All the News That’s Fit to …
By Denise Best | Related entries in Blogging, General Politics, In The Newsslant.
Yes, all the news that’s fit to … slant.
The question has been asked (and derided) as to the existence of a liberal slant/bias in this country’s mainstream media.
Examples help greatly in debating respective views and a comparison of an article with its source can be even more revealing.
Case in point, an article written by Washington Post writer, Jim VandeHei, with the headline, “President Says DeLay Is Not Guilty of Money Laundering.”
President Bush said yesterday he is confident that former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is innocent of money-laundering charges, as he offered strong support for several top Republicans who have been battered by investigations or by rumors of fading clout inside the White House.
In an interview with Fox News, Bush said he hopes DeLay will be cleared of charges that he illegally steered corporate money into campaigns for the Texas legislature and will reclaim his powerful leadership position in Congress.
“I hope that he will, ’cause I like him, and plus, when he’s over there, we get our votes through the House,” Bush told Fox News’s Brit Hume. DeLay was forced to step down as majority leader after he was indicted in the fundraising case, and he is seeking a quick trial in hopes of returning to power early next year.
Doesn’t it appear in the Washington Post article as if the focal part of the Hume interview was President Bush’s defense of DeLay?
How about the mention of Richard Nixon, just for good measure?
It is highly unusual for a president to express an opinion on a pending legal case. Richard M. Nixon, for instance, was widely criticized for declaring Charles Manson “guilty, directly or indirectly” of murder while Manson’s trial was ongoing.
Take a look then at the transcript of the Hume interview with Bush.
Note, for instance, VandeHei’s decision to leave out a relevant portion of the response relating to Delay and the context of the discussion.
HUME: Turning to politics here, Democrats say that there is a culture of corruption among Republicans in Congress. Now, we’ve had the DeLay indictment, part of which has since been dismissed. You had â€â€? you’ve got this Abramoff investigation going on up there, and whatever the outcome, it isn’t pretty.
And then you have the Duke Cunningham case, with which I know you’re familiar, and we’ve now seen some of the details of that case. They’re quite striking: rugs and goodies of all kinds and large sums of money. What about that allegation, that there’s a culture of corruption on Capitol Hill among Republicans? How do you feel about that?
BUSH: Well, first of all, I feel Duke Cunningham was wrong and should be punished for what he did. And I think anybody who does what he did should be punished, Republican or Democrat. Secondly, I’m â€â€? you know, the Abramoff â€â€? I’m frankly, not all that familiar with a lot that’s going on up there on Capitol Hill. But it seems like to me that he was an equal money dispenser, that he was giving money to people in both political parties. Yes, I mean, it’s really important for all of us in public life to have the highest of ethics. So we can only trust the American people.
HUME: Do you home and expect that Tom DeLay will return to be majority leader?
BUSH: Yes. At least, I don’t know whether I’m expecting it. I hope that he will.
HUME: Why?
BUSH: Well, I like him. When he’s over there, we get our votes through the House. We had a remarkable success of legislative victories. A remarkable string of legislative victories. We’ve cut the taxes and delivered strong economic growth and vitality. We’ve had an energy bill that began to put American on its way to independence.
Compare the Washington Post article against the actual interview …
Weigh in on whether you believe there’s a level of slant in the reporting.
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 15th, 2005 and is filed under Blogging, General Politics, In The News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Tell me, what is a more newsworthy part of that interview? That the President likes the Vice President?
I did some quick word counts on the transcript and found that over 25% of the President’s words were to questions involving his faith, his legacy, and the history of the room in which the interview took place. An article that’s headlined “Bush fond of God, Lincoln” isn’t news.
To me, the newest, most interesting part of the whole interview is that Bush hopes DeLay is found innocent because he’s a good ally. Had this interview been released two days ago, I would consider the Iraq “we made mistakes” language to be more important (especially since he spent about 4 times as long on Iraq than Delay/Earl/Abramoff), but that’s already well in the news cycle. And if the article were written along the line of “President continues to admit mistakes were made,” that would open the door for more allegations of bias by people who are hoping to find it.
See, if you’re looking for a liberal bias, you’re going to find it. If you’re looking for a conservative bias, likewise, you’re going to find it. The conservative, looking at that article will find references to Nixon. The liberal, looking at the exact same article, will note that the questions came from Brit Hume of Fox News. If the press were really as liberal as the right would like to believe them to be, I’m sure they would have taken the quote “I’m not, frankly, all that familiar with a lot that’s going on over at Capitol Hill…” well out of context.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
If the media were really liberal, the Swift Boat liars never would have seen the light of day.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Bush said he wanted DeLay to return as the majority leader. That certainly assumes that DeLay would be cleared of the charges.
