Oops. Wrong thread. This belonged in Xeno’s GD thread. Sorry.
I notice that George Will jumped on the bandwagon, just a few days after denouncing the New York Times as biased.
While Will’s column at least avoids most of the factual inaccuracies of the Washington Times piece, it’s telling that while liberal media bias is apparently worth condemning, conservative bias bordering on slander is beneath his notice.
Will condemns the New York Times as “reinventing itself along the lines of a factional broadsheet of the 1790s.” Hardly. But the Washington Times is the real thing.
George, I realize that speck in the New York Times’ eye troubles you. But you might want to help pull the giant sequoia out of the eye of a more conservative media outlet. Not that you’re biased or anything. :rolleyes:
<<I notice that George Will jumped on the bandwagon, just a few days after denouncing the New York Times as biased. >>
The difference is that George Will holds himself out to be a conservative and a columnist. That is, he takes a right-wing position and presents opinions.
The Times holds itself out to be fair and a news organization (other than the op-ed). That is, they claim to present factual news, in a way that’s not tilted. However, they have been more and more biasing their news coverage to the left. In this way, they are failing to fulfill their mandate.
—I might even agree with you in principle, Apos. However, in practice, the ultra-conservative Washington Times attacked the liberal NEA. The Times’s attack was echoed by just about every leading conservative pundit from Rush Limbaugh on down.—
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how that makes it inherently a “conservative” position to falsely accuse the NEA of blaming the U.S. for the terrorist acts. Most conservative pundits simply repeat the rumors they hear ad nausem with little or no research, as long as the story bashes leftists. The same thing happened with Clinton’s supposedly notorious Georgetown speech: the Time printed a wildly false series of misquotes, and conservative pundits, despite the public existence of a complete transcript, simply ran with the story for almost a week after the Times printed a retraction (of course, several days after this retraction, another Times columnist repeated the attack on Clinton using the same faultly facts, and even used the earlier quotes of Andrew Sullivan, a conservative pundit who had already himself printed a retraction). Some, like Sean Hannity in his new book, CONTINUE to repeat the lie.
This isn’t “conservative” behaviorm, it’s just sloppy advocacy that anyone of any political pursuiasion can be guilty of. “Conservative” things are conservative values and positions on issues, not gang banging liberals at every opportunity, even illegitimate ones.
—The NEA has been defended by a number of liberal pundits, including the one I cited.—
But quite fairly, in this case. Who makes a defense is sort of irrelevant, if the defense is fair and honest.
Arguing that this particular case is illegitimate is not the same thing as saying that the NEA is a good organization, anymore than admitting that Clinton’s Georgetown speech wasn’t the supposed anti-American diatribe it was billed as being means that Clinton was a good president.
—The difference is that George Will holds himself out to be a conservative and a columnist. That is, he takes a right-wing position and presents opinions. —
I think you missed the thrust of RT’s point, which is that Washington Times is supposedly an honest newspaper too, and yet is often guilty of some pretty egregious spin without comment from Will.
—However, they have been more and more biasing their news coverage to the left. In this way, they are failing to fulfill their mandate.—
I have to say, while there are some examples of it, I just don’t see either the pervasiveness of it, or any evidence that there is now more and more of it. Rather, people’s standards for what constitutes “spin” and “bias” seems to be getting lower and lower.
I think it’s pretty obvious that any charge of pervasive bias against any news source is pretty hard to conclusively refute (since there will always be easy anecdotes to drum up accusations, and countering them is much much harder): so it’s a very effective tactic regardless of whether its fair or not.
Yep. After posting, I had the same thought.
I once subscribed to the Washington Times for a few months. It is a second-rate paper. It’s important, because there are so few conservative newspapers, but I agree that it’s blatantly biased.
OTOH it’s quite a slam at the Grey Lady to say that the New York Times is no worse than the Washington Times. :eek:
This is a hijack, so I’ll limit the detail. On the issue of not going to war with Iraq, the Times news coverage[ul][li]Reported on two consequtive days that Kissenger had opposed the war in a WaPo article, but the article had strongly supported it. They have not correcte this error. []When some Brent Scowcroft came out against the war on the WSJ op-ed, the Times made it front page news. However, before this, they never considered Scowcroft to be more important than any other retired high military figure. []Same for Congressman Dick Armey.[]They had a man-in-the-street interview of (I think) Arizona Republicans as a news article. Most or all of the interviewees opposed the war, although war opponents are a minority.[]By these and other articles, they have created an impression that there is widespread conservative opposition to the war, which is the opposite of what the polls show.[/ul][/li][quote]
I think it’s pretty obvious that any charge of pervasive bias against any news source is pretty hard to conclusively refute (since there will always be easy anecdotes to drum up accusations, and countering them is much much harder): so it’s a very effective tactic regardless of whether its fair or not.
