"It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave
I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The “Conservative Times” and Charles Krauthammer on the web both make the same point today: the current Kerry attacks on Bush involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Bush has done.
Bush distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
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.
I’m sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Kerry efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying President Bush at least partly through distortions.
It’s up to Bush 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."
Just as when I answered a similar question earlier in this thread I think it’d fine, but not much to think about as I (naively perhaps) expect that news organizations should do the story that is warranted by the facts.
It seems like such a non-issue for a news org to say that reporters should do the story warranted by the facts.
In the past few years (thanks in no small part to Team Bush and its apologists) I’ve learned so incredibly much about the various sordid sorts and varieties of untrue statements.
Out of curiousity, does anybody in this thread, on either side of the argument, actually have a problem with the above quoted sentence?
'Cause I’m looking at John Mace’s hypothetical Fox memo, and my reaction is that while I disagree with the hypothetical premises of the memo, I agree heartily with the policy proposed therein, as reflected by the quote above.
John, are you having problems with the premises of ABC’s memo, or the policy proposed therein? The first I can at least understand, but the second simply baffles me. Very few statements are unequivocally true and those statements which are not range from misstatements due to oversimplification to out-and-out slander. Treating all such statements equally is simply preposterous. If candidate A says candidate B eats baby kittens for breakfast, it’s not just a “matter of opinion” that it’s not the same as candidate B mispronouncing the name of a foreign head of state, and a news organization shouldn’t treat them as such just to impose an artificial sense of balance.
Orbifold – It’s not about neutra policy - as some wish to have this issue framed. Why did Halperin name names, IF this memo is innocent? Well, because it isn’t that innocent. Halperin could have written that memo WITHOUT using Kerry’s name and WITHOUT using Bush’s name. He choose not to do this without. Halperin choose to put each candidates name in his memo. And followed that with clear, expressed, generalized favortism for Kerry and against Bush.
I guess the matter is simple: if Bush wasn’t distorting, there’d be no one to uncover but Kerry. I’ll be sure to send that along to the Bush campaign. I’m sure it will sharpen them right up.
For example, is neutral policy was the REAL concern — Halperin could have written THIS memo when “issuing” his policy– but he didn’t.
*Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004
It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave
I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: some candidate attacks involve distortions and taking things out of context.
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.
It’s up to each candidate 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.*
So the whole thing is just your inference? Can’t you at least cite the relevant portions of the text that you used to reach the conclusions that "in this case “artificial and reflexive neutrality” is essentially “treating both sides the same, but finding out that your guy is losing?”
You said that doing the story the facts warranted didn’t work out for CBS. I pointed out that CBS didn’t do a story that was warranted by the facts. Then you said that the talk about stories warranted by the facts would create a "temptation [for] ABC [to] also disregard the facts in favor of a “get Bush”. Yet, I’m mystified how encouragement to do stories warranted by the facts leads to a disregard for one set of facts.
There was not (AFAICT) any admonishment to ignore Kerry’s distortions etc.
Where’re you getting all of this extra stuff?
There is, in my estimation, at least some seperation between a candidate and his campaign. Of course, your free to discontinue our discourse at any time you wish.
Where in the memo does it say this part: “They are going to disregard what one side does.”
Yes, this is true. It says that the reporters should treat the candidates as the facts warrant rather than as artificially and reflexively “equal.”
There is a difference. IMHO, facts should trump artificial and reflexive “equality.” YMMV.
Where’re you getting this part? I’m not finding it in the memo. What have I overlooked?
Where’re you getting this part? I’m not finding it in the memo. What have I overlooked?
Also, I’m still not clear on the whole “go with the facts” encouragement = use falsehoods thing. Could you clarify?
The puruit of stories warranted by the facts = bias nowadays. Who’da thunk?
I agree with the first part, it is not a question of the quantity of lies but rather the severity of the lies. Thank you for correcting me, you are quite right. But I stop short of agreeing with your last statement. If you are a reporter, and two candidates make false statements yet one is far more serious, I think you fail the public if you treat them equally. The Bush camp could say, “we know Kerry is going to distort our record a little so that means we should distort his a lot. Then when the network checks the facts, we look equally bad although our lies will score more points for us.” I think it’s likely the Bush camp is indeed making these calculations. Being non-partisan does not mean that you have to treat unequal behavior equally.
