To be fair, it may not be only a matter of scruples. Since Bush is a known quantity from his actions, voters aren’t going on what Bush says as much as what he has done. But, for Kerry, as the challenger, the voters must rely much more on what he says.
So, if Bush can successfully lie about what Kerry says and get away with it, then he can define Kerry in a way that Kerry simply can’t do back to him even if his scruples were as low as Bush’s.
Saddam denies al-Qaeda link (2/4/2003)
So Saddam’s up 2-0 in the truth competition vs president Bush.
That speaks volumes.
The “stakes” involve the fact of the unique situations and conditions of our time.
It’s pretty easy if you don’t get too clever by half.
Backing one candidates or another is not a necessary pre-requisite for realizing that the actions at this juncture will have far reaching consequences. Neither does one have to have decided what are the best courses of action to realize that the times are such that current and near term actions will be more consequential than usual.
One does not have to be an advocate for a tightrope walker to lean to one particular side or another to realize that the consequences of his steps are important. It’s enough to recognize that there’s a possibility of a grave mis-step.
Are you talking about the author of the memo or those who’re complaining about the memo?
I didn’t see this part in the memo.
How did you come to this conclusion?
So when somebody encourages reporters to do the story that the facts warrant it’s really some sort of a code that means disregard the facts?
AFAICT, the author doesn’t say that Bush is the worse candidate, merely that distortions, items taken out of context and mistakes are central to Team Bush’s eforts to win.
Where in the memo does it say all this extra stuff?
It asks reporters to ignore “the stepped up Bush efforts to complain” and go with stories warranted by the facts.
If ABC goes with stories that aren’t warranted by the facts, that’s when one should complain.
One thought that occurs to me off the top of my head is because we’re at war and under threat of attack on the continental US. Just a geuss.
Good lord, you’d think this ABC guy had pictures of Dubya in bed with Jane Fonda, the way some of you tightie-righties are going off.
Let’s look at some of the sentences that have drawn your ire:
Maybe the “agenda” this guy wants to push is one of pompous self-importance, nothing more or less.
**
For giggles, let’s see what he’s talking about. Fineman’s Friday article is here. Nagourney/Stevenson is registration only,but here’s a part of it:
So for those of you who think this charge against the Bush campaign is unsupported and an example of media bias, it sure doesn’t look like he’s the only media person who feels this way. There’s an entire context here that is being studiously avoided by our rightist colleagues here: The media is cognizant of the bullshit being thrown by each side (“Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.”). But the media can also see that the Bush campaign has been throwing the most bullshit the entire campaign, and that the volume of this bullshit is increasing as the polls bring more dire news to the incumbent’s campaign. He’s gotten away with it because the press has, until now, adopted a “he said-she said” attitude towards the rhetoric that has confused ‘unbiased’ with ‘I’m too lazy to look shit up’.
Look at what happened just last week, in the aftermath of the “Global Test” dustup. See some of the names mentioned? New York Times, Washington Post, CNN? “Liberal Media” my ass, those sonsabitches always promised us the moon at the committee meetings–uhh, never mind, I didn’t say anything, walk away, people, nothing to see here.
If Bush is clearly telling more, bigger, and more egregious lies than Kerry is, and still they are reported as if both were distorting the truth equally, the coverage is actually slanted toward Bush. The major media are so desparate to avoid the “liberal media” label that they will make every attempt to even out the distortions in this manner.
Evening out the distortions like this supports the media’s real bias–a close race. People buy more papers and watch more talking head shows when the race is nearly tied, so if an accurate portrayal of one side’s corruption or incompetence would send the race over the edge one way or the other, it is not in the media’s interest to report such accurately.
That’s a cynic’s view, but it is probably true.
There can also be some even more mundane sources of bias. In the 2000 race, the reporters covering Bush apparently generally just liked him better personally than those covering Gore…Besides which, the Bush campaign gave them better food and such. Kind of silly to think that such mundane things can make the difference…but I am afraid it can.
My guess is that this personality factor is working less strongly this time. Even if Bush is still as personable one-on-one, my guess is that the reporters covering him may be more leery about having been deceived and lied to so much and such. So, even though Bush is likely still the more personable candidate, I don’t know if this is translating into as biased coverage as it did in 2000.
The point is that the news source should report this and the lies of both sides and let the readers decide. If they decide to simply report the Bush errors more prominently than the Kerry errors, then they are slanting the news. The judgement of which distortion is greater can easily be a matter of one’s political stance.
If they choose to report Bush errors less prominently than Kerry errors, they are also slanting the news. The memo addresses the fear that they will do exactly this, in an effort to appear balanced.
