So I was flipping through this week’s Newsweek article on the tsunami, and two quotes struck my eye:
Look at my posting record. I’m pretty liberal, and I think the Bush administration has made some terrible mistakes that have harmed the country. But these two quotes just strike me as so unfair and gratuitous that it can only help the case of conservatives who claim that the major media has a liberal bias.
Take the first one. It strikes me as so tacked-on, so obvious, so venomous, that it just jumped out at me and made my blood boil when I read it… AGAINST the writer. And the second. I should say right off that the whole “Bush reading while the WTC falls” thing from Farenheit 9/11 never struck me as particularly outrageous. But this is even LESS outrageous to me. Uh, hello, we really didn’t know during the first few days how bad the disaster was. And besides, this sort of work is why the President does something you might know as “delegate.” It’s not like they’re completely paralyzed to do anything, even plan, until the President personally says “okay, we should help these people.”
As I said, I’m pretty liberal, but when I read these two bits, I began to understand where conservatives are coming from when they claim that the media has a liberal bias. The writers of this article should be ashamed of themselves for harming our cause like this.
Actually, the thing that strikes me about that article is that the writer(s) take what should have been an opportunity for careful factual reportage of the disaster and its implications, and turn it into an All About Bush and his Stupidity session. Just once, wouldn’t it be appropriate to have an article about facts, human welfare indications, any progress, the medical and sanitary situation, etc. without having to also extricate the irrelevant politicans from it all?
Well, Reeder, what particularly bothers me about this case is the gratuitous, hammer-to-the-head obviousness of it. If it outraged ME, it could certainly outrage a lot more liberals, never mind conservatives.
This is NOT the way liberals should be conducting business. We should know better than this.
We did have an outrageously slow and very, very small initial reaction - $15 million after several days. I have no problem on this being brought up as you described. The administration is going to take every opportunity to lie about it (Scott McClellan claimed our initial contribution was $350 million), I would like for the correct story to be reported as often as is necessary.
It was an embarrassment. He should be tarred with it.
Even if that’s so, the way in which the writers of the article did it was so obviously biased and tacked-on that it reflects MUCH more poorly on them that it does on Bush, at least to me.
Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if the message you mention was lost because of it, and that’s a crime.
I see them as purely factual statements. Totally objective reporting. What is Newsweek supposed to do, lie and say that the Bush administration is NOT a disaster?
There’s nothing to see here. “Bush sucks” is a fact, not an opinion.
It seems that if this is a news story, the first sentence should not have included a clause that is purely editorial. As for driving off to clear brush…what the hell has that to do with disaster relief? (“President Clinton spoke briefly to reporters about the disaster, then drove off to practice the saxophone.”)
Sounds like someone’s journalism career is on shaky ground, or it should be.
First off, a couple of paragraphs out of Newsweek does not a vast liberal cospiracy make. Like tying a rope to a bucket, throwing it in the ocean, pulling back a dead squid and assumng cephalopods rule the ocean! And if those phrases are disapproving, heavens, but they’re mild! “Perhaps a little too slowly” aint exactly tearing them a new one, more like a flame war between those two excruciatingly polite ground squirrels from the Warner Bros. cartoons.
As for the second, well, so what. Was he on vacation? Was he out of sight? Is there anything remotely perjorative about either of those statements? The part about the pick up truck is faintly ridiculous, but then again, so is GeeDubya’s whole Potemkin village good ol’ boy schtick, like Bill Gates putting on airs like he wants you to think he’s Amish. Out there clearing that brush from the south .40
What, the liberal conspiracy is stifling the conservative voice? I can name at least 10 talking heads whose sole meal ticket is urping up the Party line on a daily basis. Some stifling! We should be so stifled, already.
I completely agree that Bush’s image among a lot of the populace is completely undeserved. But if you think this is the way to burst the bubble, or that the quotes are “totally objective,” then you’re blinded by partisanship just as much as Republicans. After all, this is almost exactly what they tried with Clinton (and they’re STILL DOING IT), and look what THAT got them. A big fat nothing.
I don’t want liberals to start producing the equivalent of tapes claiming that Clinton is a mass-murdering drug kingpin. I don’t want such attitudes to become too common. And I certainly don’t want most liberals to buy into it. That would be disastrous.
I first read about the tsunami disasters right here on the SDMB (posted probably minutes after the first village was hit).
It does seem surprising that a bunch of SDMB “Dopers” learn of this almost immediately and yet “Dubya” seems to take his sweet time in issuing any kind of statement.
Since I have done my share of “Bush bashing” in many other threads, I’ll stop my comment there.
Beyond the Bush Bashing, it’s annoying because it’s stupid and self-absorbed. We have to make an International tragedy about OUR president, don’t we? We have to make it into another back-and-forth insipid Sunday talk show debate. It’s asinine.
No, but it is an excellent illustrative example of the liberal bias that has permeated the news media for decades.
<snip>
You can thank both the traditional media bias that has been prevalent for at least the last 70 years, and the advent of cable television for that. Decades of an arrogant, superior media that was biased against much of what the country’s population held dear eventually resulted in such pent-up demand for the other side to be heard that it gave birth to the rise and success of Rush Limbaugh. The rise and tremendous success of Rush Limbaugh then gave impetus to cable networks to fill the conservative media void with the “talking heads” you speak of, which are now creaming their would-be liberal opponents in the ratings. The only people who do not see liberal bias in the likes of The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, CNN, and the three major networks, NBC, ABC, and the worst of all CBS, are themselves either liberal, liberal-leaning or politically disinterested.
I had begun to feel that CNN had done a fairly admirable job (from a business point of view) of toning down their bias in light of the way they are getting creamed by Fox, but it looks the new guy the just brought in – the one who effectively fired Tucker Carlson – is determined to return it to its liberal roots.
The conservative contingent in this country at last has a unifying voice…something which liberals have had for decades…and arrogant media bias is what created it.