Nonsense. As **Kimstu ** said:
The fact that you guys don’t get the point of the memo (which is something akin to what Kimstu said) shows that you are either consciously or unconsciously blinded by “our-side vs your-side” thinking.
Even if this is true, so what?
Fox News has always been pro-Bush and pro-Republican and they are still hiding behind the “fair and balanced” slogan and have not “come out of the closet”.
In any case, these are private organizations and can have any bias they want. People on the right have always said that the “mainstream media are liberal”, and they were convinced of that, so what puporse does this “new information” serve?
Anyway, I’m not saying that this latest memo proves that the “mainstream media is liberal”, but even if it did, so friggin what? What are you going to do about it? Start a federal investigation? Take them to court?
Bravo ABC! I’m glad that they can see that Bush is running a dishonest and dirty campaign. Any fool can see that plainly. All they are saying is that the lies that Bush tells are the heart and soul of his campaign (plainly true) and any factual errors that Kerry might make are not the core of his campaign (also plainly true). There is no need to paint them both as equally deceptive when it is far from the case. The posters from the right are incapable of grasping this.
To me, the memo is saying “Don’t add an artificial weight to everything in order to make all misstatements and misdeeds equal”. It is saying “Take off the kid gloves and call the candidates on any falshoods you uncover, and treat each on its own level of importance.” It is saying “Stick to facts, and drop the spin”. If Bush cheats at solitaire and Kerry is an axe murderer, these “misdeeds” are not equal in importance. The memo is saying “treat the axe murders as being more important, because they are”.
Amazing. Halperin issues a general, unsupported instruction against Bush - and issues that instruction to his subordinate reporters at ABC, and that sits well on the stomach for some here. And least there is confusion, this general, non-specific instruction is one intended to focus ABC’s reporters on Bush negatives and away from Kerry negatives. This is seen from the instruction itself – *"…Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."*
These are Halperin’s unsupported generalized claims and worse, are Halperin’s instruction to his subordinates TELLING them the way the world IS. An instruction questionable enough in it’s own right, considering the profession and the subject mater, but then Halperin takes this even further. After he tells his reporters what the generalized situation IS, he goes on to use that unsupported given about the political world as support for his next instruction —
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.
Considering Halperin’s prior instruction on HOW his subordinates SHOULD VIEW each candidate, that is, focus and target Bush ---- Halperin’s next statement regarding about not holding each candidate “equally” accountable when the facts don’t warrant that speaks for itself. And it’s not one of “neutrality” as some attempt to frame this.
Bottom line, ABC’s leadership has shown itself politically biased and not much better than CBS this political election -
Ted Koppel’s corollary:
“Whenever you see bullshit, call it out!! Don’t say, ‘Yum!’, like you have done what the Bush administration fed you for the last four years.”
I was wondering how long it would take for this issue to hit GD. I was listening to FOX croon about it all weekend. Where’s december when you need him?
Anyway, there’s more than one way to look at this.
Suppose candidate A tells the truth 99 times out of 100, and candidate B tells the truth 1 time out of 100. It would not be “fair” or “balanced” to treat both candidates as equal, “we report you decide”, etc. In fact that setup encourages lying since, at worst, it makes you equal with the other candidate, and at best you get away with a lot more! This is not an optimal way to face these two candidates. Surely anyone can see that.
Let’s look at another perspective. Candidate A and candidate B distort facts in the same quantity, but not to the same degree. The situation is completely analagous, and “fair” or “balanced” reporting, as some here seem to desire, in fact encourages candidates to distort all over again for the same reason: at worst, it puts you on equal footing with your opponent, and at best you get to make all the shit you’ve done disappear in a web of distortions. This is not the optimal way to face these two candidates.
As such, the only honest position is to call a spade a spade WRT to both the quantity of distortions and the depth of the distortions in mind, when those can be discovered.
The memo is really not specific enough, IMO, to get too hot and bothered about. What I find troubling, though, is the lead sentence:
The stakes are always exactly the same in every Presidential election (one candidate wins and one loses), unless of course you have a political agenda to push. I’d like to hear ABC’s executive(s) flesh out that statement so that we can understand more fullly what “stakes” they are talking about.
At any rate, there is no need to refer to a hypothetical here, since it specifically deals with the 2 presidential candidates. Both stretch the truth often. It would seem to me the best approach would be to spend equal time debunking the top “X” fibs told by both candidates and let the voters decide how importan they think the fibs are. I’m not saying that ABC is NOT doing this, but it’s hard to tell if that is the intent of the memo.
AFAICT, he said to abandon artificial and reflexive equality in favor of the facts. Last I looked, “artificial and reflexive equality” ≠ neutrality.
Since CBS didn’t go with the story that the facts warranted in what way is it the same standard?
The stakes re the very narrow issue of who wins the presidency may be the same. However the stakes for the larger part of the rest of life, the universe and everything change from cycle to cycle. There’s mroe to a presidential election than just who wins and loses.
That one sentence says all that is needed. I am almost laughing here. There was no interest in truth or fairness when the Rush Limbaughs and Fox Newses of the media were gleefully spreading incomplete information and outright lies, so why the sudden interest and indignation now, when the pendulum is swinging back? I smell bullshit.
So you admit that Bush has been telling lies that are bigger and bolder than anything from Kerry? 'cause that’s the only way Halperin’s memo is “against Bush,” if George is a perpetual liar to begin with.