If Kerry goes out tomorrow and beats a stranger to death in the street with his bare hands, and Bush steps on someone’s toe in the line at McDonald’s, the headline should not be, "Candidates Commit
(posted too soon, for some reason)
If Kerry goes out tomorrow and beats a stranger to death in the street with his bare hands, and Bush steps on someone’s toe in the line at McDonald’s, the headline should not be, “Candidates inflict physical harm on strangers as the campaigns wind to a close.” The problem is that the above headline is not likely to get the paper accused of being biased, while competing headlines of “Kerry brutally beats up stranger for laughs” and “Bush steps on stranger’s toe, says he’s sorry” more accurately reflect reality, but appear more slanted.
I don’t understand why this is even controversial.
Can you show me what specific wording in the memo address the fear that Bush’s errors will be reported less prominently? I don’t see it.
Because the only thing conservatives love more than liberal-bashing is playing the self-martyr game, a.k.a. The Po’ Defenseless Conservative Sage Lost In A Sea of Liburals. 
From reading the memo. If you were expecting ABC to come right out and say, “We’ve got to get that bastard Bush”, I think they would cling to a fig leaf of respectability a bit more than that.
No, disregard one set of facts - that ones that show Kerry to use lies and distortions “all the time”. Only focus on the lies and distortions from one side.
Well, if you think characterizing one side’s lies as hugely important and the other’s as insignificant doesn’t means they think one side is worse than the other, I am not sure there is much point to discussing this.
I am not sure what you mean.
If you are asking, “Where in the memo does it say to be fair-minded?”, it doesn’t - it says just the opposite. Go after Bush, the memo says, and disregard lies told by Kerry. If you are asking “where in the memo does it say that they are afraid that Bush might win”, that is my interpretation of the point that TigerB21 made - that the stakes of the election are not changing as the election approaches, unless you define “the stakes” as the importance of a Kerry win. It’s only three weeks to go, they are still almost tied, and to that extent the Kerry campaign is not meeting the kind of success Halperin would like to see. He wants the gap between the candidates to widen as the election nears. And he is directing ABC news reporters to do what they can to bring that about, by no longer treating both candidates the same.
Well, one set of facts - the ones that make Bush look bad. The facts that make Kerry look bad are to be disregarded.
Well, ABC is not going with stories about Kerry that are warranted by the lies and distortions that the memo states he employs “all the time”. Because ABC has made a political judgement that one candidate is objectively worse than the other, and is therefore slanting its coverage to try to defeat that candidate. ABC, in other words, has no particular objection to lies by political candidates, only candidates of which they don’t approve. And so far, most of the reaction has been to say, “Well, it’s about time that ABC turned itself into a mouthpiece for the Kerry campaign”. CBS did that, by using forged documents, because they made the same judgement about the relative importance of lies from one side vs. the other. It remains to be seen if ABC can be a little more subtle about its slant.
Heaven knows I would like nothing better than to see bias of this sort blow up in their face as it did with CBS.
Regards,
Shodan
If you think the memo is correctly defining the situation and not showing some bias, just switch the names of Bush and Kerry and assume the memo came from FoxNews. What would you think then?
If FOX said that Kerry lies about Bush more than Bush lies about Kerry, that would be a false observation. ABC’s observation is simply factually correct.
That’s impossible to prove. There are too many shades of lies and half-truths out there to make an objective count. As I said earlier, the proper way to deal with this is to point out the errors on both sides and let the voters decide which are more numerous and which are more serious.
Can we please just cite the relevant passage here instead of our OP’s whistful interpretation? No? Ah, well, then.
It says that we don’t hold both sides “equally” accountable when the facts don’t warrant it. Sounds to me like he wants to report facts and corrections in proportion to the quantity and severity of distortions rather than feign an attempt at neutrality by maintaining the status quo. I can be an impartial juror and still give credence to some testimony over others, or weigh it such, or find that some testimony is relevant and other tesimony isn’t. I don’t know what standard of impartiality you have in mind, but I think this director is getting it right. I outlined as much in my first post why it is important to respond to both quantity and quality of distortions. So far, I think that point is critical and yet seems to be completely ignored.
Wow. Just… wow. Well my interpretation of what jshore said about the report that mentioned the memo is that everything is fine, so I don’t see the problem. 
Or he realizes that treating both candidates equally effectively favors the candidate that distorts more in quantity or quality. In fact, I am going of my interpretation of the point I made on that.
I’d ask you to point out to me where it says that in the memo… no, what the heck. For the novelty of it: where in the memo does it say that?
Bob: Please also note that the ABC memo does NOT say that Bush lies more than Kerry, hence the hypothetical Fox memo would not claim that Kerry lies more than Bush. The ABC memo says, in effect, that Bush’s lies are worse (not necessarily more numerous) and that is a value juedgement best left up to the voters to decide.