 |
|
« FLASHBACK - October 3, 1938 October 11, 2004
More from ABC's Mark Halperin
Posted by Bill A recent controversial memo issued by ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin urged journalists not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" during the network's coverage of the presidential election. To be fair, I understand Halperin's intent - if one candidate lies about their rationale for war, and another candidate lies about what they had for breakfast, it's not in the public interest for the media to give equal time to each deception. But what Halperin may not fully grasp from the cocoon of an ideological/MSM bubble is the idea that his judgment against Bush may be a matter of subjective partisan bias that's enhanced by anger at the Bush Administration's arm's-length media policy. And contrary to Halperin's subjective assessment, the subjective assessment of other smart, informed individuals, with supporting objective evidence, is that John Kerry is now misleading the American public in extremely important ways. I believe that it's a very shallow read of the issues to assert that Bush consciously misled anyone regarding the war, but even giving the anti-Bush argument about deception the benefit of the doubt by assuming it's accuracy, John Kerry's platform and public assertions are at least as worthy of attention and close scrutiny as the media tries to provide the American public adequate information to inform their vote. The directive in Halperin's memo steps far beyond the information-gathering mandate of the ostensibly "neutral" media and actually attempts to fundamentally sway the course and presentation of the news, rather than allow the course of the news to influence the reporting. In an attempt to gain perspective on the motivation for Halperin's ire at the Bush Administration, Carnivorous Conservative dug up some of his earlier statements to the Harvard Institute of Politics in 2003: He said, "One of the biggest changes in the last two years is that Republicans used correctly to believe that the press was liberally biased. Now, the Democrats believe the press is biased against them." Ah, the Eric Alterman sentiment: conservatives aquire talk radio and FOX News, and suddenly the entire media landscape takes a tectonic lurch to the right. I reject this paranoid fear of media diversification. That being said, Halperin's worries of a right-wing planet may be predicated on an otherwise valid criticism of the media's herd mentality: Only a handful of "serious news organizations" deviate from "herd mentality" political coverage, ABC News political director Mark Halperin told a Harvard Institute of Politics audience last week. Fair enough. Next we learn of a soft spot for Bill Clinton: Halperin, who covered Bill Clinton's presidential campaign and first 20 months in office, said Clinton was held to "way too high a standard — coverage was way too tough." He added that the ex-president "doesn't have a clue" about the media. This regret that the media should have coddled Bill Clinton because of Halperin's patronizing perception of innocuos naivete is laughable, and quickly followed by a more respectful, sinister description of Bush: By contrast, he said, "Coverage of Bush has been disgraceful, weak by any objective standard. Bush is really smart about the media — a genius." As an example, he cited his preference for photo ops to full-length press conferences. Somewhere at that very moment, Bush and Karl Rove's gleefully evil faces were bathed in flickering light from a bank of television screens that sit in the darkened media war room beneath the White House. Karl Rove quickly lost interest, flicked on the lights and returned to his live puppy dissection, while Bush lazily resumed proving the Riemann Hypothesis on a chalkboard framed in gold. Seriously though, it always makes me laugh when the chattering classes of the MSM declare the Bushies evil geniuses because they have photo ops in front of pretty mountains, avoid open Q & A, and use Orwellian sloganeered backgrounds that reinforce their talking points. As for access, politicians and journalists have a naturally adversarial relationship, and it's not in the Administration's incentivized interest to make themselves available for repeated public floggings. Professional journalists are "professionals" that should know how to backdoor the White House when they stonewall. I give Halperin's complaint a mealy-mouthed "Waa." With photo ops, Halperin said, Bush can avoid follow-up and "gotcha" questions by leaving when he gets a tough query. And why would Bush avoid press conferences? Let's review some questions from Bush's infamous xanax outing on April 13, 2004. I'll add the subtext: Q Thank you, Mr. President. To move to the 9/11 Commission. You, yourself, have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. "I was not on point," you told the journalist, Bob Woodward, "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th? Come again? What is the appropriate, direct answer to that question? In today's media environment of manipulatively-truncated, non-contextual sound bites, such an answer doesn't exist. The dogged follow-up: Q Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11th? Admit culpability for not anticipating 9-11, chimperor! Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up? Admit you were wrong! Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one? Grovel before us! Apologize! Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq. Yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it? "Lose your job[?]" Not a bad question, but the phraseology was an inappropriate attempt to bait the President and make a statement. Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it? Again, unrealistically asking the President for contrition. Q I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public? A perfect end. The media complains about the scarcity of press conferences, and then proceeds to take petty revenge by browbeating the President for an apology with questions that clearly make a political statement for a national TV audience. Whatever the President's previous aversion to the press conference format, I now encourage him to avoid it at all costs. The assembled reporters had an exceptional chance to use artful, informed questioning that would have contributed to the public interest and reinforced some of their implicit angles, but they instead chose to make statements that smacked of petty revenge and public preening. If I were Bush and Karl Rove, I wouldn't set foot within 50 yards of those clumsy jackals. Posted by Bill at October 11, 2004 09:01 AM | TrackBack (4) CommentsGreat stuff and a good read! Posted by: grumpy at October 11, 2004 10:43 AM Like a law prof I know, Halperin & Rather believe their main responsibility isn't law or journalism, but acting as adjutants in a culture war. The MSM mullahs are in panic: their subjects are restless. Like 'gay panic,' there should be