I agree...things are going to get really nasty later in the campaign. Already, I find myself with the TV off...especially when the "nightly liberal views" are on.

Bozel himself is a partisan hack with an axe to grind. Just look at his web site. Pot, kettle, black.

If you want some media analysis that focuses on the actual distortions and bias in the media the following organization and authors are a lot more legitimate than bozel's hatchet jobs.

http://fair.org/

350 -
You've fallen for the hysterically misnamed Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

And completely missed the point. Bozell does have an agenda -- and is wide open about it, so the knee-jerk Leftie dismissal of him b/c he has an "axe to grind" is moronic. "When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" was a Clinton Tenet of the First Order and really means there's no principled response to the substance of his position. Of course Bozell has a Right position -- it's why he founded MRC to begin with. He's never been anything but up front about it. To imply that b/c he's from the right his opinions are tainted and worthless is caveman partisan hackism.

If you can't make the distinction between what is submitted as opinion commentary and what is submitted as ostensibly "objective" (that word's fraught with distinctions, I know) then you're simply lacking an essential tool for political discourse. If you just refuse to make that distinction, you're being dishonest.

To put forth David Croteau and the FAIR crew as more "legitimate" -- whatever that means -- is evidence you've fallen for their claim to be objective or "middle of the road" which claim has an anesthetic effect on Lib's judgment for some reason. This is compounded by the mainstream newsmedia's absolute refusal to use the "Liberal'" tag (much less "Ultra-Liberal") on even the most Leftist positions.

JP

I dunno - the fact is that Colin Powell is getting in there andmaking it clear that Sudan has to fix the problem, hand in hand with the UN (just the way I like it ;))

Yeah, France is being a d1ck about that. I don't know enough details - in regard to sanctions, I dunno that they are always the solution.

A better question is to ask why none of the US media is giving it attention. This includes the right wing publications (based on my quick look). I put it to you that the poor Sudanese people in question aren't newsworthy - rather like the several thousand Bangladeshis who die every two or three years in catastrophic floods.

There is plenty of coverage in the UK, for instance.

I've been arguing lots about this lots with Mulholland, but on a world basis (developed countries), the US's "liberal" is the middle of the road. I don't think it would be fair to characterise Kerry as ultra-liberal. You want to see left, have a look at our Green Party's policies.

However, I wouldn't characterise Bush as ultra or extreme right wing either. For me, a better question (if my definition of liberal as centre is accepted) is: does the media have an obligation to split the difference between the parties?

If they are allowed to be "in the centre" politically, then I would argue that results in a position close the Democrats.

Cam -
I see where you're coming from; however perhaps it's my pro-American predisposition that we should define our political spectrum by its own parameters, and not say "well, Mao is left of Kerry, therefore Kerry is really near the middle." That a very po-mo, globalizing our attitudes about ourselves to incorporate others' (even the wackiest of the whackos) opinions phooey that I want nothing to do with for a couple of reasons (1) our system is quite arguably the best yet produced, including its organic nature -- if the experiments or lunacies of others' systems were better, we'd probably have incorporated them by now (2) our gov't is responsible first and foremost (nearing the limits of exclusively) responsible to its citizens -- I wouldn't give a cold wet fart for the political extremes of foreign systems. As adolescent as our system can seem, many foreign bodies politic are like Romper Room and all I can think of is Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man". (3) Witness the lunacy in the EU right now -- a system is "better" if it has extremists from all walks of life, ends of the political matrix, etc.? Not so, IMHO. Effective (as I'd define it, anyway) gov't requires that the political actors have at least some desire to effect the same or similar goals. Though that might not always mean they view pulling in the same direction the best way to reach those goals.

As far as our political stage is concerned, Kerry is about the Leftmost Democrat of national prominence, and Edwards is not far behind.

