The media weighs it's coverage

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This Krugman column is dated the 28th, but it didn't appear in the local Times-owned paper until yesterday, or I would have posted it sooner.

 

To Tell the Truth

 

Some news organizations, including The New York Times, are currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down.

 

But it's not just Iraq, and it's not just The Times. Many journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: a climate in which the press wasn't willing to report negative information about George Bush.

 

People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after 9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness.

 

But now those people hear about a president who won't tell a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?

 

The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for various reasons, presented as reality.

 

The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along. Mr. Bush's problems with the truth have long been apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic. His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a long time. I first wrote about Mr. Bush's "infallibility complex" more than two years ago, and I wasn't being original.

 

So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.

 

Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators, often bend over backward to say nice things about conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither haters nor irrational — and whose critiques look pretty mild in the light of recent revelations.

 

And some journalists just couldn't bring themselves to believe that the president of the United States was being dishonest about such grave matters.

 

Finally, let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative about the president, you had to be prepared for an avalanche of hate mail. You had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation, and you had to worry about being denied access to the sort of insider information that is the basis of many journalistic careers.

 

The Bush administration, knowing all this, played the press like a fiddle. But has that era come to an end?

 

A new Pew survey finds 55 percent of journalists in the national media believing that the press has not been critical enough of Mr. Bush, compared with only 8 percent who believe that it has been too critical. More important, journalists seem to be acting on that belief.

 

Amazing things have been happening lately. The usual suspects have tried to silence reporting about prison abuses by accusing critics of undermining the troops — but the reports keep coming. The attorney general has called yet another terror alert — but the press raised questions about why. (At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran of ABC News actually said what many thought during other conveniently timed alerts: "There is a disturbing possibility that you are manipulating the American public in order to get a message out.")

 

It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of The Washington Post — who has tried, at great risk to his career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency — "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into docility.

 

But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush — who has always depended on that docility — may be in even more trouble than the latest polls suggest.

 

Thank God someone was willing to speak up on the post-9/11 invinciblity this guy had been milking for the better part of the worst two and a half years we've seen in contemporary times.

 

It seems the country is starting to wake up and smell the truth.

 

Mr. Bush tells lies that are so huge that the worst of the business sector's CEOs (and yes, there are good ones, but I'm talking about the rotten apples) would have their mouths left agape. The average Bush lie looks like this: Our plan to (insert blank here) will go off without a hitch. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

 

The media, long happy to believe the lie or keep secrets when invited to your average secret Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad, has finally realized who's paying them. The people, not the government. The people instinctively want to know more than what the government wants to tell them, and there hasn't been an American government who wants to tell people less than this one.

 

The Republicans lost their "Bush = America = GOOD" message last year, and have been pinning support for the war for Iraq with the troops. I mean, hey, you want to support the troops, right? And thanks to Pfc England and those other sad sacks that ruined it for everybody over there, people aren't feeling very sympathetic to the troops right now.

 

Since 9/11, Bush has been endlessly wrapping himself up in the US flag, hoping he can make eventually make them one and the same in people's minds. For a while, it almost worked. And now it's becoming all undone.

 

Certainly, blind Bush supporters will be shocked to hear that the nation's media is considering if it gave their man a free pass from time to time. "Where they ever on our side in the first place?" they're likely wondering. Of course, the origins of this question lie in another huge lie, but this post isn't the time for that one.

 

Anyone who simply thought that "when it rains, it pours" concerning media coverage of this administration lately simply hasn't noticed the crushing tidal wave that's on it's way.

 

Oh well. Don't deny the inevitable and let it come.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You rip certain media personalities for biases and then pimp Krugman?

 

I still love you anyway...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I only started reading his columns today.

 

I canceled the SF Chronicle and am back to reading the local paper again, and I never really read the opinion section of it last time. If he turns out to be the Ann Coulter of the left, I promise I'll stop reading.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hmm, I'd compare him more with Robert Scheer -- The thing with Anne is that she makes me laugh.

