Aha! THE BIASED PRESS! But who woulda thunk!

Here is an interesting article.



Persuaders or Partisans

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 5, 2003; 9:10 AM


It should be utterly predictable, right? The New York Times and Washington Post editorial pages beat up on George W., while the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times editorial pages doggedly defend the president.




Well, not quite.

A new Harvard study says the conservative editorial pages are more intensely partisan, and far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than the liberal pages are to take on a Democratic administration.

New York magazine columnist Michael Tomasky, who did the study for the Joan Shorenstein press center, is a certified liberal, so some may be inclined to discount his findings. But the nature of his research makes it harder to dismiss.

Tomasky examined the editorial commentary on 10 Bush and Clinton episodes that were roughly comparable. He did not include extraordinary events, such as the Lewinsky scandal or 9/11. Everyone knows that virtually all papers, of every political stripe, whacked Clinton over his Monica dissembling. No surprise there, and there's no similar Bush scandal. More interesting is how the papers handled run-of-the-mill political controversies.

The liberal papers criticized the Clinton administration 30 percent of the time, while the conservative papers slapped around the Bush administration just 7 percent of the time.

The liberal papers praised the Clintonites 36 percent of the time, while the conservative papers praised the Bushies 77 percent of the time.

One more set of numbers: The liberal papers criticized Bush 67 percent of the time; the conservative papers criticized Clinton 89 percent of the time.

As for intensity, Tomasky cites a Journal editorial soon after the Clintonites arrived in Washington, describing administration figures as "pod people from a 'Star Trek' episode . . . genetically bred to inhabit the public sector."

Let's go to the numbers:

When Hillary's health care task force was sued in 1993 to open its records, the NYT wrote four editorials, all negative toward the Clintons. The WP had one mixed. The WSJ wrote eight, all negative. The WT had seven, all negative.

The New York Times, for example, called the Clinton secrecy "unseemly, possibly illegal and wrong." The Washington Times said that "if ever there was a situation that demanded that all ethics regulations be followed down to the last dot on the last 'i' and the last cross on the last 't' it is the doings of the health care task force."

Cut to Dick Cheney's energy task force keeping its records secret. The NYT, as it had with Hillary, wrote five editorials, all negative. The WP wrote one, mixed. The WSJ wrote one positive, and the WT wrote one positive, one mixed and one negative.

Said the Journal: "This purely political lawsuit was [John Dingell and Henry Waxman's] attempted end-run around the Constitution's tedious separation of powers."

The Washington Times compared the Hillary and Cheney situations, saying: "Perhaps the most important difference between the two task forces is that no one on the Bush team is channeling policy from Eleanor Roosevelt."

During Janet Reno's first year as attorney general, the NYT wrote five positive editorials, 11 mixed and 17 negative. The WP wrote seven positive, three mixed and four negative. By contrast, the WSJ wrote one positive, four mixed and 11 negative. The WT carried two mixed and 16 negative.

As for John Ashcroft's first year, the NYT had four positive, seven mixed and 13 negative. The WP had four positive, six mixed and 13 negative. The WSJ: nine positive and one mixed. The WT: 10 positive, two mixed and three negative.

Let's move on. The administration is knocking down yesterday's Post report that Colin Powell is outta there if Bush wins a second term. The story said that Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage, "recently told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that he and Powell will leave on Jan. 21, 2005, the day after the next presidential inauguration, sources familiar with the conversation said. Powell has indicated to associates that a commitment made to his wife, rather than any dismay at the administration's foreign policy, is a key factor in his desire to limit his tenure to one presidential term."

The State Department promptly knocked it down -- but not everyone was buying. The New York Times reports that "this sleepy capital occupied itself today with a news report about the supposed departure plans of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and by the vehement administration denials that seemed only to fan speculation about his future. . . .

"Asked about the supposed exchange, Mr. Powell said: 'It's nonsense. I don't know what they are talking about.' He said the conversation 'did not take place.' Mr. Armitage also called the report 'nonsense,' and the State Department and White House issued similar denials. . . .