My theory about the selective news coverate is two-fold; first, the UN hasn't been hyping this location (or many others) b/c it's COMPLETELY botched them, through nonfeasance or total mismanagement. There are other, political issues at stake, especially where our erstwhile ally France has soiled particular litterboxes. Second, this would be damned good news for Bush and the admin, and that's not in the script. I wouldn't know anything about the recent efforts in Sudan (or the US-UN cooperation in the Caribbean, or the promising democratic developments in Iran, or the fact that 80+% of Iraq is doing pretty damned well, thank you very much) w/o the Internet and, if not more "conservative" sources of news, at least news outlets that are focused on these regions whose reports are publicized (by that I mean linked to) by "conservative" sites -- Instapundit.com is great for this kind of thing.

Back to the meat of this thread, Orson Scott Card weighs in with a few observations here. His are really the types of things that strike me as the pandemic, insidious and subcutaneous instances of bias. Listening to 1010WINS in the morning or just about any news program in the evening, I'm talking back to the radio about just how "artfully" things were phrased or summed up to get the editorial point across. Bozell has the patience and fire-in-his-belly to establish and maintain MRC. I just look like a lunatic ranting at my dashboard driving solo to/from work every day.

JP

And Now A Word From our Sponsor ... of Terrorism
 

uly 12, 2004, 8:46 a.m.
The Case of Reuters
A news agency that will not call a terrorist a terrorist.

By Tom Gross

Many people still think of Reuters as the Rolls-Royce of news agencies. Just as the House of Morgan was once synonymous with good banking, Reuters has long been synonymous with good news-gathering. In 1940, there was even a Hollywood film about Paul Julius Reuter, the German-Jewish immigrant to London who as early as 1851 began transmitting stock-market quotes between London and Paris via the new Calais-Dover cable.

His agency quickly established a reputation in Europe for being the first to report scoops from abroad, such as of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. Today, almost every major news outlet in the world subscribes. Operating in 200 cities in 94 countries, Reuters produces text in 19 languages, as well as photos and television footage from around the world.

Though it may report in a largely neutral way on many issues, Reuters’s coverage of the Middle East is deeply flawed. It is symptomatic, for instance, that Reuters’s global head of news, Stephen Jukes, banned the use of the word “terrorist” to describe the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks. Even so, such is the aura still surrounding Reuters that news editors from Los Angeles to Auckland automatically assume that text, photos, and film footage provided by Reuters will be fair and objective. Reuters and Associated Press copy is simply inserted into many correspondents’ reports — even in the New York Times and Washington Post — without, it often seems, so much as a second thought given to its accuracy.

This has led to some misleading reporting from Iraq, and still worse coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The newswires are much more influential in setting the news (and hence diplomatic) agenda of that struggle than most people realize.

One veteran American newspaper correspondent in Jerusalem, eager to maintain anonymity so as not to jeopardize relations with his anti-Israel colleagues, points out that “whereas foreign correspondents still write features, they rarely cover the actual breaking news that dominates the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In terms of written copy on the conflict, I would estimate that 50 percent of all reporting, and 90 percent of the attitude, is formed by these news agencies. The important thing about Reuters is that it sets the tone, and here spin is everything.”

In a study last year, the media watchdog HonestReporting found that in “100 percent of headlines” when Reuters wrote about Israeli acts of violence, Israel was emphasized as the first word; also, an active voice was used, often without explaining that the “victim” may have been a gunman. A typical headline was: “Israeli Troops Shoot Dead Palestinian in W. Bank” (July 3, 2003). By contrast, when Palestinians attacked Israelis (almost always civilians), Reuters usually avoided naming the perpetrator. For example: “New West Bank Shooting Mars Truce” (July 1, 2003). In many cases, the headline was couched in a passive voice.

Often it is a question of emphasis: Important and relevant information is actually contained in Reuters text, but buried deep down in the story. Many newspaper readers, however, never get beyond the headlines, and for space reasons many papers carry only the first few paragraphs of a report — often inserted into their own correspondents’ stories. When the TV networks run only brief headlines, or Reuters news ribbon at the foot of the screen, the full text is never shown.