[/QUOTE]
I agree.
Heeeeeey!! Just as I was getting ready to slam you. No fair, I tellya. 
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I said the Moonie Paper was as bad as Will claimed the NY Times was - that is, like a 1790s broadsheet.
Having recently been reading some history of that period, I can say that the NY Times would have to go light-years past what they’ve done recently to be that bad. Actually, so would the Washington Times, but it would be many fewer light-years.
I’d love to see a newspaper with a conservative editorial stance try to show the liberal stalwarts at the Washington Post and New York Times how to run unbiased news coverage. But the reality is that contemporary American conservative publications, like 1960s left-wing papers in reverse, generally see themselves as participants in and cheerleaders for the conservative movement first, and everything else second.
**
I have not been able to find the Kissinger article online, so I cannot quote directly from it. I do, however, want to point out what Josh Marshall had to say about it. If you have been reading Marshall’s articles recently, you will know that he supports regime change in Iraq through military means (although he is pessimistic about the ability of the Rummies in the administration to carry it out). He says about the Kissinger article:
In a previous TalkingPoints Memo, John Judis goes into further detail anout Kissinger’s article. As I said, I haven’t read the actual article. If these are mischaracterizations, please let me know.
[quote]
from december’s post above:**
[li]When some Brent Scowcroft came out against the war on the WSJ op-ed, the Times made it front page news. However, before this, they never considered Scowcroft to be more important than any other retired high military figure. []Same for Congressman Dick Armey.[]They had a man-in-the-street interview of (I think) Arizona Republicans as a news article. Most or all of the interviewees opposed the war, although war opponents are a minority.By these and other articles, they have created an impression that there is widespread conservative opposition to the war, which is the opposite of what the polls show.[/ul] **[/li][/QUOTE]
As to your points about Scowcroft and Armey, it is obvious that they are not newsworthy until they do something newsworthy. Taking an opposing stand to the administration is clearly newsworthy. Are you saying that the Times should not refer to Scowcroft’s statement unless they have something like a daily “Scowcroft Watch” column?
NY Times:
“In a follow-up to our reporting on the General’s constipation over the past three days, we note that this morning, at 6:15, he had a good bowel movement, perhaps as a result of the fiber supplement he has been taking recently. In a change from the daily routine we have been reporting, the General had whole wheat toast with his otherwise regular breakfast of half a qrapefruit, two poached eggs, and Jimmy Dean low fat sausage patties. At 9:30 AM, the General issued a statement critical of President Bush’s policy toward Iraq. Following the statement, he returned to the routine upon which we have reported daily: after his 10:00 AM second cup of coffee (milk, one spoonful of sugar) the General read his email, and answered several. This reporter notes that as usual, General Scowcroft chose not to send his bank account information to Chiedu Boglo, the son of a retired General in the Nigerian Army and a former minister.”
JDM
The Wall Street Journal does just that. Their op-ed writers are staunchly conservative (except for Al Hunt), but their news reporters tilt slightly toward liberal. A nice feature of this balance is that a gross error by the conservative op-ed folks will be pointed out by the liberal news folk, and vice versa.
<<As to your points about Scowcroft and Armey, it is obvious that they are not newsworthy until they do something newsworthy. Taking an opposing stand to the administration is clearly newsworthy. Are you saying that the Times should not refer to Scowcroft’s statement unless they have something like a daily “Scowcroft Watch” column? >>
I don’t buy this, JDM. First of all, the administration (i.e., Bush) has taken no formal stand on attacking Iraq. Armey has opposed Bush on other matters, and his opposition never before made front page news. Also, this item is part of a distinct pattern.
One other Times goof in this direction: They reported that Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary (like our Secretary of State) made a strong statement about the UK not supporting a war during a BBC interview. But, it was the interviewer who made the statement, not Straw.
John Judis expands on his TPM article in The American Prospect. Again- if someone has a link to the original Kissinger article I’d appreciate it. Judis’ discussion seems pretty clear, and if his quotes from Kissinger are accurate, I think the NY Times characterized Kissinger’s POV in the article accurately.
Judis:
As to the administration’s Iraq policy, I heard Richard Perle on the BBC show “Hardtalk” a couple of weeks ago. He said that the US invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam was going to happen, and sooner rather than later. I cannot help but think that if GWB had a different agenda, he would not be allowing Perle to say such things.