 

Read him all you want; don't let me "intimidate" your literary choices.

 

kkk =- employing post-9/11 Bush Administration tactics to TSM readers since 6/2/04...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hmm, I'd compare him more with Robert Scheer -- The thing with Anne is that she makes me laugh.

She would make me laugh in the way Michael Savage used to make me laugh in his days when he ranted about Mandarin Chinese, except that she's nearly as arrogant about her opinions as Bill O'Reilly, so I can't laugh.

 

Read him all you want; don't let me "intimidate" your literary choices.

 

kkk =- employing post-9/11 Bush Administration tactics to TSM readers since 6/2/04...

 

Now now, I saw your "With us or against us" speech on C-SPAN.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I've never been a huge fan of Coulter, but she'll come out with a zinger every now and then that makes me laugh. However, I usually don't want to watch the five minutes of her bitching about how she's being interrupted by the liberal host/guest leading up to said zinger. Usually, when I'm flipping channels and see her on I'll watch for about 20 seconds until her voice annoys me to the point of continuing my surfing.

 

Here's an anti-Krugman article on NRO; I just did a Google search regarding the topic -- I also think the writer has been accused by Krugman of stalking him because he showed up at some place where Paul was making a speech.

 

Story

 

The New York Times — once America's newspaper of record — chose not to report on the fact that the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security approved its 2004 appropriation bill last Thursday. That is, until today. The story finally showed up — in the op-ed column of Paul Krugman, America's most dangerous liberal pundit.

 

Is this the Times's new paradigm for handling political news in the post-Jayson Blair, post-Howell Raines era?

 

Here are the first two paragraphs of Krugman's column — er — news story — er — whatever it is.

 

"Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year."

 

The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security — though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.

 

Let's call in the Krugman Truth Squad and take these graphs apart one phrase at a time.

 

"Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation."

 

Yes, believe it or not, "a House subcommittee" is not identified by name — and this is the lead in a column in America's newspaper of record (you'd flunk high-school journalism class for pulling such a boneheaded move). But why leave out such a simple and critical piece of information? One less fact to fact-check? Nah, can't be that — Krugman's columns aren't fact-checked to begin with. Must be to establish a sinister, mysterious mood. ... "It was a dark and stormy night ... and bloodthirsty Republicans were prowling the halls of Congress ... "

 

Or maybe it's because Krugman just has no idea what the facts are — and by setting his story up so that it contains no facts, he can't technically be "wrong."

 

Next up from Krugman:

 

"The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11."

 

The "ranking Democrat" doesn't get named any more than his subcommittee did. He's Martin Olav Sabo, Democrat of Minnesota, but there's no record that I can find of Sabo's amendment. It's so unimportant to Sabo that the only thing remotely related to it on his website is a press release of June 6 in which he crows that "Minnesota will receive $26,690,000 for first responder preparedness and to help ease the state’s costs of enhanced security during elevated threat levels."

 

Krugman Truth Squad member Tom Maguire of the Just One Minute blog pointed out that E. J. Dionne, Jr., the liberal columnist in the Washington Post, had a substantially different version of this story. (Don't you just love it when liberal pundits contradict each other over what ought to be basic fact.) According to Dionne, it was David Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, who announced he would introduce an amendment. But according to the Appropriations Committee's website, Obey isn't even a member of the subcommittee.

 

"Just about every expert" is another anonymous phrase. But it only takes a moment or two of web-surfing to find proof that port and border security has hardly been "severely neglected." The first story I found was in, of all places, the New York Times — and it ran the very same day that un-named subcommittee met. According to the Times story, "The Bush administration has decided to place teams of American inspectors at major seaports in Muslim nations and other smaller, strategically located foreign ports to prevent terrorists from using cargo containers to smuggle chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons into the United States ... [Homeland Security Secretary] Ridge is also expected to announce the distribution of $170 million in federal grants to strengthen port security around the country, most of it directed to state and local governments, and $30 million for research and development on cargo security."