"What was left unaddressed was the question of Mr. Powell's actual intentions, irrespective of whether they were conveyed to Ms. Rice. . . . Since it is the nearly universal expectation of those in the government that Mr. Powell, who is 66, will not serve a second term, speculation about his future was discussed all day on cable television and in offices throughout the capital."

The Chicago Tribune focuses on the impact before getting to the denial:

"Reports that Secretary of State Colin Powell has decided to resign at the end of President Bush's first term could pose a political problem for a White House that has long relied on his moderate voice and popularity with centrist voters.

"The mere suggestion that he might not be in the Cabinet if Bush is re-elected could expose the president to Democratic charges in 2004 that a Bush second term would veer to the right, especially in foreign policy, political analysts said yesterday."

Nearly everyone has an opinion, including the American Prospect:

"The likely ascension of Condi Rice or Paul Wolfowitz to Powell's position will greatly solidify the position of administration hawks. (That is, the people who have so thoroughly bungled our foreign policy and gratuitously damaged our relations with other countries. Yay.) Especially with Wolfowitz in charge, the growing Pentagonization of foreign policy will proceed apace. Without Powell to shield them, most of the like-minded people Powell has salted throughout State will probably leave."

The Weekly Standard's Larry Miller isn't expecting a GOP governor in California:

"Anyone who thinks Gray Davis's goose is cooked knows nothing about Gray Davis.

"Oh, it's in the oven, all right (his goose, that is), and it's been basted, and it's been going for a while. And the table is set, and the guests are seated, and they're all smacking their lips.

"But it is by no means cooked. In fact, the Republican party of California has just handed him oven mitts and offered him a chance to take it out.

"And I think he will. Maybe I'm screwy, but I think on October 8, the day after the special recall election, California Governor Gray Davis will still be California Governor Gray Davis. Moreover, I think he's going to be Senator Hillary Clinton's running mate in 2008 and the next Democratic vice-president of the United States. . . .

"But this is not about whether the guy is any good at being governor, or even has the slightest idea of what's in the drawers of his desk. Governing is not his field. That may sound contradictory, or at least ironic, but it's neither. He knows nothing about running an office; his field is running for office, and he is preeminent in it."

Not exactly a bumper-sticker endorsement.

Howard Dean's campaign chief, Joe Trippi, offered his man some very Zen-like advice, reports Roger Simon in U.S. News:

" 'I tell him the only way he can win is to believe in his heart he cannot win,' Trippi says. 'We've got to act like we have nothing to lose.' . . .

"Dean has his own complex feelings about Bush. 'I think we were all sort of hoodwinked by George Bush,' Dean says. 'Everything he said he was going to do in the campaign he did the opposite of. He is a divider, not a uniter, there is nothing compassionate about him or about his presidency, and he just couldn't give a damn about the American people.' Anger? What anger?"

No wonder Dean is getting a ton of press.

One '04 rival is stepping up his rhetoric against Dean:

"Presidential contender Joe Lieberman warned Tuesday that rival Howard Dean, the hottest candidate in the field, could be 'a ticket to nowhere' for Democrats in 2004 by advocating discredited Democratic policies on taxes and national security," USA Today reports.

" 'A candidate who was opposed to the war against Saddam, who has called for the repeal of all of the Bush tax cuts, which would result in an increase in taxes on the middle class . . . could lead the Democrat party into the political wilderness for a long time to come,' Lieberman said when asked about the former Vermont governor during an appearance at the National Press Club."

In London's Sunday Times, Andrew Sullivan flirts -- ever so briefly -- with the Dean candidacy:

"It's hard not to root for him as a candidate. He feels alive; he seems fresh; he seems different. . . .

"Dean has also mastered the appearance at least of being a conviction politician. He is nationally most famous for backing the law in Vermont that granted gay couples identical benefits to straight married couples in a compromise called 'civil unions.' Far from running away from this, as other Democrats have done, Dean has defended it on simple equality grounds. And it doesn't seem to have hurt him much. . . .

"So where's the catch? In a word: national security. . . . When Baghdad was liberated, and Saddam removed from power, Dean came up with his most memorable line yet: 'I suppose it's a good thing.'

