"Witness the complaints here about liberal bias in the
media. Some of it, as I occasionally point out, is clearly
oversensitive."
Liberal bias in the media is as obvious as your bias
toward those who see it for what it is. Below are two more
examples hot off the press. Funny how we don't see an
equal number of conservative biased stories in the media,
let alone an occasional one. I don't doubt for a second
that if it occurred at all, liberals would be all over it
on every one of their blogs & reported widely on SI's
political threads..........
Spin Buster
AP Takes an Unwarranted Leap
Consider this description from the second paragraph of the Associated Press' account of President Bush's speech at a fundraiser yesterday:
[Bush] leveled his sharpest criticism yet at his rivals in a speech Monday night. Bush recalled terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, signaling his willingness to use the strikes for political gain, which his aides long had promised would not be done.
Here's the passage the AP cites as evidence that Bush was "using the attacks for political gain":
September the 14th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. I remember a lot that day ... As we all did that day, these men and women searching through the rubble took it personally. I took it personally," he said. "I have a responsibility that goes on. I will never relent in bringing justice to our enemies. I will defend America, whatever it takes."
Is there political gain to be had in such remarks? Sure. But the president, or any candidate, also has a right to explain how, in his view, the attacks created the need for a more aggressive foreign policy.
AP's opening paragraph sounds as if it were written by the Democratic National Committee. If this reporter, or any other, wants to impute political motivation to the president, he would have no trouble finding a political opponent to put it that way. <font size=4>But to declare that intent as fact isn't journalism; it's editorializing. AP has built its fragile reputation for impartiality by avoiding just that sort of unjustified characterization.
<font size=3>
--Z.R.
campaigndesk.org
___________________________________________________________
While CBS’s Poll Shows Huge GOP Majorities Backing Bush, CBS Reporter Finds a “Fury” on the Right
Anti-Bush Anecdotes
Trump Pro-Bush Poll
<font size=4>
Last night and this morning, CBS White House reporter John Roberts claimed that President Bush is in trouble with “furious” Republican voters. Previewing Bush’s speech to GOP governors last night, Roberts warned that the President’s base was ready to bolt. “Many Republican voters are furious about the lingering situation in Iraq and the massive job losses under the President’s watch,” he told CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather.<font size=3>
Then this morning on CBS’s The Early Show, Roberts hit the same point in a post-speech wrap-up: “President Bush wants to be seen as the only candidate who can effectively defend America, but an increasing number of people who voted for him in the year 2000 are furious about the daily loss of life in Iraq and say they won’t vote for him this time around.”
If true, that would be bad news for the President. But the most recent CBS News poll found Republican voters are actually strongly supportive of the President and his policies. <font size=4>A huge margin of Republicans (86 percent) say the U.S. “did the right thing in taking military action in Iraq,” compared with 13 percent who say we “should have stayed out of Iraq.”
Similarly, 77 percent of Republicans approved of Bush’s handling of the economy, with only 18 percent saying they disapproved. (Independent voters also liked Bush’s handling of the economy and said the war in Iraq was worth it, but by smaller margins.) Overall, nine in ten Republicans told CBS pollsters they approved of the Bush’s job performance.<font size=3>
<font size=4>
If Republicans are so united, why would Roberts claim that GOP voters are defecting in “increasing” numbers? On Sunday, the New York Times published a story by reporter Elisabeth Rosenthal, who said she had randomly talked to “dozens” of “independents and Republicans who said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 [and now] say they intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this year.” <font size=3>
Rosenthal allowed that polls show “an overwhelming majority” of Bush voters would re-elect him, but she sought out a Kerry operative to justify her approach: “‘The strong Republicans are with him,’ a senior aide to Senator John Kerry said of Mr. Bush. ‘But there are independent-minded Republicans among whom he is having serious problems.’”
While the Times quoted Democratic strategists, the Republicans were represented by angry malcontents. One voter even demanded anonymity as he vented his spleen: “It’s the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans who don’t even want to hear the name George Bush anymore.”
But there may not be as many voters abandoning Bush as CBS or the New York Times would wish. As Clay Waters of MRC’s TimesWatch.org noted yesterday, one of the Times’s angry citizens popped up three weeks ago in another Rosenthal-reported item. “I don't think I could vote for George Bush again when I think of the 500 people killed in Iraq and what's happened to the economy in this country,” George Meagher, a South Carolina independent, was quoted as saying in a February 3 story about veterans leaving Bush to support Kerry. Meagher got to voice the same objections in Sunday’s Times.
<font size=4>
Does CBS really consider an anecdotal re-hash of a few aggrieved Republicans more reliable than its own polls showing a united GOP base? If so, get ready for a really biased election year.<font size=3>
— Rich Noyes
mediaresearch.org
NOTE: If Rosenthal actually randomly talked to “dozens”
of "independents and Republicans who said they voted for
Mr. Bush in 2000 [and now] say they intend to vote for the
Democratic presidential candidate this year"; Why didn't
she comment on the hundreds of independents & Republicans
that she most certainly had to talk to who hold precisely
the opposite opinions?
They weren't worthy of any mention in this clearly biased
article because the sheer numbers of folks expressing the
exact opposite view would have been consistent with almost
every poll showing that the overwhelming majority of these
people still approve of Bush. She had to spike this
inconvenient fact or her story falls completely apart. |
