For years, I have believed that mose media bias is the result of laziness. ignorance, and an unwillingness to look beyond one’s own personal views when reporting a story. I refused to believe in media bias, but the different treatment that Richard Clarke and Condi Rice received by those pricks may have forever changed my opinion on the issue.
Here is the transcript from Clarke’s kid glove “golly gee- were the Bush administration people really that stupid and awful” puff piece with Lesley Stahl.
Here is Condi Rice being grilled by Ed Bradley, who at one point spent several minutes badgering her to apologize to the American people or 9/11.
Hey Ed- the Bush administration did not blow up the WTC. And despite that grandstanding display from the megalomaniac Clarke, the government has no business apologizing. Last week, someone was murdered in my town- is Ed Bradley going to come here and force the police to apologize?
At any rate, I will never again attempt to deny media bias after this past week. The differing treatment of both sides is evidence enough, but add to it the fact that Clarke has been caught in, by my count, at least 200 hundred lies, yet the media is still holding him up. Why?
sean
learned to count in W. Va., huh?
Tatterdemalian
I used to think that the media had a sensationalist bias, rather than a leftist one.
I no longer think so any more, after investigating their coverage of the Palestinian terror attacks.
If the media had a sensationalist bias, they would report not only on the spectacular successes of the Palestinian terrorists, but also on their spectacular failures. There would be even more money to be made in reporting a story about the terrorist car bombers who blew themselves up because they refused to set the timer on their bombs to daylight savings time, or the terrorists who were captured because they didn’t realize that their explosives wouldn’t detonate after being immersed in water, and swam down a river to infiltrate the settlement that they were targeting.
These stories would be easily as popular as the stories of buses full of Israeli children getting blown to bits, but the media will never report them, and the only reason that makes any sense is that they are trying to convince people that the Palestinian terrorists never make mistakes. They aren’t being even-handed, they are openly shilling for the Palestinians.
The media isn’t running on the “if it bleeds, it leads” rule any more. They’ve adopted a new rule… “If you kill, we’ll shill.” It worked for CNN in Iraq during the first Gulf War, and now it’s all the rage.
physics geek
“…Clarke has been caught in, by my count, at least 200 hundred lies, yet the media is still holding him up. Why?”
I take it that this question is purely rhetorical.
John Cole
Yes, Physics Geek.
Justin O
Wasup with talkin’ about Clarke and lying…..
There is no need for that….
Well maybe since Bush is the master…..
He can accuse anyone of lying
Jeff G
…huh?
Those are crickets you hear chirping, Justin.
shark
First of all, we must no longer refer to it as “60 Minutes”. It is now to be known by it’s true name: “Infomercial”
This is good for something though- I well and truly believe that we’re living through the era when the media sham of objectivity is exposed for all to see. I mean, between 9/11 (“Why do they hate us”) and Iraq (Andrew Gilligan, Dan Rather fawning over Saddam, CNN admitting being a tool of Saddam) and now the coverage of Bush Awol vs Kerry Adultery and the 9/11 family trumped up controversy and now this Clarke thing- I’m sorry, but unless you’re an Al Franken level hard left hack, the truth is out there for all to see.
Remember- FOX is more accurate than The Times (Jayson Blair. Maureen Dowd makes up quotes, Krugman makes up stats) more reliable than CNN (being a tool of Saddam for access) and more ethical than 60 Minutes Infomercial.
How I dream of a day when the newspapers are out of business, a day when hacks like Peter Jennings and Dana Milbank have to go on welfare to support their families because they can no longer find work as nobody will hire biased pieces of garbage anymore.
Kimmitt
You know, it is also possible that y’all are utterly wrong about a lot of things and that the media is simply failing to cater to your biases.
Tatterdemalian
It’s also possible that you’re wrong, Kimmit. Try doing a little research before you open your trap.
Kate
And in Canada – check how CTV “reported” this Clarke quote…
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/000153.html
Kate
You know, I usually actually email the media outlet involved and complain.
More of us should do this, in addition to ranting about it in our blogs.
JKC
“200 lies?”
Cite, please.
JKC
PS:
“Dick and Condi said so!” is not a cite.
shark
JKC- Just remember that level of proof when someone says Bush lied because there were no WMDs…
Paul
Welcome to reality John.
JKC
shark-
I haven’t jumped on the “Bush lied” bandwagon. No doubt he really believed all the snake oil Chalabi, Cheney and Wolfowitz were selling him. (Just because I dislike Bush’s politics doesn’t mean I consider him the Source of All Evil.)
Clarke’s book is his judgement of the Bush League’s prosecution of the battle against terrorism. I’ve heard lots of conservative voices screaming that Clarke’s a liar, a malcontent, and a disloyal f*ck: I’ve yet to hear one saying he’s wrong. (Kudos to Dan Drezner, though, for attempting a fair rebuttal.)
Andrew J. Lazarus
I think that’s an excellent idea. Maybe not in this case, but if, say, it was a domestic homicide in which the police had failed to enforce a restraining order. Or any other example where the police had in fact dropped the ball, say because the chief spent all his time ogling the SWAT team in training.