" 'I suppose.' How could anyone be that ambivalent about Saddam's removal? Even those who opposed the war acknowledge for the most part that Saddam was an evil monster. But for Dean, that huge humanitarian advance was balanced by dismay at a success for an administration he loathed. Of course, that naked partisanship is why he appeals to the Democratic Party base. But it also revealed a mean and somewhat haughty streak in the diminutive pol."

Dean has already sent out a fundraising letter pegged to his Time/Newsweek sweep, but The Note disses those stories and the ones in U.S. News and The Washington Post:

"The only way in which all of these stories differed from how they would have been written if Trish Enright and Kate O'Connor had been asked to ghost write them is that the ladies would have felt obliged to show SOME restraint." The two women are Dean staffers, in case you hadn't guessed.

"Suffice to say, the other campaigns will surely be asking the FEC to rule on the AOL/Zuckerman/Graham in-kind contribution question."

Glen Johnson, the Boston Globe reporter who covers the Kerry camp like Krazy Glue, clues us in on the great Dean debate:

"Howard Dean's strong fund-raising and recent rise in public opinion polls have created a divide within Senator John F. Kerry's presidential campaign, between aides who want to attack the former Vermont governor to stem the tide and others who believe his wave of support will crest on its own.

"The views of the more aggressive group, represented by campaign manager Jim Jordan, were reflected this week when Kerry criticized any rival for the Democratic nomination who favors repealing all of the tax cuts enacted since President Bush took office in 2001. At least three of the nine candidates fit that billing, but aides circulated the Massachusetts senator's prepared text before a speech in Dover, N.H., and made it clear that Dean was the intended target. . . .

"A more reserved group of advisers is typified by David McKean, chief of staff in Kerry's Senate office. He is among those who believe that Dean's current political celebrity will fade with closer media scrutiny; they foresee an inevitable misstep for his campaign, and they argue that engaging Dean only helps him."

Wondering about ads you're seeing on this site? Check out this New York Times piece:

"Two Internet companies, Google and Overture, have made a brisk business of selling ads that appear alongside Web search results. . . . Now . . . online publishers are beginning to sense the possibilities of having Google or Overture serve ads to their audiences.

"Publishers, including The Washington Post's Web site, which is owned by The Washington Post Company, and the car-buyers advice site Edmunds.com, have turned to Google or Overture to sell ads pegged to the content that each visitor selects. When a visitor goes to the Book World page on WashingtonPost.com, for example, the person is likely to see a text ad for a self-publishing company or some other book-related advertisement, placed there by Google's advertising service."

Hmm . . . Wonder what they're peddling with my column? TiVo?

"The technology is not yet foolproof. The online edition of The New York Post, which is owned by the News Corporation, ran an article last month about a murder in which the victim's body parts were packed in a suitcase, and Google served up an ad for a luggage dealer."

Finally, The Washington Post's free tabloid for commuters, Express, made its debut yesterday. I must say it's something of a disappointment. Express is a bunch of short wire stories and snippets, drawn mainly from the AP and places like the L.A. Times and Hartford Courant and the Hollywood Reporter. The few features are obviously aimed at younger people--selling old comic books, catching philanderers online (at such sites as CheatingLovers.com). In other words, it's largely filler wrapped around ads, with zero original Post content.

Slate's Jack Shafer is, ah, restrained in his praise: "When the blueprint demands mediocrity, why bother mucking it up with excellence?"

I'm all for attracting younger readers, and maybe an easy read will prove popular for straphangers. But I'd rather persuade folks that reading the likes of David Broder, Bob Woodward, Tony Kornheiser and a real sports section and Style section, not to mention Doonesbury, is worth an investment of 35 cents.

Washington City Paper is handing out a much funnier satire, called Expresso. "For those who will not read, we salute you!" says the cover, which promises "Half the Content. Twice as Free."

Movie reviews don't challenge short attention spans: "Bad Boys II -- Real long, but stuff blows up."

"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle -- Kinda long, but Cameron Diaz blows stuff up."

Sure, but can they keep up this level of non-quality?


© 2003 washingtonpost.com



Any comments?