 

Back to Krugman:

 

"He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year."

 

Yeah, right. The House and Senate just agreed on historic tax reform (after an equally historic battle on the subject). Now we are supposed to believe that a congressman would seriously act as though an appropriations subcommittee is a place where that just-enacted bill is going to be revised to the tune of a lousy $1 billion? No, even congressmen — even Democratic congressmen — aren't that stupid. To be that stupid you have to be an economics professor — or an economics columnist for the New York Times. (Or maybe both.)

 

According to Dionne, who's not that stupid, Obey's move was just a political stunt — an "experiment" as Dionne put it. He had tried the same "experiment" a couple days earlier in the Subcommittee on Military Construction, trying to trade off a tax-increase against improved barracks for soldiers.

 

"The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security — though no classified material was under discussion."

 

"The subcommittee's chairman" isn't named. He's Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky. And how did Krugman know that "no classified material was under discussion" if the meeting was closed to the public? An Associated Press story reported that "Democrats said sensitive information was not discussed during the closed-door session, though Rogers said it was."

 

Krugman repeated the Democratic side of the dispute as a fact. The idea was to create the impression that Rogers closed the doors to the public so that he wouldn't be seen doing anything so unseemly as arguing against taxing the rich.

 

But the same AP story quoted — you guessed it — David Obey, offering an entirely different explanation: "They just don't want a public airing, any more than necessary, of the incompetence of some agencies."

 

Back again to Krugman:

 

"And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding."

 

Well, at least this sentence appears to be a fact. But Krugman omitted to mention that the bill — even though "the ranking Democrat's" particular $1 billion didn't make it into the bill — nevertheless appropriated more than $1 billion above the administration's request.

 

In the absence of any other Times coverage of the homeland security appropriation bill, Krugman went on to claim that

 

"according to Fred Kaplan in Slate, the administration's latest budget proposal for homeland security actually contains less money than was spent last year."

 

Astonishingly, Krugman's cited-source contradicted Krugman. In a June 6 Slate column, Fred Kaplan wrote that the

 

"department is requesting $36.1 billion for next year, which looks at first glance like a $2.4 billion increase over this year's $33.7 billion. This boost would be slight enough under the circumstances, but in fact it's not a boost at all. Congress doled out an additional $3.9 billion to DHS earlier this year, putting its total 2003 budget at $37.6 billion. So the request for the coming fiscal year amounts to a $1.5 billion reduction. (This charge may be a bit unfair; there's bound to be an FY04 supplemental request later on. Still, the department's budget isn't exactly soaring.)"

 

Even Kaplan and the fact-checkers at left-leaning Slate had the integrity to qualify the claim with "may be a bit unfair," and to effectively nullify it with the "isn't exactly soaring" rephrase. But the newspaper of record left all that out.

 

If this really is the Times's new paradigm for handling political news, I want the old paradigm back. I'd rather have seen this appropriations bill covered on the paper's Washington page — yes, even with Jayson Blair's byline. Anything but Paul Krugman's bias and vagueness and untruthfulness dressed up as news.

 

It was bad enough when his lies were disguised as opinion.

 

You know, I got deja vu by reading this point-by-point column.

 

Wait a second --

 

A/THE MIKESC IS DONALD LUSKIN!!!...

[Guest Cerebus]

Many journalists think so, I don't though. There is so much anti-Bush stuff just about everywhere you look he's practically the new Goldstien. I don't understand how anyone can even consider that there is too little criticism of him.

[edotherocket 0]

Many journalists think so, I don't though. There is so much anti-Bush stuff just about everywhere you look he's practically the new Goldstien. I don't understand how anyone can even consider that there is too little criticism of him.

I think the article means there wasnt much criticism of him immediately after 9-11.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

There wasn't much of anything after 9-11. If Big Media would have started pointing fingers while the FDNY was still going through WTC rubble looking for bodies they would have been lambasted.