Again Denise, I really think you’re looking too hard for this stuff. I did the same thing when I was campaigning for Dean. I’d see all sorts of biases against him in the media, but that’s simply because I was bought into defending him.
And by the way, since when is pointing out a President’s own statements liberal bias? Clinton anybody? Remember how the press eviscerated him? Are our collective memories that short?
To state again, it is the press’ job to report the news and continaully question our leadership. It’s the only way to keep politicians on their toes. But do note that when Rush Limbaugh and other media right-wingers were building the vast noise machine, we had Republican Presidents for 12 years, who may or may not have been involved in some fairly untrustworthy things. The press hammered them, and so the “liberal bias” meme was born even though we have nothing more than anecdotal and “this sorta seems like it MIGHT be” evidence such as this. But again, let’s not forget all of the scandals that Clinton had to suffer through that ultimately went nowhere. And the MSM had a hand in that too.
Seriously Denise, take the media for what they are: watchdogs. And sometimes they’re barking at nothing. But I, for one, am glad they’re there.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Tim,
You bring up some good discussion points.
As far as what’s deemed to be newsworthy of this event – the interview – I guess a person’s own political leaning would determine what’s truly newsworthy.
What’s interesting, and illustrative, in the WP article were the other aspects mentioned regarding the President’s relationships (which was a prime focus of the interview) as well as viewpoints on Iraq and Iran which weren’t pursued by VandeHei.
Regarding expressing support for Delay because of his ability to be an effective House leader and get legislation through that was beneficial for the country (I know, depends upon your viewpoint as to whether tax cuts, and other legislation cited was truly a benefit) … shouldn’t the President be motivated to have a person in that position who is able to “get the job done?”
The remark that “I’m not, frankly, all that familiar with a lot that’s going on over at Capitol Hill…â€Â? should have been pursued by Hume as to the meaning and context that Bush was referencing when he made the comment.
Point well-taken as to “seeing what one wants to see” politically, so over the next week, let’s all take note of the coverage and the possible slants that may be perceived in news and entertainment media.
It’ll be interesting to see the results and opinions : )
December 15th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
it is the press’ job to report the news
Agreed
continually question our leadership
That’s the purpose of an opinion piece, not a reporting function. It’s the mixing of the two that’s the crux of the problem, and it exists on both sides. Some organizations are more offensive than others too. Limbaugh and other entities whose purpose it is to provide opinion are irrelevant in a discussion about the organizations that are supposed to be providing the facts the rest of us are using to form those opinions.
December 15th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Saw this quote & liked it (also think it’s pretty true these days):
The media is only as liberal as the conservative companies that own them.
Of course we all see bias in opinions that run contrary to our own. The difficulty I see recently is that many outright opinions are being presented in the news as facts, or the facts are slanted or presented in such a way to generate a bias where none should exist. I personally believe that the media is often paid (or coerced by their management) to deliberately slant their reporting towards a particular ideology (who could possibly claim Fox News doesn’t do that?)
December 16th, 2005 at 3:02 am
Denise:
>
Your summation of what Bush said regarding his support for Delay appears incomplete. Bush was asked by Britt Hume what he thought about Tom Delay’s chances of returning as majority leader.
What’s striking is that Bush never addressed in any way the seriousness of the charge of money laundering against Tom Delay. Instead he seemed to care most about having Tom Delay back in a position of power because “when he’s over there, we (Republicans not Americans) get our votes through the House.” Of course Bush believes his policies are good for America but that’s beside the point. They are having a conversation about coruption in the Republican party.
I would rather the president say that Tom Delay is a good friend and has done a lot of good things for the Republican party yet I hope he isn’t guilty of money laudering and if he isn’t I would be excited to have him in our ranks again etc..
IMO a President should be more measured in his support of someone who is under indictment. This portion of the interview presents a picture of a president that doesn’t care much about crimes committed by republicans unless the person has admitted guilt and been found guilty of serious crimes such as the case with Cunnigham.
Lastly, after admiting that he did not know much about the Abramhoff case, Bush proffered the lie that Abramhoff gave equally to democrats and republicans. Even though Bush knows little about the case it didn’t stop him from implying that the corruption in the republican party is not important because both parties are doing it.
It’s a fact that both parties have been corrupt but currently the republicans have the power and are therefore the ones who will be tempted with cash, trips, gifts etc…
I would think Bush would want his party to have the highest ethical standards but nothing he says here indicates that. Instead Bush offered us distortions, half truths and plain old lies such as “We’ve had an energy bill that began to put America on its way to independence.” Denise, do you really belief the energy bill has put America on the road to energy independence?