Sometimes, Reuters presents unreliable information as though it were undoubtedly true. Most people are unlikely to notice this. For example, Reuters will note that “a doctor at the hospital said the injured Palestinian was unarmed” — when in fact the doctor couldn’t possibly have known this, since he wasn’t present at the gunfight. But because he is a doctor, Reuters is suggesting to readers that his word is necessarily authoritative. Unfortunately, Reuters headlines and text are used unchanged by newspaper editors because they assume it is professional, balanced copy, which doesn’t need any further editing.

Reporters of course can’t be everywhere at once. The increased speed of the Internet and the demand for instant, 24-hour TV news coverage means that the world’s news outlets rely heavily on Reuters and the AP, which in turn rely on a network of local Palestinian “stringers.” Virtually all breaking news (and much of the non-breaking news) on CNN, the BBC, Fox, and other networks comes from these stringers.

Such stringers are hired for speed, to save money (there is no need to pay drivers and translators), and for their local knowledge. But in many cases, in hiring them, their connections to Arafat’s regime and Hamas count for more than their journalistic abilities. All too often the information they provide, and the supposed eyewitnesses they interview, are undependable. Yet, because of Reuters’s prestige, American and international news outlets simply take their copy as fact. Thus non-massacres become massacres; death tolls are exaggerated; and gunmen are written about as if they were civilians.

As Ehud Ya’ari, Israeli television’s foremost expert on Palestinian affairs, put it: “The vast majority of information of every type coming out of the area is being filtered through Palestinian eyes. Cameras are angled to show a tainted view of the Israeli army’s actions and never focus on Palestinian gunmen. Written reports focus on the Palestinian version of events. And even those Palestinians who don’t support the intifada dare not show or describe anything embarrassing to the Palestinian Authority, for fear they may provoke the wrath of Arafat’s security forces.”

One Palestinian journalist told me that “the worst the Israelis can do is take away our press cards. But if we irritate Arafat, or Hamas, you don’t know who might be waiting in your kitchen when you come home at night.”

Some of Reuters’s Palestinian stringers are honest and courageous. But, according to several ex-Reuters staffers, they feel the intimidating presence of Wafa Amr, Reuters’s “Senior Palestinian Correspondent.” Amr — who is a cousin of former Palestinian minister Nabil Amr, and whose father is said to be close to Arafat — had this title specially created for her (there is no “Senior Israeli Correspondent,” or the equivalent in any other Arab country) so that her close ties to the Palestinian Authority could be exploited.

As one former Reuters journalist put it: “She occupies this position in spite of lacking a basic command of English grammar. The information passed through her is controlled, orchestrated. Reuters would never allow Israeli government propaganda to be fed into its reports in this way. Indeed, stories exposing Israeli misdeeds are a favorite of Reuters. Amr has never had an exposé on Arafat, or his Al-Aqsa Brigades terror group.”

But things may well be improving. Lately, with a new Jerusalem bureau chief, Reuters has taken some steps to ensure greater balance. For example, it no longer claims Hamas’s goal is merely “to set up an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza” (which it is not), but instead writes that Hamas is “sworn to Israel’s destruction” (which it is).

Reuters no longer carries the highly misleading “death tolls” at the end of each story that lumped together Palestinian civilians, gunmen, and suicide bombers. (Agence France-Presse continues to do this.) And, apparently, there are plans to relocate Wafa Amr by next year. Is it too much to hope that one day soon Reuters might actually call terrorism terrorism?

— Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph of London.

For more on just how deranged Reuters can be, check out Taranto's Best of the Web Today on Opinion Journal. Look for the "Not Too Brite" entry -- there's one virtually every day.

It's been my observation that the thought-leaders of the Neoconservative movement are quick to label any source of news unfavorable to their predisposition as "liberal."

So that at a demonstration, for instance, *for* the Iraq war, even mentioning a counterdemonstration immediately brands the source as "liberal."

This is particularly problematic, because in the spinmeisters' eyes facts = liberal.

I occasionally see some liberal bias on nework news. I see massive conservative bias on 'fair and balanced' Fox. Limbaugh, O'Reilly and H&C are just jokes. But their fully-spun programs reach tens of millions, and are long-form. The ABC, NBC and CBS national/international news is short-form, giving a couple of minutes to each story. So from my perspecive, the media is strongly Conservative-biased.