The prospect of war with Iraq is perhaps the biggest news today. Not only because war is news, but also because the US, if it does attack Saddam, will be significantly changing the way nations interact. If a precedent is established where any nation, if it is strong enough, can invade another and topple its leadership, we will have a very different world. It is not at all unreasonable that a major newspaper in the US should publicize the views of Scorcroft, Baker, Kissinger, etc., since they are people of knowlege and experience. The fact that they are all people of Bush’s own party makes it even more newsworthy.
With Armey, there is another issue. Bush’s advisors have told him (Bush) that, in effect, when the Framers said: “The Congress shall have the power to declare war” it was really a slip of the quill, or maybe another waterblot, and that they really meant “The President shall have the power to declare war.” Bush has already referred to the concept of separation of powers, one of the very foundations of our government, as nothing more than a turf war:
GWB:
It is therefore developing into major news that Bush is being called on his usurpation of Congressional powers, and now even by a member of his own party. This is much more significant for the future course of our country than other disagreements between Armey and Bush. The only disagreement I can find, BTW, is this, in which Armey wanted a bigger tax cut than GWB had proposed.
Now I know that the the administration would have us all be docile little sheep, and look at the reporting as, well, Ari says it best:
I have to go along with James Carville, though:
I see absolutely nothing wrong, in a free society, with reporting on the opposing side during the build up to what may be a war, and a war that changes the world dramatically. JDM
John Judis is full of beans.
Unfortunately, that WaPo article has not been reproduced anywhere that I know of. However, Judis and the Times have no quotes to show Kissinger opposition to the war, but the WSJ has a quote showing his support.[ul][li]Judis’s article has few actual Kissinger quotes. It’s all about Judis’s personal interpretation. Judis makes himself sound oh-so-knowledgable, but he provides nothing we can verify.The New York Times article itself provides quotes, but they do not support the Times’ interpretation. The Times says, [/li][quote]
…Mr. Kissinger made a long and complex argument … writing that American policy “will be judged by how the aftermath of the military operation is handled politically,” a statement that seems to play well with the State Department’s strategy.
“Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed,” he added. Far from ruling out military intervention, Mr. Kissinger said the challenge was to build a careful case that the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction calls for creation of a new international security framework in which pre-emptive action may sometimes be justified.
[/quote]
The Times quotes Kissinger as merely warning to take care in the aftermath, and that we should be prepared to sustain our effort. From these conventional points, the Times leaps to the conclusion that Kissinger opposes the war.[li]The Wall St. Journal does quote Kissinger’s WaPo article as favoring an attack.[/li][quote]
Here’s what Mr. Kissinger actually said in his most recent op-ed, appearing in the Washington Post last Monday: “The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, the demonstrated hostility of Saddam combine to produce an imperative for pre-emptive action.” This is opposition?
[/quote]
[/ul]The TAP article has issue date Sept. 23. I would assume it was written after the WSJ article on 8/19. If so, Judis was intentionally deceptive, when he ignored Kissinger’s quoted sentence above.
You remind me of an opinion piece on the radio a week or two ago, and I swear it was Walter Cronkite, if my memory serves. He was mourning the loss of real independent reporting in wartime ( or anything that resembles it.) His point, and I think it was dead on, was that by controlling and shutting out the news media, while you may be making it a little safer to wage war now, in the age of CNN and global news, you are also destroying any chance history has of telling the tale truthfully and accurately. And that is a terrible, terrible thing for our country and the world.
Thanks to Josh Marshall, here is a link to the Kissinger article, in the Manila Times.
Here is the last paragraph:
Kissinger:
Earlier in the piece, he says this:
Really the article is just as John Judis describes it- under the guise of supporting the invasion, Kissinger provides a strong list of the problems of such an action, and offers alternatives to it, or at least different concepts for achieving the goal of a non-threatening Iraq (and stopping proliferation) without the risks involved in changing the centuries-old rules regarding national sovereignity.
As far as Judis’ analysis of Kissinger’s philosophy goes (which is based on the fact that he has read Kissinger’s books) I will refer you to this article by Robert Kaplan which says exactly the same thing: that to Kissinger the word “revolutionary,” which he applies to Bush’s Iraq plans:
Kissinger
is a very bad word.
Kaplan:
Judis’ ignoring of the WSJ article, of course, has nothing to do with anything- the WSJ simply quoted Kissinger’s original article, which Judis had read. To say he is “deceptive” for leaving out a reference to the WSJ is silly. Of course, the WSJ was intentionally deceptive for leaving out this sentence:
Kissinger:
from its editorial. JDM