And yet the laregest Newspapers are much more likely to endorse Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. The NYT, the LAT, the WaPo, etc. Why is that?
I disagree that “the press” did this. In fact, even in the infamous FoxNews stuck it to the SwiftBoat guys on playing fast and lose with the facts. I think you are confusing the SwiftBoat commercials themselves with the news reporting on the claims made by that group.
2 seconds of googling turned up this from the New York Times concerning the Swift Boaters.
Case in point: Helen Thomas. Once the Queen of the Press Corps, she’s been relegated to the back row and rarely called upon because she didn’t knuckle under when GW took office. Not that it’s really worth asking tough questions in the White House press room anymore…have you EVER gotten the impression that anyone with any actual access to the President even nods at Scotty “Deer-In-The-Headlights” McClellan if they pass in the hall?
Now this is kind of cruel. I know Helen Thomas isn’t as svelte as she used to be, but really…
Has there been any academically rigorous research from an unbiased perspective done on the question of whether press coverage of this Administration differs meaningfully from coverage of past Administrations? If not, all the OP and its defenders have to offer are anecdotes (which can be countered by other anecdotes), and appeals to opinions from like-minded websites.
Not convincing.
It’s a shame then, that 10 days later, they published a he-said entitled “Ex-President Bush Calls Charges of Swift Boat Group Compelling.” Unfortunately the full article isn’t available, but this snippet is available from Atrios.
Similarly, they also published articles by Seymore Hirsch detailing some of the truths about Iraq. Nevertheless, some of your Googling (I don’t know how many seconds worth) should turn up an apology by the New York Times for their coverage of the run up to the war. Some further Googling should turn up some defense by the New York Times of Judith Miller’s writing.
But some of their claims were “compelling”, and nothing in that article is factually incorrect. That’s not a “he said/she said” article, it is a reporting of what the President actually said. And, without access to the full article, you really don’t know whether or not there was a disclaimer about the SwiftBoaters in it. You are doing the exact same thing that people who claim “liberal bias” are doing-- looking at isolated instances, often out of context, and drawing sweeping conclusions based on anecdotal data.
It’s unrealistic to expect the press to get things right every single time. All you’re doing, as **Jackmannii **said, is cherry-picking anecdotes. For every andecdote you bring up, I can get a counter-anecdote. Everytime you come up with something where the press was slow to respond, I can find something where the press jumped the gun and got the facts wrong.
The problem with the OP’s thesis is twofold. First, you have to prove that the press has actually changed. Then you have to prove that the press is more likely than not to igonre the needs of “the people” to have accurate, timely information about the concerns of the day. So far, no one has proven either of those claims, and I’m not sure it’s even possible to do so.
I hardly think the apology of the New York Times for its coverage can be handwaved away as a cherry-picked anecdote. They themselves cited six articles that failed to do exactly what the OP is suggesting. They themselves said:
Note that this quote is taken from AlterNet because the content is behind a barrier on the NYT. So, again, you are free to claim that exculpatory content may exist somewhere in the original text.
Nevertheless, to suggest that this is cherry-picking is to ignore the magnitude of their failure in their duty and the magnitude of their acknowledgement of such. And I don’t understand how your dichotomy of “slow to respond” versus “jumping the gun” is relevant. The issue is whether they “accept the p.r. answers and spin” or not, or whether they fully serve as the fourth estate that they are supposed to, not whether they are speedy or not in doing so.
OK, then, show us a statistical analsyis of the number of times they accept “the spin” vs how many times they challenge it. And while you’re at, define “spin” in a way that is objectively non-partisan and be sure to include all news sources and exclude editorials and other news analysis sources, sticking strictly to “straight news”.
Oh, and good luck! 
20 seconds of Googling turned up this from Columbia Journalism Review. Particularly telling is the part where they compare the MoveOn ad attacking Bush’s service record (all claims not in dispute) with the Swifties’ (a pack of lies thoroughly debunked) but the media as usual fell for a false equivalency between the two.
Also, as I said, long after the Swift boat claims had been debunked, many news orgs, including NPR, and I’ll bet the Times, continued to neutrally cite the Swifties as claiming this or that various thing in opposition to the Kerry campaign, without taking note of the fact that those claims were seriously debunked.
Well, I’m fairly sure I don’t have the resources or time to accomplish this. Therefore, you are correct and I am wrong. Congratulations.
I haven’t made any assertions, so I’m not trying to “win” anything. I’m only asking that those who are making assertions, such as:
actaully prove it. Prove that “in the main” they are no longer acting as The Fourth Estate. If you can’t do so, then you’re just one more guy bitching that the press doesn’t report things they way he wants them to.
I’ve tried providing compelling examples of a lack of skepticism and an engagement in he said-she said, but this is just “cherry-picking” (despite an acknowledgement by one of the most distinguished media organizations of doing just this very thing). I cannot comply with your request for a complete accounting due to a lack of resources and time, although I could run the statistics if you give me the data. Thus, I am at a loss, and am just a guy bitching.
Top notch argument - you got me, pal.
They’ve had some feisty days in there lately. All they’ve accomplished, though, is show that “Ongoing Investigation” McClellan can stay on message no matter what.
I don’t think anyone is going to disagree that “the media” at times engages in a he-said/she-said analysis when that is not appropriate to do so. But that’s not what you have claimed. You have claimed that this represents the norm rather then the exception. If you can’t back up your claim, you should at least have the intellectual honesty to say it’s just your opinion, or to withdraw the claim. But instead, you resort to sarcasm implying that my disagreement with you is based on some unreasnable expectation that a statement made in GD should be backed up by facts. Why is that?