It seems Denise that while condeming the WaPo you failed to remove the beam from your own eye.
Rick
Do you home and expect that Tom DeLay will return to be majority leader?
BUSH: Yes. At least, I don’t know whether I’m expecting it. I hope that he will.
HUME: Why?
BUSH: Well, I like him. When he’s over there, we get our votes through the House. We had a remarkable success of legislative victories. A remarkable string of legislative victories. We’ve cut the taxes and delivered strong economic growth and vitality.
Except that Bush
December 16th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Given the weakness of the prosecutions case against Delay (I’d remind folks of the old adage that one can get an indictment of a ham sandwich), I don’t think Bush was obligated to fall on his sword with regards to Republican “corruption” in general or Delay specifically. I think that regardless of the evidence, the Prosecutor’s self-righteous zealotness speaks for itself. This prosecution is as much of a political campaign as any.
December 16th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Justin,
I appreciate the need for there to be a watchdog of the process, but I still don’t feel there is a high enough degree of objectivity to fulfill this type of function.
Here’s a thought …
How about establishing an open media thread for posting examples of what readers may feel illustrate slant/bias on either side?
Could be a source of some good discussion and might even change respective perceptions regarding the media (mine included : )
December 16th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Previous comments have already alluded to my take on this – that media bias is in the eye of the beholder.
If American attitudes have indeed been drifting rightward in recent years, it follows that the news media’s perspective would also have to drift to the right at the same rate in order to maintain the same level and direction of bias (or lack thereof) relative to the prevailing attitudes. Otherwise, it stands to reason that the bulk of the American citizenry would come to perceive the media as having become biased, even if the media’s absolute perspective hasn’t changed, because the citizenry’s absolute perspective has changed. (It’s like our perception of the physical world: Even when you’re in motion, from your own PoV it looks like you’re actually running in place while the landscape, and everything and everyone on it, is moving around you.)
Since the news media’s purpose is ultimately to serve the citizenry (by bringing government under scrutiny) then the media’s problem becomes the old political adage that “perception is reality”. That is, if the bulk of the citizenry perceives that the news media is biased, then the news media is biased, regardless of whatever fixed standard of objectivity the media may follow.
I guess you could sum up everything I’ve said above in one sentence: News media objectivity is a (slowly) moving target.
December 16th, 2005 at 11:40 am
The Nixon Manson comparison is where the bias is. VendHei takes one line from the interview and makes it sound like the most important part of the interview – he frames it which is his job.
Here is the whole exchange:
HUME: You know a thing or two about Texas politics. What is your judgment of the prosecutor in the case, Ronnie Earle?
BUSH: I’m not going to go there, simply because I want â€â€? I want this trial to be conducted as fairly as possible. And the more politics that are in it, the less likely it’s going to be fair.
HUME: Do you just â€â€? do you believe he’s innocent?
BUSH: Do I? Yes, I do.
Bush let Hume put words in his mouth and fell into the trap of revealing his belief about innocence or guilt, even though Hume had to draw it out of him. Bush said it, so the press can take him to task for it. I’ll even give VendHei the benefit of the doubt that the three words ‘Yes, I do.” are the most newsworthy in the interview as Tim contends. But he doesn’t have to reach for Nixon and Manson as an example of a president inappropriately commenting on a matter before a court. That choice reveals the reporter’s bias and his agenda. The analogy invites comparison of Bush to Nixon and Delay to Manson – it is just too negative and inaccurate to pass muster as unbiased. Given the context in the interview Bush has made clear he wants the trial to make the determination of guilt or innocence and when asked his personal view he simply agrees with Hume. He would have been better sticking to his own words and said ‘As I said, I hope he is acquitted There is no way Bush is going to inappropriately influence a jury with that remark which was the issue with Nixon’s comment so the comparison is both inaccurate and a gratuitous smear. I’m sure someone over at the Washington Times could have framed it differently – but that’s another issue.
December 17th, 2005 at 7:29 am
Well this is turning into a real media studies lesson:
From today’s Wasington Post:
Democratic leaders sternly criticized President Bush yesterday for saying former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is innocent of felonious campaign finance abuses, suggesting his comments virtually amounted to jury tampering before DeLay stands trial.
“The president of the United States said a jury does not need to assemble, that Tom DeLay is innocent,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). “To have someone of his stature, the president of the United States, prejudge a case is something I’ve never seen before.”
The whole thing is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501714.html
December 17th, 2005 at 8:27 am
Joshua, that’s an interesting take on the subject, one I have had half-formed in the back of my head for some time. I wonder if an analysis of news reporting between the time of the New Deal and Vietnam/Watergate would show it to be Right of the American public.