Media Criticism

In the blur of primary debates, interviews and other coverage associated with the 2008 presidential election, it can be difficult to gauge media bias. I watch most of the Sunday morning shows and try to watch as many hours of news programming during the week as possible. In my experience, I have noticed an effort by most outlets to feign a dispassionate interest in portraying all sides of the election. The Media Research Center seems to disagree.

Fox News reported about the Center’s latest study indicating that there were nearly twice as many stories on Democratic candidates as there were for Republican candidates in the first seven months of this year. The Fox News story was peppered with calls by the Center for an end to this double standard. I think it is interesting that the Media Research Center wants equal time for a group of white conservatives when there is more diversity in the Democratic presidential field.

A successful African American senator, a woman with significant experience in government, a Southern senator turned poverty warrior and a group that covers the full gamut of political perspectives form the Democratic field. If I was a news director and I had to choose time for one side or the other, I would go with the more interesting debate. It is true that both sides should get equal time in the general election. The problem with equality of air time during the primary season is that there are not always two primary races that are interesting to the public. Many people feel that the Democrats have a more compelling fight on their hands considering the extreme unpopularity of President Bush and the Republican Party in general.

My major issue with the Media Research Center’s findings is that private media sources have no compelling reason to give equal time. If Democrats get better ratings than Republicans for MSNBC or CNN, they will follow that lead. We should support public media outlets at the local, state and national level in our search for equity in media coverage for national politics. The Center is howling at the moon in trying to fight a “double standard� when so many better sources of protest and information have fought the same battle.

There are few things I dislike more than when President Bush tries to make an historical analogy and fails miserably. Bush gave a speech yesterday at the VFW annual convention in Kansas City where he compared the push for withdrawal in Iraq to a similar push at the end of America’s involvement in Vietnam. He made a similarly strained comparison between the Iraq War and the American Revolution after Fourth of July 2007. I cannot wait for the president to compare Iraq and the Mexican-American War or the French-Indian War.

While the analogy sounds great and draws applause from some conservatives, most reasonable people know that it rings hollow. I heard numerous programs on Wisconsin Public Radio (I live in Milwaukee) where the experts were trying to hide their bile for such a poorly constructed argument. Cheney, Bush and their group of spokespeople have denounced this comparison for years now because it denotes failure. I am convinced that the orchestration of this turn by the Bush Administration was the swan song of former puppeteer Karl Rove. The dynamics of surrounding nations was different in Vietnam as it is in Iraq even though war supporters have tried to cast the former as a defeat to communism and the latter as a failure against terrorism. Bush’s speech exposed his fatal flaw which is his inability to see the gray between black and white.

Alright, this is a bit conspiracy-theorist and I don’t completely believe that. I am having an issue, however, with the way Bush’s speech at the VFW was framed all week. Every time you saw an article on Hillary Clinton speaking at the event, it would indicate that President Bush would sweep in at the end of the week as a conservative salve for veterans. While the speech was recognized as a mixed blessing by most accounts, media outlets all over the country have subconsciously helped set up Bush’s effort to recast the war as a mission of American promise. As a nation, we need to look back the faux intellectualism that is inherent in making a comparison between past and present events to keep Republicans and war Democrats honest.

As you may have gathered from reading previous posts, I read the New York Times politics blog The Caucus with a mixture of interest and bemusement. Some of their posts are interesting while others are examples of why the Times is deeply entrenched in institutionalized political moderation. I couldn’t help but notice an article today talking about Rep. Dennis Kucinich and a primary battle he will face next year for his House seat.

The premise of this article is that challenger Rosemary Palmer recently received an endorsement from former Democratic House candidate Paul Hackett, who has had run-ins with Kucinich in the past. All three people involved in this article are anti-war and share similar domestic beliefs. One of the things that upset me about the article was the comments of New York Times readers, including a comment stating that this article was a “hatchet job.�

I agree with the general sentiment that the blog is the perfect place for the Times to highlight lesser-known candidates. It costs nothing to print these articles and people who read the blog are political junkies like me. The Times editorial staff is missing out on an opportunity to write about interesting candidates during one of the most competitive races in recent memory. While I dislike the venom that commentators used toward this article, I think that the Times could do more to provide voters information over the long primary campaign.

However, a “hatchet job� seems like an overstatement. Everything I read in the Times piece seems accurate. Kucinich has been campaigning for president since 2003 and undoubtedly neglects some of his duties in the meantime. The Times has done a good job highlighting the consequences of running for president by a lower tier candidate, namely that they face challenges within their constituency. To the comments that the Times only cares for the major candidates while denigrating the bottom tier, I would say that they are doing a fine job for now on pointing out behind-the-scenes issues for every candidate on the ballot.

I can’t wait to vote for president in the November 2008 round of balloting. That is, if I can scrounge up the $35 it will take to get into the ballet. Maybe I can have the DNC or RNC pay my way in. Wait a minute, we don’t have to do that in the general election. It is free. So are the presidential primaries. I guess I was mistaken due to the recent Iowa straw poll won by professional spender Mitt Romney.

The Iowa straw poll was one of the most anticlimactic events in recent political history. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and a slew of others did not bother to campaign in Iowa. Bottom tier candidates like Tommy Thompson and Hunter Thompson hoped that their hard work in the state could yield a second place finish behind Romney. Even the surprising move up the ladder by Mike Huckabee could not save the boring finish in Iowa.

I love watching speeches, listening to debates and tracking what candidates are doing. The Iowa straw poll is a sign of what is wrong with modern politics. The New York Times’ blog on political issues covered the poll like it was something important. The Iowa Republican Party got a big donation from Iowa voters as well as the various campaigns that paid entrance for their voters. Most importantly, nothing substantive came of the event because everyone knows that a) Mitt Romney has cash, b) Ron Paul has fervent supporters and c) John McCain is sinking fast. Well done, Iowa, I can’t wait to see how you set the pace in a few weeks. I assume you will continue moving your primary up to maintain the pace as “First in the Nation.�

The controversy over the firing of eight prosecutors continues with Bush’s announcement today that two former members of his administration will not testify before Congress. According to ABC News, “President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons….” The article adds that “[c]ontempt citations against both women were a possibility.”

It is intriguing, to say the least, that the administration is going to such lengths to obstruct the investigation into these firings. It’s also interesting to investigate the way in which this news is presented.

It’s no secret that ABC News leans to the left. Left-wing crazies would argue that it’s perfectly fair and objective (if not a wee bit conservative), whereas right-wing crazies tend to lump ABC in with CNN and CBS as part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. Regardless, the ABC article definitely disparages the administration’s move. The easiest way to understand how it does so is to read this article on the same subject from Fox News. Not only is the ABC article significantly lengthier and more detailed, but it also focuses more on the possibility of Meirs facing contempt charges. Fox, on the other hand, opens with the quotation regarding Meirs’ protection from subpoena and gives only a few words to the possible contempt charges. This then indicates a more sympathetic view of Bush’s announcement today.

However, I believe both articles raise the same question: why is Bush trying to suppress this testimony? According to both articles, Sarah Taylor (former White House political director) defended the president and claimed that he had no role in the firings. It is unclear why Bush would suppress positive testimony about him; he has enough bad press these days as it is.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out; it will be even more interesting to see how the media handles this controversy.

Article Source: ABC News: Bush Orders Miers Not to Testify