 

On a side note, everybody's favorite Media Whore on everybody's favorite cable news channel once did a side-by-side comparison of headlines from the NY Times and Boston Globe during the early days of this conflict. Was interesting, to say the least -- you would have thought that we were retreating, not advancing our troops.

 

And on another side note, I just got done reading "Who's Looking Out For You?" and it was my favorite of his three books -- mostly becasue there was more original material in this one...

[Vyce 0]

Jobber's made me laugh (for all the wrong reasons, I'm sure) more in this thread than in perhaps any he's ever posted in.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

If he turns out to be the Ann Coulter of the left, I promise I'll stop reading.

 

 

Although I don't think she's the uber-babe some people make her out to be, I'd bang her over Krugs any day.

 

And why did you cancel your SF Chron. subscription?

 

EDIT: Found this on Drudge. I laughed. No real reason to post it...

 

[Guest MikeSC]

I only started reading his columns today.

 

I canceled the SF Chronicle and am back to reading the local paper again, and I never really read the opinion section of it last time. If he turns out to be the Ann Coulter of the left, I promise I'll stop reading.

He crossed that bridge LONG ago. Trust me, you'll want to jump off the sinking ship.

 

And it is HILARIOUS to read a NY TIMES columnist griping that the press went too easy on Bush. Hell, the Times started bitching about Muslims possibly getting mistreated two days after the attacks.

-=Mike

...If you honestly think the press has been too pro-Bush, answer this: How many pictures of US troops doing GOOD things in Iraq have been shown? I mean, if by ALL ACCOUNTS, including the media, that Abu Gharib was an exception and not the rule --- where is ALL of the good? Why is it never getting shown?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Paul Krugman, America's most dangerous liberal pundit.

 

GOOD LORD, THAT MAN BE ARMED AND HE GOT A TWITCHY TRIGGER FINGER! ON THE FLOOR, NOW!

 

And why did you cancel your SF Chron. subscription?

 

I'm not living in SF now, so delivery to get it to the far surrounding areas costs a heck of a lot more. I miss it already, the science articles and other news were written far better than what I'm seeing in all the stuff aped from the NYT in the local paper.

[Highland 0]

That's because bad news and controversy sells.

Whether the media is too kind or harsh towards Bush depends on who you ask, but I've noticed the coverage is extreme either way: they love or hate him. I'd be more interested in hearing a factual analysis of his presidency, preferably unmarred by political or personal bias.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

...If you honestly think the press has been too pro-Bush, answer this: How many pictures of US troops doing GOOD things in Iraq have been shown?

Here's one I keep seeing over and over on TV, even these days:

 

[Guest Cerebus]

That's because bad news and controversy sells.

Whether the media is too kind or harsh towards Bush depends on who you ask, but I've noticed the coverage is extreme either way: they love or hate him. I'd be more interested in hearing a factual analysis of his presidency, preferably unmarred by political or personal bias.

Try National Journal, Reason Online, the Pew and Harris polls, and some articles on The New Republic.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm not living in SF now, so delivery to get it to the far surrounding areas costs a heck of a lot more.

Hmm, when I lived at Sappy Valley I would get the Sunday Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for the same price as I would if I lived in Pittsburgh. Of course, I didn't get a subscription, and the only reason I would get that edition was for the Sunday coupons...

[Highland 0]

That's because bad news and controversy sells.

Whether the media is too kind or harsh towards Bush depends on who you ask, but I've noticed the coverage is extreme either way: they love or hate him. I'd be more interested in hearing a factual analysis of his presidency, preferably unmarred by political or personal bias.

Try National Journal, Reason Online, the Pew and Harris polls, and some articles on The New Republic.

Thanks.

[Guest MikeSC]

...If you honestly think the press has been too pro-Bush, answer this: How many pictures of US troops doing GOOD things in Iraq have been shown?