Glad to see an admission of truth on your part, Tigers2B1. 
Actually, in this case “artificial and reflexive neutrality” is essentially “treating both sides the same, but finding out that your guy is losing”.
Because the temptation is that ABC will also disregard the facts in favor of a “get Bush”. The memo states pretty clearly that Kerry lies and distorts “all the time”. But it is the subjective judgement of the author that Bush is the worse candidate - and therefore those facts must be disregarded.
CBS applies one standard to the Swift Vets, for instance. When it comes to Bush, however, the “fact” that your evidence is forged, and comes from an obviously biased and unreliable source should be disregarded. Same here.
To apply the same standards of truthfulness and reliability to both sides would be an “artificial and reflexive equality”. So CBS didn’t, and ABC isn’t going to.
If it were so obviously true that one side was worse than the other, and ABC were really interested in being fair-minded, they could simply present both sets of facts and let the voters decide for themselves which was more important. ABC isn’t going to do that. They are going to disregard what one side does. Because letting the facts speak for themselves is not getting them what they want, they fear - the race is still nearly even.
So they are changing to a more one-sided coverage.
Regards,
Shodan
But for a non-partisan news source, the “stakes” shouild not be any higher than who wins or loses. Unless they are deliberately backing one candidate, they should not place a value judgement on questions of policy-- report the facts and let the voters decide. How can you take the position that the fate of the universe is at stake, without backing one of the candidates?
Bravo for ABC. I think the context is that they don’t want to be apologizing for not documenting Bush lies and distortions six months from now - they way a lot of the media is apologizing for not looking closely enough about the WMD claims before the war.
Kerry said there would be no international or organizational veto on preemptive action.
Bush said that he said the opposite.
What Kerry distortion is of that magnitude? Tigers2B1, do you admit that Bush distorted anything? Do you claim that they are equal? Do you think that unmasking Big Lies is wrong?
I guess what is being said is, all the spin and falsehood in the world is OK, but only when it favors their boy. Anything that doesn’t follow that party line is bad and should not be allowed.
Voyager – to be honest, I’m not sure why you think what I think or conclude, or what you think or conclude, or what any other third party thinks or concludes is relevant to Halperin’s memo. The point here is the content of the memo, and what it instructs ABC’s reporters to do. So, IF Bush is “distorting anything,” and if he is not “equal,” - as you say - than you, as a fair reporter, report those specific facts. IF those specific facts lead a reasonable mind to those conclusions – than so be it. You, as a neutral reporter, do NOT submit your conclusions. And conclusions are what Halperin proves to his reporters in his memo.
And one other important concern – one mentioned above by John Mace — IF this isn’t a politically motivated memo issued by ABC’s Political Director, why does he set the tone of the memo with the opening language – It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave.
Why all this ‘getting’ and ‘becoming’ as mentioned in the opening memo lines and as the election draws near? Why are the “stakes” “getting very high for the country” when you’re a neutral reporter. As John Mace indicated, either one candidate wins or the other wins. Facts remain facts. The facts are properly reported by the media and the consumer uses that properly provided information when deciding issues. Let the facts be facts and let them speak for themselves. This reporter responsibility is no more “grave” now than five months ago. What’s at “stake” or what is “becoming quite grave” to a reporter that is actually neutral, is the same, election after election. Reporting salient information as it becomes available. A reporter’s “stake” in the outcome are not “very high” or unusually low. That is, unless you have something additional in mind. And here, that something addition is attempting to create a justification for slanting the coverage against Bush and in Kerry’s favor.
That would be an excellent point if it were a year ago. However there has been ample evidence of which side is responsible for more distortions.
And being neutral involves a primary loyalty to the truth, not absolute equal treatment. I don’t see anything in the memo against this. I see the memo, by the way, as a policy directive, not a set of specific facts.
Consider the “truth squad” reports after the debates. They are clearly set up to have equal numbers of findings for both sides, not ordered by level of distortion. I think this was set as a policy before the debate, before anyone knew who distorted what. Though the one I heard did mention how far off the truth they were, to some extent they were equalized, and if one side had 5 major distortions to the other’s one minor one, we’d hear one of each.
As I said, first it is because the media now recognizes they fell down on the job before the war. They also recognize that this is more crucial than, say Clinton vs. Dole, where there would probably be no major change of direction no matter who won. It means that they should be particularly careful now.
I don’t see anything in this memo slanting coverage due to the political positions of the candidates, but only due to the level of distortion in their statements. The reason I asked you about what you thought about the distortions is to see if your problem is with the finding that Bush distorted Kerry’s statements more, or if you disagree that it is proper to focus most attention on the greatest level of distortion. If you think that the level of distortion is equal, I can understand your objection much better.
Actually, I rather think that’s the point of the memo.
My prediction is: If every time one of the candidate says that the other candidate said X, the media says “Actually what he said was Y” and precedes to give the full quote in context…then this is going to undoubtably benefit Kerry and disadvantage the Liar-in-Chief.
And, that is what really has those on the Right worried. They don’t want the media to be refs in the game at all (or they want it under some artificial rules where if the ref calls a foul on one side, he has to call one on the other) because they know that their candidate has less scruples about distorting the words of his opponent than the other and the media’s previous unwillingness to serve as any sort of arbiter of the truth was working to their candidates advantage.
Or, if they don’t know that, they are even further out-of-touch with reality than I thought.