Reply
Tue 9 Mar, 2004 06:45 pm
Major New Study Blasts Media Coverage of WMDs
by E&P Staff
NEW YORK --
Quote: A new study of how the media has covered the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), released today, concludes, "Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration's perspectives on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats and policy options."
The other three main conclusions of the study conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and the University of Maryland: Too few stories offered alternative perspectives to the "official line" on WMD surrounding the Iraq conflict; most journalists accepted the Bush administration linking the "war on terror" inextricably to the issue of WMD; and most media outlets represented WMD as a "monolithic menace" without distinguishing between types of weapons and between possible weapons programs and the existence of actual weapons.
The complete study, directed by Susan Moeller and titled "Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction (.pdf)," is available at the CISSM Web site.
The authors of the study state that, "Poor coverage of WMD resulted less from political bias on the part of journalists, editors, and producers than from tired journalistic conventions." They also declare that the British media "reported more critically on public policy than did their American colleagues."
In a foreword to the study, John Steinbruner, director of the center, writes: "The American political system is in the early stages of contending with an unwelcome but ultimately unavoidable problem. The United States initiated war against Iraq on the basis of an inaccurate representation of the scope and immediacy of the threat posed, and it did so without international authority. That has prejudiced the legitimacy of the occupation, thereby undermining the single most important ingredient of successful reconstruction."
He adds that "the American media did not play the role of checking and balancing the exercise of power that the standard theory of democracy requires."
Among those writers singled out for praise in the study are Barton Gellman, Walter Pincus, Michael Getler and Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, Bob Drogin of the Los Angeles Times, and David Sanger and William Broad of The New York Times. It also cites articles in E&P by William Jackson Jr. exploring Judith Miller's controversial WMD coverage in the New York Times.
Repugs who persist in the mantra that the Media is Liberal are blatant liars.
That is but one subject...a study to determine the leanings of 'the media' would have to be slightly more in depth than that.
Do some more research on our own.
It's not that difficult. Type: Media Bias into your fave search engine. Do a little work. I am not going to do it for you unless you pay me to do so.
pistoff wrote:Repugs who persist in the mantra that the Media is Liberal are blatant liars.
I know it's your style and all, but I just want to point one thing out here...
The big book of rules and regulations wrote:Mannerly conduct
As per the membership agreement, it is a given that flaming, rude comments, and personal attacks are not acceptable here. Intellectually vacuous and snide slanders such as 'DemoRats' or 'REPUGlicans' (or local variants if you live elsewhere than the US) are completely unwelcome. But, actually, we ask more of you than those obvious and fundamental rules.
The media, by its very nature, tends to lean on the liberal side of most issues. To 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable' is one of the cornerstones of journalism.
Journalists are charged with thinking, probing, questioning. This puts them at odds with conservatism, because conservativism, frankly, is based more on blind faith than analysis. See Fox News for evidence of this.
Reporting constantly that Bush was wrong about WMD's and wrong about terrorist connections is not a liberal bias. It is a simple fact. When the facts stack up against conservative stupidity, people who report it are not liberal biased, they are merely being objective.
Just a little rebuttal from some individuals IN the media:
"I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful." -- CBS's 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg's book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN's Larry King Live, June 5, 2002
"Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I'm counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will." -- ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 2002
"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for ?-- most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume's bosses are liberal and they're always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut." ?- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas in an admission on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents." -- Walter Cronkite, March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.
"There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg's report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plan 'wacky?'...
"?'Reality Check' suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: `Time Out!' You'd have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else -- like Albania." ?- CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
"I won't make any pretense that the American Agenda is totally neutral. We do take a position. And I think the public wants us now to take a position. If you give both sides and 'Well, on the one hand this and on the other that'--I think people kind of really want you to help direct their thinking on some issues." ?- ABC News reporter Carole Simpson on CNBC's Equal Time, August 9, 1994.
"We're unpopular because the press tends to be liberal, and I don't think we can run away from that. And I think we're unpopular with a lot of conservatives and Republicans this time because the White House press corps by and large detested George Bush, probably for good and sufficient reason, they certainly can cite chapter and verse. But their real contempt for him showed through in their reporting in a way that I think got up the nose of the American people." ?- Time writer William A. Henry III on the PBS November 4, 1992 election-night special The Finish Line.