Here's one I keep seeing over and over on TV, even these days:

 

Not quite something, like, troops getting water to a village. Troops re-opening a school. Stuff like that --- you know, something that happens A LOT.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

The media has always been about "bad" news. It's what sells and let's face it, newspapers and TV channels are businesses.

 

I have to say that the media in the US, especially during the Iraq war, have generally been pretty kind to the Bush administration. There's no use grumbling now when it's a mess and the media are calling the government out on it.

[Guest MikeSC]

The media has always been about "bad" news. It's what sells and let's face it, newspapers and TV channels are businesses.

 

I have to say that the media in the US, especially during the Iraq war, have generally been pretty kind to the Bush administration. There's no use grumbling now when it's a mess and the media are calling the government out on it.

Are you FOLLOWING the media? They couldn't more actively root for the military's failure without hiring hot girls with big breasts, skimpy outfits, and pom-poms.

 

Wow, THAT would rock, wouldn't it?

-=Mike

[Krankor 0]

All I ever hear about is troops being killed and how the Iraqis want us out. There hasn't been anything about good deeds done by the coalition forces. And when there is something its about a 5 minute segment on ABC nightly news about a school being opened. I've seen that once or twice.

 

Wow, THAT would rock, wouldn't it?

Yes that would rock. Wolf Blitzer really doesn't turn many heads these days. Nothing says America is a success better than women's breasts

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Are you FOLLOWING the media?

Same question. I don't know what channel you were watching, but all three cable news channels treated it like a big video game.

 

Anytime someone mentioned a military vehicle, CNN had a sports-like statistic screen of weight and max speed and wingspan and whatever else while a 3D representation of said vehicle rotated around on the screen.

[Guest MikeSC]

Are you FOLLOWING the media?

Same question. I don't know what channel you were watching, but all three cable news channels treated it like a big video game.

 

Anytime someone mentioned a military vehicle, CNN had a sports-like statistic screen of weight and max speed and wingspan and whatever else while a 3D representation of said vehicle rotated around on the screen.

Except that they tended to focus HEAVILY on the prison abuse scandal --- even after polls indicate that most people feel the scandal has been over-covered.

-=Mike

[edotherocket 0]

I concur with the other people who said that good news generally isn't considered "news-worthy".

 

Unless culturally, newsreporting in America is different to Australia, it's much more likely that you'll report bad news on tv. Good news only gets on if its something extraordinary.

 

In Australian news coverage, when East Timor got their independence, we didn't get news reports of schools being built or nothing. I think news reports switched to talking about Big Brother. Not biased or anything, they just don't really give a shit about reporting water supplies and schools being built.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Except that they tended to focus HEAVILY on the prison abuse scandal --- even after polls indicate that most people feel the scandal has been over-covered.

-=Mike

Even if people thought it was overblown, they couldn't deny that it's news.

[Guest MikeSC]

Except that they tended to focus HEAVILY on the prison abuse scandal --- even after polls indicate that most people feel the scandal has been over-covered.

                    -=Mike

Even if people thought it was overblown, they couldn't deny that it's news.

Yes, they very much can. The perpetrators are being punished. What is the point of showing pictures at this point?

 

9/11 footage was dead and buried long before this point.

-=Mike

[tommytomlin 0]

'This just in folks....... a house in Iraq has been connected to the mains power supply!'

 

News is a business. The good stuff that's coming out of Iraq is numerous, but it doesn't sell papers. It's got nothing to do with a bias.

[Guest MikeSC]

'This just in folks....... a house in Iraq has been connected to the mains power supply!'

 

News is a business. The good stuff that's coming out of Iraq is numerous, but it doesn't sell papers. It's got nothing to do with a bias.

BUT, the Times wishes to argue that its coverage has been too positive. If all examples of negativity --- and they are voluminous --- are simply that bad news sells --- doesn't that disprove their notion?

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Perhaps the Times thinks it's not being negative enough. You know, like when a Green Party wacko claims a Democrat isn't liberal enough, and versa vice...