That "liberal media" canard
How the scoops mentality trumps ideology
That "liberal media" canard
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Conservatives typically view The New York Times as "ground zero" of the so-called "liberal media" - a cartoon characterization, given what happened during the run-up to the Iraq war, and again in the wake of the '03 American invasion, when the paper aided and abetted the Bush war team by running a series of bogus WMD stories on page one. The Times' credulous reliance on con man Ahmed Chalabi (a Dick Cheney buddy) was ultimately so embarrassing that the paper finally had to come clean by writing an expose about itself (albeit, long after the damage was done).
That sorry episode came to mind on May 21 of this year, when The Times led page one with a story that trumpeted a leak from the Pentagon; apparently, the paper had purportedly learned that prisoners released from Guantanamo and transferred abroad were flocking back to terrorism in alarming numbers. According to the Times headline that day, "1 in 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad," or, as the first paragraph in the story put it, 1 in 7 released detainees "returned to terrorism or militant activity."
That translated into a 14.3 percent recidivism rate, and the timing of the story couldn't have been worse for the Obama administration. That very day, Obama delivered his speech defending the closing of Guantanamo - with Dick Cheney delivering the opposite message to a conservative think tank audience. Cheney, naturally, jumped all over the Times story; citing the headline statistic about recidivist terrorists, he worked a fresh line into his speech: "One in seven cut a straight path back to their prior line of work." Once again, The Times was essentially giving aid and comfort to the Bush administration - specifically, to the guy who really ran it.
And once again, the story was flat wrong.
This past weekend - more than two weeks after the print story ran - The Times finally took steps to clean up the mess. On Saturday, it ran a lengthy "editor's note" which admitted that the "1 in 7" statistic was way off base. Actually, said The Times, it would have been far more accurate to report "that about one in 20 former Guantanamo prisoners described in the Pentagon report were now said to be engaging in terrorism."
Well, that's very different. One in 20 translates to a 5 percent recidivism rate - a far cry from 14.3 percent. (And as for that 5 percent figure, here's a bit of perspective: According to the Justice Department's own figures, the recidivism rate for American prisoners - as measured by the rate of rearrests within three years of release - is typically in excess of 60 percent.)
Then, yesterday, Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt lowered the boom in his Sunday column: "The article...was seriously flawed and greatly overplayed." The editors accepted the Pentagon's statistical spin "and failed to push back skeptically. The lapse is especially unfortunate at The Times, given its history in covering the run-up to the Iraq war." (Ouch.)
Hoyt laid it out succinctly: The Times failed to distinguish between those ex-prisoners whose recidivism had supposedly been "confirmed," and the larger group of former prisoners who were merely "suspected" of having gone to the dark side. When the Times story was originally being prepared, editors didn't know that the Pentagon had set up two different categories. Apparently the Pentagon leakers didn't tell The Times that the "suspected" cases were based on unverified and single-source tips - "a standard The Times would not accept for its own reporting," according to Hoyt. The Times didn't learn those crucial details until much later, after the full Pentagon report was released.
Nor, in its original story, did The Times take into account the very real possibility that some of those who had purportedly "rejoined jihad" were actually innocent people who got radicalized during their incarceration at Guantanamo...and then joined up for the first time once they were freed abroad. The Times itself has written such stories in the past.
Bottom line: The Times took a leak from the Pentagon, wrote it wrong, and Dick Cheney happily gave it his seal of approval.
If The Times was supposedly intent on advancing a "liberal agenda," wouldn't it have killed the story rather than trumpet a 14 percent recidivism rate that undercut Obama's case for prison closure? But of course it wouldn't do that. The paper thought it had a scoop. Mainstream reporters think in terms of scoops, not ideology (which also helps to explain why the paper fell for Ahmed Chalabi).
So much, yet again, for the "liberal media" canard.
-------
The latest iteration of the "liberal media" canard is the claim (common among thought-challenged conservatives) that newspapers are dying because readers are sick of paying for the "liberal media."
Then how do conservatives explain what happened in Philadelphia last week? The Bulletin - arguably the region's strongest conservative voice - ceased print publication and threw its people out of work. If papers are dying supposedly because of a "liberal" ideology, then how come a paper featuring the likes of Pat Buchanan, Chuck Norris, and Oliver North has ceased to exist?