So you disagree with the premises of the memo. Now, what do you think ABC’s policy should be? You may not want to frame it this way, but I’m going to bloody well frame it this way anyway. If, hypothetically, ABC reporters conclude that:
(a) Bush has said repeatedly that Kerry sodomizes lemurs based on information from discredited and clearly biased sources, and
(b) Kerry has said that Bush owns a lemur farm, when in fact Bush merely has part ownership of a company which owns a lemur farm.
then what should ABC do? Should they report these lies as being equally egregious? Should they give them equal airtime, in the interest of appearing balanced? Or should they spend more time reporting one than the other?
Swap “Bush” and “Kerry” in my hypothetical scenario if you really feel like it. How do you think ABC should treat these two stories?
Is there, in fact, a difference between misstatements, lies, and damn lies?
Your hypothetical (and the one about lemurs) doesn’t help the debate. This is not about hypothetical candidates making hypothetical statements. Not to mention that fact that your hypotheticals aren’t anywhere near close to the reality of the situation.
Like I said in my first post, I don’t see this as obvious bias on ABC’s part, but I can surely see how it can be read that way and that ABC should issue clarifying statments. Why have the stakes gotten greater? How do they KNOW that distortion is central the Bush campaign and not to Kerry’s campaign.
And it depends on what action is taken. If Bush says the situation is Iraq is mostly good and Kerry says it’s mosly bad, who is right? Do they report only the Bush “distortion” and ignore Kerry’s? Why not publish both and let the readers decide. I’m trying to understand how the memo’s directive would acutally be carried out: Do you report fewer of Kerry’s distortions than of Bush’s? Or do you publish articles declaring and supporting the claim that distortion is “central” to Bush’s campaign but not to Kerry’s.
Whoop dee doo. One Rupert Murdoch right-wing rag, one Reverend Moonie right-wing rag, and one . . . uh . . . OK, I’ve never heard of the Washington Dispatch.
Like I said before, it’s become conventional wisdom that Bush has gotten a free pass on the BS he has spewed throughout his administration, and that his campaign has relentlessly distorted John Kerry’s record. And if you look at my first post in this thread, you’ll see newspaper articles that even quote some GOP types who think he’s going too far.
This isn’t about Bush vs Kerry. This memo was inspired solely by the recent loudly negative tack Bush’s campaign has taken following its post-debate slide in the polls. To bring Kerry’s campaign into it by wailing about “fairness” is creating a strawman.
I was referring to the people complaining about the memo. It sounds too much like “We can spin but you can’t”. Sorry about the delayed reply, I’ve been busy playing in the Pit again.
I think you fail the public by deciding for them which distortion is greater.
What exatly do you mean be “treat them equally”? Is it equal if the distortions are put in a box or chart side by side so that the reader can decide which is more serious?
I am certainly not suggesting that ABC deliberately ignore lies on the part of either candidate. I am suggesting that if ABC decides that one candidate has made a particularly egregious lie, that they should not go hunting for any contemporous misstatement by the other candidate, no matter how small, just to give the appearance of balance.
Tigers2B1 seems horribly incensed that Halperin made this comment after stating that Bush’s misstatements were worse than Kerry’s, and here is where I fundamentally disagree with Tigers2B1. Whether or not it is true that Bush’s misstatements are worse than Kerry’s, it still behooves ABC to not hunt for misstatements by Kerry just to balance Bush’s. If Bush tells a whopper, report it. If Kerry tells a whopper, report it. Underreporting or overreporting the misstatements of either candidate doesn’t serve the public’s best interests. And this is still true even if Halperin himself is biased in favour of Kerry. Even if Halperin thinks Bush is the second coming or a drooling miscegenated idiot, he still should not be artificially inflating the claims of one candidate just to provide an artificial sense of balance with the other.
And if you think that a statement by Bush isn’t as bad as ABC thinks it is, or if a statement by Kerry is worse than ABC thinks it is, then that could suggest a bias in ABC’s reporting. But it is not biased to say that some lies are more egregious than others and should be reported as such.