"There is no such thing as objective reporting...I've become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That's my subversive mission." ?- Boston Globe environmental reporter Dianne Dumanoski at an Utne Reader symposium May 17-20, 1990. Quoted by Micah Morrison in the July 1990 American Spectator.
Fedral wrote:Just a little rebuttal from some individuals IN the media:
"I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful." -- CBS's 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg's book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN's Larry King Live, June 5, 2002
"Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I'm counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will." -- ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 2002
"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for ?-- most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume's bosses are liberal and they're always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut." ?- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas in an admission on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents." -- Walter Cronkite, March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.
"There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg's report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plan 'wacky?'...
"?'Reality Check' suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: `Time Out!' You'd have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else -- like Albania." ?- CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
"I won't make any pretense that the American Agenda is totally neutral. We do take a position. And I think the public wants us now to take a position. If you give both sides and 'Well, on the one hand this and on the other that'--I think people kind of really want you to help direct their thinking on some issues." ?- ABC News reporter Carole Simpson on CNBC's Equal Time, August 9, 1994.
"We're unpopular because the press tends to be liberal, and I don't think we can run away from that. And I think we're unpopular with a lot of conservatives and Republicans this time because the White House press corps by and large detested George Bush, probably for good and sufficient reason, they certainly can cite chapter and verse. But their real contempt for him showed through in their reporting in a way that I think got up the nose of the American people." ?- Time writer William A. Henry III on the PBS November 4, 1992 election-night special The Finish Line.
"There is no such thing as objective reporting...I've become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That's my subversive mission." ?- Boston Globe environmental reporter Dianne Dumanoski at an Utne Reader symposium May 17-20, 1990. Quoted by Micah Morrison in the July 1990 American Spectator.
Again, in many cases, perhaps most cases, the objective opinion
is the liberal opinion. I'll referance the imaginary WMD's and terrorist connections again. Therefore, when the media leans towards the liberal side they are not being biased, they are being objective.
Some of the people in this thread seem to think that objectivity means giving equal time to both conservative and liberal viewpoints. This is retarded.
IronLionZion wrote:
Again, in many cases, perhaps most cases, the objective opinion is the liberal opinion. I'll referance the imaginary WMD's and terrorist connections again. Therefore, when the media leans towards the liberal side they are not being biased, they are being objective.
I think it is the height of arrogance to believe that one political leaning is more or less 'objective' than another. What may seem reasonable to you may seem totally unreasonable to me. It a matter of opinion.
IronLionZion wrote:
Some of the people in this thread seem to think that objectivity means giving equal time to both conservative and liberal viewpoints. This is retarded.
ILZ, I am getting VERY tired of you throwing the word retarded around like you do. I can count at least 4 or 5 posts where you have called someone retarded and it needs to stop. Direct attacks like this are both against the Terms of Service and I think reflects someone who feels their arguments don't hold enough weight and must resort to personal attacks. I am hereby requesting that you put a stop to using this word.
Thanks for your attention.
Fedral wrote:
I think it is the height of arrogance to believe that one political leaning is more or less 'objective' than another. What may seem reasonable to you may seem totally unreasonable to me. It a matter of opinion.
On the contrary, it is the hieght of myopia to think that all opinions are equally objective. When the media suggested before the war that Iraq possessed no WMD's, had no terrorist connections, and was no immediate threat
they were factually correct. The conservatives who claimed otherwise
were factually inorrect. The conservative opinion in this case was false and the media reported it accurately. Conservatives called it liberal bias, people with functioning nervous systems called it objectivity.
A lot of people thinking something is true has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually true. Just because there is a large conservative establishment in this country doesn't mean the news media should pay attention to them when they contradict the facts. I think objective reporting is often misconstrued as liberal bias by right-wingers who refuse to acknowledge thier opinions are factually wrong.
Questions like the morality of abortion, on the other hand, are subjective. I do not think there is a liberal bias in such issues.