a new legalism for the desperate thuggery of a Rather or Halperin: Bush Panic Defense. Posted by: jeff at October 11, 2004 10:58 AM as i recorded on my blog, the leftist "media watchdog" group FAIR sent out an "ACTION ALERT" 8 days before the Halperin memo that made the same argument: "While fact-checking is an essential media function, particularly during an election year, it's a hollow exercise if journalists start with the assumption that both sides must be found equally guilty of falsehoods." it seems Halperin got the action alert from the leftist organization and decided to take action. Posted by: pheirce at October 11, 2004 11:12 AM it seems Halperin got the action alert from the leftist organization and decided to take action. The timing of the FAIR release is notable and provides an interesting parallel, but your assertion that he moved on the orders or prompting of the organization is still speculation. I wouldn't be surprised if halperin's sentiment is a widely held notion in many quarters of the MSM. That's a good catch, though. Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 11, 2004 11:19 AM Bill, Halperin went on to say..."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." This is what bothers me...."help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying.." Do you see the condescension? We cannot possibly evaluate ourselves. Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at October 11, 2004 11:45 AM Kerry even said in the first debate that he didn't believe Bush was "lying." Also, Kerry has apparantly lied in the second debate, when he gave his pledge to not raise taxes for people making less than 200k, and his own website indicts him. Go to this page: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html Under the heading "restore fiscal discipline to Washington" you find this bullet: "Restore the top two tax brackets to their levels under President Clinton." Now if you go and actually look at what those top two tiers are, and where their cut offs are, you realize people making under 200k are definitely infor a tax increase. I just looked at the tax brackets from my 2000 booklet (I figure there is a link somewhere on the IRS website) but I got this: Single-36% (bottome of top two brackets) 132,600 39.6% is 288,350
I have also heard Kerry wants to remove or raise the payroll tax cap, which would also result in a tax increase for people making over the tax cap, but under 200k. Posted by: Just Me at October 11, 2004 11:49 AM Perhaps Halperin will soon tell us how ABC should "balance" their (non) coverage of union thugs using force to occupy Republican offices, shots fired into GOP headquarters, swastikas burnt into lawns of those displaying Bush/Cheney signs, etc. Won't hold my breath. Posted by: jeanneb at October 11, 2004 12:10 PM I think it would be interesting if a sitting President -- of either party -- refused to hold so much as a single press conference during his entire time in office. Indeed, I think it would be refreshing. A few one-on-one interviews, and otherwise the press can ask the White House press secretary and his staff any questions. It would infuriate the press but it would probably be better than the ridiculous press conferences we get now. I would encourage either President Bush or President Kerry (if he is elected) to enact just such a policy. Posted by: Dean Esmay at October 11, 2004 12:18 PM More satisfying would be removing the credentials of the entire White House press corps. Posted by: Robert Crawford at October 11, 2004 01:24 PM rightwingsparkle: Posted by: Pete at October 11, 2004 02:08 PM "For example, if one candidate lies about their rationale for war, and another candidate lies about what they had for breakfast, it's not in the public interest for the media to give equal time to each deception." Actually, I tend to think that someone who lies about what he had for breakfast is pathological. IOW, the effect of the lie may be lesser than the other one, but it may be symptomatic of a deeper problem. Posted by: Pat Curley at October 11, 2004 03:21 PM Bill, Please look and see if you got my email regarding another item I will be breaking. I'm assuming your email is hard to get to, at best. So, I'm commenting here. Thanks. Posted by: Dan at October 11, 2004 03:22 PM IOW, the effect of the lie may be lesser than the other one, but it may be symptomatic of a deeper problem. There's a joke about fruit loops or cocoa puffs in there somewhere. Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 11, 2004 03:23 PM Pete, Next time you assert how the media underestimates your intelligence, be sure to know the difference between the use of to and too. Although this error might be a mere typo, it speaks volume when it occurs in conjunction with your self indulging declaration of brain power. Hey at least you didn't type two. Posted by: SlickNutz at October 11, 2004 04:58 PM SlickNutz - The next time you feel the need tooooo comment on a blog site, be sure two know the difference between contributing teu the discussion and just being an asshole about typographical errors. It speaks volume when it occurs in conjunction with ... just about anything. Banned. Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 11, 2004 05:05 PM Not sure why...but those press questions bring back so many memories of a press just as vindictive and trite with a President who DID do press conferences: The Gipper himself. Which starts one to wonder: maybe it’s not the frequency, but the content the press are frampeled about. Posted by: Martin of Blogbat at October 11, 2004 05:50 PM While the underlying premise of the FAIR "warning" is sound (i.e. there is no standard of objectivity that demands a journalist to try and make both candidates look equally bad if that is not necessarilly the truth), as I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to try and stretch to "equaly" present the candidates if, for example, Lincoln was running against Boss Tweed. However,the track history, examples provided and our own learned "bias" against their objectivity informs that this "warning" may not have totally been in good faith. I would think a more fair approach would be to provide checks on verifiable fact ("X said he ate corn flakes but actually had friut loops") and leave out the accusations ("Y lied about what he really thought"). The public can decide the relative importance of the facts. Posted by: submandave at October 12, 2004 02:50 PM 1219 http://www.totallyfreecreditreport.org Posted by: free credit report at October 24, 2004 06:49 PM 7252 http://www.slots-big.com slots Posted by: slots at October 25, 2004 10:33 AM 505 http://www.online-casino-one.com Posted by: online casino at October 25, 2004 07:35 PM |
Feed Me, Seymour
bill *at* indcjournal *dot* com
Support Our Advertisers
Search
Archives
June 2008May 2008 April 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Extras
PDARSD Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0
Credits
Our Blogroll
|