. Should their coverage be “reflexive and artificial” after all?

He also leaves the matter open to discussion.

11

I see that posters here are attempting to fill in Halperin’s lack of specific instruction with ‘facts’ of their own. But what facts are in Halperin’s memo? That’s the entire point and the opening for abuse created by the Halperin memo, Halperin provides no facts. This is an instruction / reminder to Haperin’s subordinates. The major issue with Halperin’s general, non-specific instructions - rests with your answers to these questions — Is the general tone of the memo is one that is telling ABC reporters to focus on Bush’s pending misdeeds? ------- Or is it one that tells them to focus of Kerry’s pending misdeeds? OR — as you seem to suggest, one that is neutral in tone? Go back and read the memo. Hint: It sure as hell ain’t #2. True, your perceptions and personal bias color your feelings and probably your responses - but I suspect honest answers will be that this memo is encouragement, and encouragement from very high places in ABC, to pay additional attention to the Bush negatives. BUT what those negatives are - just aren’t in the memo. These negatives may yet to even exist. They may exist in a reporters mind only – or worse, in his/her desire only. Halperin has created an open-ended invitation. As mention in my post above, Halperin could have provided specific instruction regarding the Bush campaign. He chose not to. This specific instruction would have followed that prudent course. Yet, instead, Halperin issued general, non-specific, and unclear instruction regarding the ABC’s reporter’s “responsibilities” regarding Bush and his election efforts. Nothing specific – just a general reminder of expectations. A blanket statement in regards to Bush — an instruction necessitated by the desire to generally ‘make it fair for Kerry.’ Christ folks, what would this board be doing if FOX NEWS issued such a report. I remind you that 50% of the population doesn’t favor the candidate you favor – whoever that is – so go ahead, replace the words “Kerry” wherever you read “Bush” in Halperin’s very general instruction and come back and tell me your responses would be the same. The “same” not for you with your pre-conceived notions, but ‘fair’ to the electorate.

So again, here’s my concern — it’s the fact that specific instances, i.e. FACTS, are missing from Halperin’s general instruction to his subordinates that gives me the shivers.

And a side issue — if Halperin’s memo is a simple innocuous reminder that ABC’s professional reporters shouldn’t abide by the implied ‘quota system’ when reporting stories ---- well this makes me wonder about the professionalism and intelligence of ABC reporters prior to this memo. Was there a prior memo instructing ABC reporters to ‘even out’ the reporting? Were these reporters on a self-inflicted quota to the extent that Halperin felt the need to issue such a memo? If so, why not say that? So, if no prior memo or instruction otherwise, the ABC reporters thought, prior to the Halperin memo, that they HAD to have an even number of positive and negative stories for each candidate? Hence – Halperin’s general, and gentle reminder to the contrary?

Why did Halperin issue this memo?

12

Brutus: But when ABC comes out and says that it is up to them to slam Bush since gollygoshgee Kerry doesn’t deserve to be slammed

Actually, what they seem to be saying is that they need to be more conscientious about slamming the two sides as much as they deserve, rather than thinking that fairness somehow requires them to slam Kerry every time they slam Bush.

13

No, what it shows is that after 4 years of just parroting the Bush Administration’s lies, the media has realized that it is not just Pravda but has some responsibility to provide accountability and accountability does not mean trying to point out an equal number of lies on each side when one side is lying many times more than the other.

14

Welcome to the club. We on the left been wondering about that at least since the election of 2000! Glad to have you aboard!

15

Well, when they do so, we can talk about it.

IIRC, the phrase in the memo was “that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides “equally” accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.”

16

No, they are anti-lie, and pro-truth. It just so happens that Bush is the one constantly lying through his teeth about Kerry and his record. If Kerry was the one lying about Bush’s record, then they would come down harder on him. See how that works?

17

It was a memo.
Reporters provide the facts.
the memo said that the reporters should do what is warranted by the facts they they come across in the course of doing their jobs- that reporters ahould go with the facts even if doing the right thing is unpopular.

Apprently not.

Misdeeds that have yet to happen in fact? That’s an unusual angle. Hey, isn’ that what we went to war over?

Seeing as he is a sitting president, telling the press to scour him seems superfluosly redundant, don’t you think?

If the memo was full of these sorts of things, it would be a news article, not a memo.

Or, an obvious yet overlooked possibility is that these things may exist in fact.

He did. He said stick with the facts and political sensitivities be damned. Seems specific enough to me.

Sticking with the facts isn’t prudent enough for you? Perhaps you’re using ‘prudent’ in a differentr sense than one would expect.

That a major news organization would ask it reporters to do the stories that are warranted by the facts seems like such a bland non-starter. This kind of thing is what I had assumed the norm. I don’t see why you find it so alarming.

Is there more of the memo that you didn’t post?
I’m not seeing the ‘make it fair for Kerry’ part.

I for one would pleased, but non-plussed as I expect news sources to do the story that the facts warrant.

Fine by me. I think that reporters should always and without fail do the story that the facts warrant.
I’m all for it. Where do I sign up to show my apporval?

I truly do not understand this. The memo tells reporters to go with the facts and let the chips fall where they may. What facts are you wanting to presented in a memo? And why do you expect them to be in a memo instead of a news report. Facts belong in a news story. Memos are a little less rigorous and more of a free form sort of thing.

That’s what I’ve been thinking. Since when did USG press releases become news stories. What’s news is when there’re things that contradict USG press releases. When a man bites a dog and all that. That’s news.

As I mentioned before, the correct inference is that there was a hesitancy to call a spade a spade when it came to Team Bush.

18

The case for war was a little more nuanced than that:

Of course, all facts are in fact fungible. If they weren’t, there might exist such a thing as truth, and then we’d have to evaluate candidate’s statements on the basis of whether they cleave to that truth, or through it, rather than by adopting a ‘fair and balanced’ approach. :wink:

19

Actually, the “truth” in this case is that, if ABC treats both sides the same, Bush may well win the election. Therefore, Halperin is saying, don’t treat both sides the same. Kerry lies and distorts the truth “all the time”, but that should be ignored. If Bush does the same, attack him.

Halperin is telling them to abandon neutrality and go after Bush. He doesn’t seem to have noticed that this “standard” did not work out so well for 60 Minutes and CBS.

Imagine my surprise that the Usual Suspects define “neutrality” and “truth” as “attack Bush”. Par for the course for the dishonest Left.

Regards,
Shodan

20

It’s my belief that within the political unit at ABC, Halperin is at one end, and pollster Gary Langer is at the other.

According to people who have attended Langer’s lectures on polling at Columbia University, Langer is a solid Republican, and actually weighs all polls accordingly. He has apparently freely admitted to having more self-identified republicans in just about every poll conducted at ABC this election season, and feels this accurately reflects the American public.