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 we can all agree the New York Times is not a credible news source. Right? Except of course when they run articles that reveal top secret information on how our government protects the country from another terrorost attack. Then it is the epitomy of journalistic integrity.- "What, exactly, are those leadership qualities?" The ability to listen to, consider and possibly incorporate an opposing point of view is one. ••• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/ ••• The ability to generate massive grass-roots support for new (or old but untested) ideas is another in this day and age - even if only by reading a good speech. Maintaining the priority of putting the family first while managing multiple global and national crises is a third.— Phrossty
- The proof is in the story Vandy discussed (and I had referenced earlier blogs)! I don't think Pres. Obama is a muslim or a socialist (he also doesn't believe in gay marriage:), but during the campaign the press should have dug a little more into his backround and his proposals (even SNL did a debate parody with Hillary about the fluffball questions, hillarious)! Now he is spending like never before, borrowed money from the Chinese, the saved or created jobs # is down to 600,000 from 3.5 million from the stimulus package! For the cost of that thing he could almost have healthcare for everyone paid for! I said before, usually Presidents get one chance at a big pet project, GWB chose to use his on a big tax cut that spurred the economy and Pres. Obama spent his one big chance on a $787 Bil package of govt. spending and nonsense! That is the difference between conservatives and liberals in a nutshell:)— NEPhilly
- Djoko- I have asked my self why " more liberals than conservatives inhabit the news media ".... My opinion is that a lot of it is just self preservation. Much like Hollywood you either have to be silent on issues or take the liberal point of view to get work.
- The major media bias is laziness/lack of resources. They can't get their arms around the complex economic crises, or at least in a way to report it to the people. They don't have the money to truly investigate the white collar crime attendant to this crisis. So they don't have anything cogent to discuss about the major item that concerns everyone in the country right now, or a way to assess the president on this issue. Since they have to fill time, they do it with puff pieces because they don't know what else to discuss. Reagan had a similar pass early in his presidency. Clinton had big news issues that people could get their hands around in his first days -- healthcare and gays in the military. Therefore, there were a lot more stories that could be critical because the people could already have an opinion on them.— etotheb
- The major media bias is laziness/lack of resources. They can't get their arms around the complex economic crises, or at least in a way to report it to the people. They don't have the money to truly investigate the white collar crime attendant to this crisis. So they don't have anything cogent to discuss about the major item that concerns everyone in the country right now, or a way to assess the president on this issue. Since they have to fill time, they do it with puff pieces because they don't know what else to discuss. Reagan had a similar pass early in his presidency. Clinton had big news issues that people could get their hands around in his first days -- healthcare and gays in the military. Therefore, there were a lot more stories that could be critical because the people could already have an opinion on them.— etotheb
- Phrossty- The platitudes are nice and all but how does one explain rising unemployment? This guy prances around like he's god's gift to humanity but I have yet to see one positive effect he had had on the economy, getting more support from allies in the overseas contingency operations, or balancing the budget or giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans. He hasn't done any of these things. It would appear to me that we've seen what we are going to get. 4 years of whining about what he inherited and perpetual campaign speeches from a teleprompter.
- Vandy – you are wrong on all accounts. There have been numerous published articles and editorials in papers discussing the advantages, disadvantages and the viewpoints of a healthcare overhaul. This is what happens when take someone else’s word that the media is neglecting the subject…— Ender
- There is liberal leaning media (especially in big city newspapers) but I wouldn't say there was an overall liberal bias in the media. I figure the left leaning media at least begins to counteract the right wing talk shows although it's no where near as baised as guys like Limbaugh and Hannity. The liberal bias BS is a tool used by them to rile up the religious 'neocon' right. Works too.— James TL
- "...how does one explain rising unemployment?" According to a National Review article from 2003, it's a lagging indicator and it doesn't do much but scare politicians. An opposing view (that it's a leading, not lagging indicator) can be found also. Ultimately, my Bush Derangement Syndrome informs me that today's problems in the economy can be traced to: 1) Nixon taking the US off the Gold Standard to finance the war in Viet Nam. 2) OPEC's oil embargo. 3)Carter's CRA legislation. 4) Reagan's supply-side (a/k/a "Voodoo") economic theory. 5) Clinton's deregulation (Bawney Fwank) and dot.com bubble. 6) Consumers not living within their means [1975 - 2009]. 7) Bush's tax cut and spend agenda. and 8) Hedge fund trading fraud that bankrupted the globe. I'm sure Obama will get a turn to throw his monkey wrench in there too, but it's still a bit early to lay today's disaster at his feet unless you think GWB, and not Slick Willie, is at fault for 11-Sep-2001. ••• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_20_55/ai_108892924/ ••• http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/faith-based-economics/ ••• http://www.slate.com/id/2216238/— Phrossty
- "you are wrong on all accounts. There have been numerous published articles and editorials in papers discussing the advantages, disadvantages and the viewpoints of a healthcare overhaul." Please provide an example of someone in the media directly challenging Obama's core assumptions on anything.— Vandy
- Example: Obama keeps talking about "saving" jobs, even though the government doesn't track such data. What reporter has challenged that statement to the President directly?— Vandy
- wow Phrossty, that is quite a laundry list. I hear that " lagging indicator " line all the time. It is such an overused cliche. When 2000 car dealersips close there will be another 50,000 people out of work. Will that be a lagging indicator as well? You keep spinning phrossty, I won't hold my breath for the economy to improve.
- And why is the cost of gas now rising through the roof?!?! I always thought that the reason for gas price increases was Bush's & Cheyney's relationships with the evil Big Oil companies...But they arent in power anymore, Obama is so why does gas keep going up? I'm so confused....— Frito1
- A Barrel of Oil is up to $ 68. Almost double the cost since before god's gift to humanity was innaugurated. Gas prices up 87% in my town since January. The Saudi King thanks you Barack for doing nothing on drilling and for believing in the fairytale promise of windmills. Will we be seeing those stories of people who have to choose between food or gas in their car?
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