Could it be that market forces and technology matter a whole lot more than ideology? Those who peddle the "liberal media" canard might want to ponder that.
-------
Meanwhile, let's say a few good words about Fox News (seriously).
Lest you didn't notice, Saturday marked the 65th anniversary of D-Day - arguably the most pivotal event in our democracy, considering what the consequences of failure could have been. A viewing of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers would have been appropriate, but I'll put my money on this Fox News interview of Arthur Seltzer, an 84-year-old D-Day vet now living in a suburb of Philadelphia. The video is worth watching in its entirety. What we owe this guy, and millions of others, cannot be put into words. So I won't even try.
So then Gitmo isn't really creating more terrorists, is it?— jmc
Well in that case just release all of them? I guess they really are all a bunch of harmless goat herders who took the wrong turn at Kandajar.- Conservatives do not think that Newspapers are going out of business because they are liberal. At least I don't. They are going out of business because they the high cost of printing presses, trucks, drivers etc for a product that I can read for free on line
- IT'S CALLED KANDAHAR— BADFLY
- So I guess the Reps are responsible for shoddy jounalism now? When are you going to change the column name to Democratic MouthPiece? Debate involves a two-sided evaluation and discussion. You never give anything but a cynical view of the conservative side.
- Try a math class next time. One in twenty is 5 percent, not .5 percent and not a far cry from the original story.— tustins
- It is not the liberal media, it is now the state media. The American media has gone from being the government watchdog to being Obama's guard dog. Hey Dick, how come the Wall Street Journal and Fox News are thriving? Can you name one commie news outlet that is thriving?— CD75
Why were abortion protesters spending the anniversary of D-Day by treating veterans with disdain and disrespect? At the funeral of a Navy vet, attended by many other veterans paying their respects, protesters held up signs saying "God sent the shooter". Is that considered spitting on soldiers?— one_eyed_jack- it's kinda cute when liberals refer to the liberal media as the so called" liberal media. but it's also kinda sad because they don't understand that it's partly BECAUSE the media is liberal that newspapers are dying a slow and painful death.— Bud Fox
- Polman, you're right. There is no such thing as a liberal media. It is a figment of the imagination of the thought challenged conservatives. So you are saying that the New York Times is not a liberal media source, because it went to the trouble to retract story they should have redacted? If the reporters were really worthwhile they would have done some investigative jouralism instead of going for the "scoop" story. FYI One in 20 does not equal .5%. Talk about thought challenged!— junethe4th
- There is no liberal media bias. This is merely an example of the ‘shoot the messenger’ strategy. Conservatives use the idea of a liberal media to dismiss the reality that fact based reporting often disproves their theories. As Steven Colbert put it “reality has a well known liberal bias.” What conservatives ignore is that newspapers have an invested interest in being objective. Moreover, each story is written from a neutral standpoint and is edited with an eye toward objectivity. If a story does not represent both sides of a political debate, an editor will have the reporter rewrite the article. Let’s compare this to how conservatives get their news – from talk radio. Partisan hacks like Limbaugh and Hannity have no objectivity. They cherry pick information and facts to present a warped version of reality to their listeners who swallow every word. But Repubs don’t mind because the talking points are already in line with their predisposed beliefs.— Ender
- There is certainly a liberal media bias and one newspaper getting a story wrong doesn't change that! The major media outlets have given candidate Obama a free pass on a number of issues, that Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose discussed, that they didn't even know this guy! MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, Wash. Post, etc. all fawning over this President and administration and not doing their job as a watchdog on a massive scale, just like the NY Times did on that one story! SNL does jokes about it! Did you notice in Europe, the elections had conservatives winning almost across the board? Just as we move farther to the left, they move to the right! Now they are still left of us when it comes to govt., but give President Obama a chance, he just got started:)— NEPhilly
- As Steven Colbert put it “reality has a well known liberal bias.”...I can't wait to see his "reporting" from Iraq this week!— chasing history
- Ender - that's a great analysis of the newspaper industry. Unfortunately, that operating procedure hasn't existed since the Nixon administration. Hey Polman, nice argument - but you expose yourself when you attempted to give Fox News a compliment and added the "seriously" snide remark as if to suggest everyone thinks like you. Just looks @ the Fox ratings and know the free market has chosen and it must be killing you'all inside!— RowingMan
Comment removed.
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