The 'news magazines' 60 Minutes and 48 Hours, etc. are fairly balanced *within* their stories, but the choice of stories to cover is slightly left-biased, in my opinion.

The magnetic pull of the Neoconservative 'information services' has bent perception of the 'middle.' Today, millions percieve any news granting the possibility of any "good" being accomplished by any Democrat as "liberal-biased."

Hmmm, so have Reuters "taken sides" in the Israel/Palestine thing? I dunno - the information is somewhat compelling.

I don't know that I believe the comment "that Reuters’s global head of news, Stephen Jukes, banned the use of the word “terrorist” to describe the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks."

Its far fetched! Hold please - google checking:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/reuters.htm

So its true - interestingly it is a product of trying to be an unbiased news source (not sure what to think of the outcome, although I applaud the intent).

In any event, while IMO the 9/11 attacks were terrorist, and many of the Palestinian ones are too, I'm less sure about attacks in Iraq (for instance). On this basis, I think the use of militant for the latter two is somewhat justified.

(edit) You will note than in the case of Iraq, the Whitehouse and certain news sources refer to the insurgents as terrorists, despite the fact that they most often attack military targets. That, IMO, is deceptive (remember, the "war against terror" needs "terrorists" to fight).

Tech -
This is a distinction that needs to be made: O'Reilly, Limbaugh et al. are op/ed personalities, and not "journalists" in the sense that they pretend to be (or seize the mantle unto themselves as being) objective.

One thing I don't believe is that Bozell, O'Reilly (and to a lesser extent, Limbaugh) believes is that the Liberal opinion should be stifled, or that debates should not happen. I personally believe there are tenets of Liberalism that are compelling, but could be made better (read: more likely to succeed) w/ a dose of the opposition.

What these guys lament is the stifling, labeling or marginalization of the conservative point of view -- almost always presented as the "conservative" point of view, compared to the liberal pov, presented as "normal", "middle of the road" or "voice of America".

Cam -
Sincere thanks for giving the article a chance; I'm again impressed.

Terror is going, almost by def'n, to take many forms. If that means attacking a humvee full of Marines (an ostensibly military target, no?), it's still terrorism; especially if the "insurgents" have been imported from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, etc.

JP

JP: "...This is a distinction that needs to be made: O'Reilly, Limbaugh et al. are op/ed personalities, and not "journalists" in the sense that they pretend to be (or seize the mantle unto themselves as being) objective...."

You and I know that. But do the majority of listeners? It's my belief that they simply substitute thes programs for traditional, objective news.

Discourse is practically nonexistent in these long form 'news substitute' shows. Limbaugh, certainly, used to think of himself -- and desribe himself -- as a humorist. But that was about 10 years ago.

According to a Washington Post study: "...Limbaugh's regular listeners are among the most likely Americans to view the federal government as a "major threat" to their personal rights, freedoms and financial well-being. More than eight in 10 say they trust the federal government to do the right thing only "some" or "none" of the time, and a third say they have absolutely no confidence that the federal government can solve the problems it sets out to tackle..." and "...Limbaugh junkies tend more than other Americans to say they have a high degree of trust in other people, but perhaps none so much as the talk show host..."

Did they bring those views when they found Limbaugh, or did they develop those views listening to him?

OK, I'll put aside my usual WaPo contempt and say they're probably closer to true than usual on this one. As for your question, it's probably some of both. But reinforcing the audience's stereotypes is certainly not unique to the conservatives.

We're going to have to agree to disagree that "traditional" news is in any meaningful sense "objective." :D

JP

Terror is going, almost by def'n, to take many forms. If that means attacking a humvee full of Marines (an ostensibly military target, no?), it's still terrorism; especially if the "insurgents" have been imported from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, etc.

I totally agree - especially where there are foreigners involved. However, I don't see how one could call the Fallujah situation (for example) "terrorism" - insurgents, yes; thugs, probably, but not terrorists.

And I think tech has a really good point - the number of people using hard-out right wing publications as their major news source appears to outweigh those using the equivalent (and extremely wacky) left wing ones.