IronLionZion wrote:ILZ, I am getting VERY tired of you throwing the word retarded around like you do. I can count at least 4 or 5 posts where you have called someone retarded and it needs to stop. Direct attacks like this are both against the Terms of Service and I think reflects someone who feels their arguments don't hold enough weight and must resort to personal attacks. I am hereby requesting that you put a stop to using this word.
Thanks for your attention.
Condescension is the garnish to the points I make. The jabs I tack on to my posts once its become clear you are not paying attention are not curve balls, and if they are, you can easily get around them to the substance of my post, like I try to do with the sugary confections you offer forth.
I like the word retard and will continue making *liberal* use of it. I trust the mods can distinguish between tastefull jabs and outright insults. If they cannot, and I am banned, so be it.
I have learned to simply ignore most of ILZ's posts as for the most part they are retarded, condescending and ignorant. <shrug>
I was tempted...
I was tempted to use the word Rethugs but I refrained.
McGentrix wrote:I have learned to simply ignore most of ILZ's posts as for the most part they are retarded, condescending and ignorant. <shrug>
McGentrix, your modus operandi is to make claims without supporting them. The fact that your opinions constantly parallel whatever the establishment may be only compounds this. In past threads, you have demonstrated an inability to think critically, instead, you prefer to accept and defend the status quo. Calling me ignorant is the hieght of irony.
If, one day, you or Fedral manage to weave cohesive argument out of a ball of twine and a half-read article of the New Republic, I'll take you seriously. Till then, you're a passing amusement at best.
It is hard to limit myself to rational discourse when talking to someone who thinks that all opinions are equally tenable. I just don't know what to say to that....
McGentrix wrote:I have learned to simply ignore most of ILZ's posts as for the most part they are retarded, condescending and ignorant. <shrug>
You make statements like that, yet you give ME crap when I give you a little well deserved ribbing?
A little good natured ribbing is cool. Nasty barbs and ad hominems such as those being tossed around by ILZ are not.
If you can't get along within the rules, get elsewhere.
Please Timber; do look past Pistoff's wordmangling. Schwartzengroper had me rolling on the floor.
It's part of his charm.
You betcha they are. That's why they insist it is liberal, to throw the scent off...freedom = slavery to these guys.
Of COURSE there is a liberal bias afoot.
So, are we supposed to believe now that there is no CONSERVATIVE bias afoot anywhere in America? If the Owner of the GE, who owns NBC, donotes most often and most heavily to republicans, then NBC is totally free to go whacked-out liberal on the Owner, with his own conservative bias?
Media is a single word for a great many things, for one thing, and if you compare radio news to newspaper news, you will find a tremendous difference BECAUSE BIAS ISN'T JUST LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE. Bias is anything it wants to be.
The truth of the matter is that the media is as in as much of a schism as the people themselves are. Every "liberal" program on netword TV has a conservative morality lesson included it in somewhere. Conservatives favor the older media of radio and free TV, while liberals flock to newspapers and cable. Magazines are probably split down the middle.
It's getting really lame to see adult Americans screaming that half of something is the whole problem. It's ridiculously childish. How can half a problem be the whole problem? Talk about gross generalizations. And the insistance about being correct is downright obscene. How could any one person understand every last thing that is going on in the collosus we call the media?
Sure the media is liberal AND conservative. Big freaking surprise, huh? Once again, my byline below this says it all. I have a BA in print journalism with a minor in America history. I might know a thing or two here since I slaved to get the degree in it.
Those in opposition here are both right. Bias loves idiots.
"Some of the people in this thread seem to think that objectivity means giving equal time to both conservative and liberal viewpoints. This is retarded."
This is an important point too. Objectivity means sticking to the facts without including one's personal position in the matter. No commentary in other words.
Here's another important point. Objectivity is a myth. We were wired with basic instincts and reactions so that we would survive life on Earth, and no matter how great our civilization is, we still have that wiring...and it is called BIAS. We cannot escape it. It colors every sentence we type by the very words we choose to describe the situation. Whether or not we like or dislike it creeps into the logic. The way we report it can pitch it into the light or the shadows. Objectivity does not sell newspapers either. It used to, but by the mid-90s, all pretense at objectivity was abandoned, much to my dismay, because I didn't sweat through college to become a yellow or sensationalized journalist. I wanted to report the facts and the truth, not the slant and the spin.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace