Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (26643)	1/28/2004 6:36:30 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

CORRECTIONS AS REFLECTIVE OF LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MEDIA patterico.com Power Line has a great post that collects three examples of corrections in the New York Times, all of which appeared this morning. Each corrects a story that was initially biased towards the left. Here are the three corrections: Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about David A. Kay, the C.I.A.'s former weapons inspector, misstated his view of whether the agency's analysts had been pressured by the Bush administration to tailor their prewar intelligence reports about Iraq's weapons programs to conform to a White House political agenda. Mr. Kay said he believed that there was no such pressure, not that there was. (His view was correctly reflected in a quotation that followed the error.) Whoops! A front-page news analysis article on Wednesday about the impact of electoral politics on President Bush's State of the Union address referred incorrectly to a statement in last year's address, about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. The president said Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium in Africa. He did not specifically mention the African country of Niger, though it was identified several weeks earlier — along with Somalia and Congo — in the National Intelligence Estimate provided to members of Congress on Iraqi purchase attempts. Whoops! An article on Saturday about Gen. Wesley K. Clark's difficulties in his first run for office quoted him as saying that a question about his Democratic credentials by the Fox News anchor Brit Hume at a debate on Thursday was "part of a Republican Party agenda." The article also quoted a spokesman for General Clark as criticizing the network. Because of an editing error, the article omitted a response by Fox News. Paul Schur, a spokesman for the network, dismissed the suggestion that Mr. Hume's question was prompted by anyone. "General Clark should be used to facing tough questions about his record," Mr. Schur said. "This isn't the first time questions have been raised about his affiliation. His handlers should spend their time on more constructive things such as trying to come up with reasons for the general's slippage in the polls." Whoops! Isn't it interesting that, in each case, the error favored the leftist position? David Kay makes the Bush administration look bad. Bush is made to look like a liar. Clark's accusation of bias by Brit Hume goes unrebutted. This problem is not unique to the New York Times. I have documented that it also occurs regularly at the Los Angeles Times Does this mean a conspiracy is afoot? Of course not. What this shows is that liberal assumptions reign supreme in the newsroom. A right-wing editor might have read the Kay quote and thought to ask: "Are we sure that's right?" A right-wing editor would know that Bush's State of the Union speech has been distorted in the past. A right-wing editor might have asked: "But what did Brit Hume say about Clark's criticism?" But when editors agree with the leftist slant, these kinds of questions don't get asked. And the Old Gray Lady ends up printing three embarrassing corrections in one day.