Jeff has Lexis/Nexis, and it is a great way to fact check.
Nicholas Lemann Purposefully Misses the Point
Jeff Larkin
footballfansfortruth.us
February 14, 2005
Today, The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann analyzes charges of mainstream media bias. It is a fantastical apologia, summed up by--
newyorker.com
If mainstream journalists find it annoying that conservatives think of them as unalterably hostile, they find it just as annoying that liberals think of them as the friend who keeps letting them down.
The point, of course, isn't that conservatives and liberals may have competing partisan complaints about the mainstream media. Instead, Lemann should first be asking, "Which complaint is most legitimate? A complaint of hostility to conservatives or a complaint of failure to carry their water by liberals?"
Lemann should next ask "Who has the legitimate complaint?"
In an article where Lemann does not mention the Dan Rather fabrication, Maureen Dowd's lies, or the New York Times' conclusion, through Daniel Okrent, that, indeed, it is a liberal newspaper (Okrent's first words - "Of course it is"), and only mentions the Times' crude and baseless pre-election allegations of "missing" weapons in Iraq to underscore a point as to the inexplicable power of blogs . . . I guess we can deduce his answers.
Lemann also trots out alleged partisan displeasure about The Chicago Tribune, another dishonest dodge. The issue, of course, is not whether a Republican would be unhappy with revelations by The Tribune regarding then-senatorial candidate Jack Ryan's attempts to bring his wife Jeri to swingers clubs:
or whether The Tribune published a defense of John Kerry from a Swift Boat veteran.
The issue is whether the paper would have done the same in the case of Barack Obama's divorce, as well as its coverage of the charges made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
I can't answer the first question, but the second question is verifiable. Here is the Tribune's complete substantive treatment of the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. On May 5, 2004, Stephen Braun wrote of the criticisms leveled by the group. There was not another mention for 3 months. On August 6, 2004, Jill Zuckman and Jeff Zeleny wrote a blurb on the 527. It was entitled "McCain denounces Vietnam vets' anti-Kerry ad; Commercial says Democrat lied about combat role."
The Tribune did not run another substantive article on the charges of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for the entire campaign. There were, however, several stories of the Kerry camp attacking the Bush camp for the smear, including the Kerry campaign's bogus filing of an FEC complaint, as well as numerous stories of the resignation of Ben Ginsberg (counsel for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) from the Bush campaign. There were also stories on Swift Boat vet William Rood, who came to Kerry's defense, including a printing of Rood's statement. On August 24, 2004, the paper concluded that the debate "resolves in Kerry's favor."
Perhaps the paper deemed the story all in the past, choosing instead to focus on the future, as opposed to the Vietnam-era actions of the two candidates.
Not quite.
In 2004, The Tribune ran substantive stories on Bush and his National Guard service on February 8, 2004 ("Vietnam War service lifts Kerry's run;
Record adds color, defense credential"); February 9, 2004 ("Bush would OK release of records--if they exist"); February 11, 2004 ("White House releases Bush's military pay records" and "Bush releases military records; But gaps in data leave questions"); Feburary 12, 2004 ("White House offers no more on Bush records" and "Bush's aides back off on releasing all records"); February 14, 2004 ("Bush releases more records on Guard duty; Little is revealed in new documents"); Feburary 15, 2004 ("Vietnam-era Guard policy varied by unit;
But veterans say rules followed"); February 18, 2004 ("Political storm about Guard duty hovers over visit"); April 27, 2004 ("Kerry questions Bush tour in Guard"); July 10, 2004 ("Pentagon: Bush Guard records destroyed"); July 24, 2004 ("Pentagon finds Bush's '72 Guard pay records"); September 6, 2004 ("Bush aides: Guard files incomplete"); September 8, 2004 ("Suit yields more Bush Air Guard records"); September 9, 2004 ("New Bush Guard memos released" and "Memos say Bush pushed for move; National Guard service in question"); September 10, 2004 ("Guard officer's son disputes Bush memos"); September 15, 2004 ("Secretary doubts memos, but says gist accurate"); and September 17, 2004 ("Release Guard files, judge says").
By mid-September, the forged CBS documents took over the discussion and somehat muted The Tribune's full-court press on the story. Still, the Tribune's fascination with the president's Guard service was not entirely diluted: September 18, 2004 ("Papers reveal praise for Bush"); September 30, 2004 ("AIR NATIONAL GUARD ISSUES; White House: Bush wasn't disciplined"); October 6, 2004 ("Guard file lists Bush as `no fly'"); and, October 27, 2004 ("Papers offer clearer view of Bush's service in Guard" and "More Guard records leave gaps").
Lemann isn't interested in such a factual analysis. Instead, his piece relies on the "gee wiz" viewpoint of the mainstream media. The piece is advertising cloaked as inquiry, where the poor, professional, unbiased reporter is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by the unreasonable readers who have been captured by Reed Irvine, the blogs and FOX News (Lemann finds examples of conservative reader complaints deemed "paranoid," "wacky," "beyond any evil imagining," and "bewildering" by his mainstream media interviewees).
As Lemann quotes The Washington Posts's Leonard Downie, "I think conservatives feel this way in part because for years they've been told they should feel this way."
Because, in the world of the mainstream media and Mr. Lemann, only someone who is "paranoid" and "wacky" could come to the conclusion on their own. |