Not at all. You are falsely conflating two of my posts. I first said that I agreed with the OP that the press has, in the main, discontinued a practice that would warrant the distinction of being the Fourth Estate. I later agreed that one method by which they do so, perhaps the best representation of this practice, was the he said/she said technique. I never claimed that this specific technique represented the norm.
I’m not being sarcastic. I am agreeing that I cannot empirically demonstrate the proof of the argument, particularly by the comprehensive strategy that you outlined. I am a very empirically oriented type guy. I tried making a qualitative argument, which was, by the way based on facts (despite your derogation), but you demand something further, which I agree I cannot comply with. My argument remains my opinion, which is nevertheless informed by facts.
Now, I actually believe that I presented factual evidence that supported a qualitative analysis of the matter, which you could not respond adequately to, so you chose to engage in distraction by demanding an empirical analysis. I do agree that this cannot be met. However, you better be damn sure that the empirical standard you have set here is one I am going to hold you to for each and every argument you put forth in GD in the future.
Because they’re the better-qualified candidates?
Besides, you haven’t shown any correlation between an endorsement for a candidate and the amount of latitude given to the candidate.
OK. I originally wrote that the he-said/she-said method was just one manifestation, but I edited that out because the sentence sounded garbled. But let’s put that back in, and the argument remains the same. You made a claim about what the press was doing “in the main” that you were unable to prove (and that I suspect no one would be able to prove).
Now you’re saying it’s just your opinion, which is fine. And I never said your opinion wasn’t informed by facts, just that your facts were anecdotal, which they are, and can’t be used to make the sweeping generalization you did.
I responded adequately to your claim by pointing out that you have only presented anecdotal evidence. I’m not claiming that I can prove that the OP is wrong, I’m just claiming that the OP (and you, by extension) are making statements that are impossible to prove. Not difficult to prove, impossible to prove.
Feel free to hold me to the same standard as much as you like.
And this, I think, is the crux of the “media problem”. We’re fickle and stupid and pay no more than 20 seconds of attention to any news story. The media has to satisfy customers like us, so this is what we get. It’s not their fault; we’re the ones who abandoned them, not vice-versa.
I think I need to maybe fine tune my comments about corporations and the press and the news division of various media outfits.
Looking up why the various newspapers that you listed as endorsing Kerry I find that the New York Times did so based on GW’s poor performance in the Iraq adventure and the large deficit. I couldn’t find the reasons for the Washington Post and this site says that the LA Times made no endorsement.
The OP referred specifically to “the press” and my comments regarding corporate ownership of the media is probably more applicable to TV than the print press. Most of the major newspapers are owned by corporations that still have executives who have a background in the print press field. So far their inclination appears to be to continue to run their newspapers as jounalists more than as corporate executives as far as handling the news goes.
I don’t think that is true for TV networks. ABC is owned by Disney. NBC is owned by GE. CNN is owned by Time-Warner. MSNBC is, or was, an arm of Microsoft and NBC. Of these, only Time was a journalistic organization. I can’t prove it but I have the strong suspicion that GE, Disney and Time-Warner bought their media properties as profitable investments and not as a way to have their news divisions keep tabs on how our politicians are doing and inform the public of that.
In any case, for both print press and TV corporations, although Republican policy is more friendly to corporate interests, Democrats are not all that hostile. I understand that Bill Clinton was quite chummy with Tyson Foods when he was governor of Arkansas. I don’t believe he was all that unfriendly to business as president. I also didn’t see anything in Kerry’s position that would have been all that bad for the corporate group.
My point is that irrespective of whether a Republican or a Democrat is president, the corporations aren’t going to suffer and will not have an incentive to keep after them to do such things as enforce the antitrust, environmental, and workplace safety laws. Nor would they be all that inclined to look too closely at such things as the effect of tax cuts on the budget.
However, given as dismal a performance as GW has exhibited so far, the print media would be more inclined to start criticising because of the jounalistic background of its executives. Some of them at least still appear to see their job as representing the general public in holding politicians accountable for the results of their policies. It appears to me that the TV executives see their task as promoting the interests of their corporate bosses. I would expect that and I think it is the case.
As to charges that I hate “big bad corporations” I believe I mentioned one difficulty I have with them. I think the corporate excesses of the 1890’s and all the way up to the New Deal years show that I’m not completely off the mark. The activities of various corporate executives in the last few years have merely strengthened my distaste for the mode of operations. And our mine recent mine disasters show that those executives still will put profits for themselves above all else unless there is a watchdog with big teeth right at their heels.
I see no reason to expect media corporation executives to act any different, especially thise without a background in journalism. And if they can curry favor with politicians by not bringing up their fuckups and outright misdeeds I think they will do that.
John Mace, one of the point I was making was that even after the NY Times and others debunked the Swifties, they still ran he said/she said articles which didn’t point out that the Swifties had been thoroughly debunked. I particularly noticed this on NPR, which did run a piece about all the lies and inconsistencies the Swifties presented as “truth,” and yet still their idiot reporters would do “he said/she saids” using the Swifties, as if their comments were in any way a balance to the more truthful claims of the Dems.
When there is a clear, objectively verifiable truth in a situation, the reporter must identify it as such. Otherwise, Rove, or his Dem equivalent, can make ANY claim into a “controversy” just by drumming up a pack of lies and packaging them as advocacy – which is exactly what the Pubbies did with the Swifties.