This election followed a typical outcome in the sixth year of a presidency. Based on historical patterns it appears the Dem win was average to a little below average – particularly given the fact that if they take the Senate it will be by a hair.
Historical patterns notwithstanding, is there any doubt that the media played a huge role in this election? Consider the following:
Iraq was a “major” issue to most voters. Given that Iraq is on the other side of the planet, the only source of information for most is through the news, and for many busy folks the only source is regrettably a perusal of the headlines of the day. The coverage was constant stories of failure. Isolated incidents of U.S. military abuse received round the clock coverage while stories of real life heroism (of which there were many) were ignored. Every terrorist bombing made the headlines, but stories like the re-irrigation of the Marsh Arabs were ignored. When milestones were surpassed (like the daily output of oil, or the electrical grid standards) they were ignored where previously those respective “failures” were the stories of the day. To be sure there was chaos. But there was also redevelopment, and normalcy, in many areas of Iraq. As for history, the media slowly but inevitably erased any Democrats’ involvement in the decision to go into Iraq such that, in the end, it was Bush’s decision, and Bush’s decision alone. The support for the invasion by many democrats was erased from the public record.
Only one side of America’s most important story of our times was told. In an election where outcomes have come down to each vote, there can be no doubt that such one-sided coverage affected the election. The “Vietnam formula” whereby the media abuses its position by taking sides in an armed conflict is alive and well.
Just watching Fox and a Democratic strategist was chastising Republicans for attacking Kerry, since he’s……………get this…………not even on the ballot in this election.
Meanwhile Kerry, and the rest of the Democratic party, continued with their attacks against Bush throughout the day.
In other news, a man convicted of murdering his parents plead with the court for mercy, arguing that he’s had to deal with the hardships of becoming an orphan.
That, my blogging friends, is chutzpah.
Don’t believe Kerry’s actual words, he says. Rather, we are to believe his after-the-fact nonsensical characterization. You see, he was actually referring to Bush.
Let’s put this in context, shall we: There Kerry was, offering guidance to the young bright minds around him, admonishing them to work hard, study well, lest they one day …………………… become president of the United States and engage in bad foreign policy?????
When the media tells us to “trust” them (“news you can trust”, the “most trusted name in news etc.) to provide balanced coverage, what does that mean?
I take it to mean that they tell the whole story, not just one side. If there are competing claims involved in a story, or if there are pros and cons to a particular subject, or if there is more than one perspective, the media will report on both claims, both the pros and the cons, or both perspectives.
Recently CNN started airing a segment about the efficacy of America’s current (Republican)government. Leading up to the election one would think, for the sake of “balance”, that CNN would also do a segment about the potential efficacy of the party trying to gain power – discussing the Democrats’ “plan”, or trying to figure out what that plan is and whether it’s good for America – that sort of thing. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that CNN has decided to only scrutinize one side of the political debate, what would one expect from a balanced segment about the government’s effectiveness?
In addition to covering all of the areas in the Democrats’ talking points on the governments’ failures (while scrutinizing whether those talking points were fair in the first place) and letting the audience decide for themselves if the attacks are valid, a “balanced” story would also include apparent signs of success, such as a record high stock market, historically low unemployment and higher than expected government revenues flowing from strong economic growth. Again, these apparent successes should be scrutinized, just as the “failures” should be, letting the audience ultimately draw their own conclusions.
On Iraq, we would expect to hear the various criticisms of the war, but we would also expect those to be juxtaposed to the fact that, while U.S. soldiers are dying in Iraq fighting Al Qaeda, no terrorists have killed Americans on U.S. soil since 9/11. One would expect at least a serious attempt to explore the possibility that the “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” strategy, might actually be working.
Did CNN show the balance that they promise us day in and day out? Have they delivered on their assurances that they can be “trusted” to provide both perspectives as Americans go to the polls in just a week from now?
Well, here’s a hint: the segment isn’t entitled “Is the Government Working?” or “The Government’s Performance – A Review”. No, it’s called “Broken Government”. And it pretty much delivers on the title, providing a litany of reasons why we should vote out the Republicans. An expansion of Democrat talking points.
Put another way its unbalanced and unfair “news” you cannot trust – pretty much the opposite of what they promise us.
I was flipping through the channels while having dinner and noticed Lynn Cheney on Wolf Blitzer. It was pretty obvious Wolf had her on under the pretext of discussing her new book, but in fact he was attempting to score points – Democrat talking points that is – by suggesting that Lynn Cheney’s previous book Sisters was akin to Webb’s now notorious writings.
Not only did she handle herself well (she got poor Wolf to sheepishly admit he wanted America to win the war on terror after scolding him for the sniper segment), but the comparison itself showed just how far into never never land CNN is willing to go for the Dems.
OC Chronicle also saw the segment and was able find the reference to “lesbianism” in Sisters Wolf was attempting to compare to Webb’s writings.
Lets see how fair of a comparison it is:
Webb explicitly refers to a father placing his son’s penis in his mouth. On another occasion he writes of woman slicing bananas with her vagina.
Versus Lynn Cheney who writes about……two women embracing.
On one hand we have two women embracing, and on the other hand we have a fruit slicing vagina and incestuous pedophilia.
CNN…fair…..balanced……the “most trusted name in news”.
Is it me or is has there been a palpable shift in momentum in the mid-terms over the last few days. Last week Hugh Hewitt suggested the Dems hit their high water mark about a week and a half ago. Some accused him of being an RNC cheerleader. But since then we’ve heard about the possibility of oversampling of Democrats in the polls, that the GOTV effort is as strong as ever, the prospect of Pelosi leading the country setting in, the huge Republican cash advantage, with the result that the media doesn’t seem to sound so sure of themselves of a Dem victory any more.
It seems that the Dems and their media enablers may have jumped the gun a tad.
In any event, this election will certainly be interesting.
Boy oh boy are there a lot of articles in the mainstream press talking about the demise of the Republicans in the mid-terms. Many are talking as if its already happened.
It does seem far fetched that all the polls could be off. Then again, three years ago, I pretty much believed everything I saw and read in the mainstream press. If you asked me then whether all the media could be wrong about a particular story, I would have laughed at the question. Today, depending on how politically charged the issue is, I would answer that question with a resounding ‘yes’.
The Republicans could very well lose, and lose big. But I’ve seen enough non-existent chickens over the past three years to know that this ain’t over yet.
What do Iran and N. Korea share, technology wise? Probably everything. Or everthing that matters from a global security perspective.
Which means there’s a real possibility Iran could be further ahead with its nuclear program than we think. Note that all of the “expert” estimates, which are themselves wide ranging, generally refer to Iran’s indigenous program. But Iran is/was just one shipment container away from having its own nuke(s). Iran, with its rich history of fighting proxy wars through terrorist organizations, may have a nuke.
It’s time we start thinking about the unthinkable. The age of nuclear terrorism may already be upon us.
N. Korea just created a 4.2 magnitude earthquake……via nuclear bomb.
As we get closer to the November elections, the MSM is becoming ever more brazen in abusing their position of “trusted purveyors of news” by advocating for the Dems under the guise of “reporting”.
While examples of media bias abound, due to the inherent ambiguity of reporting, there is often sufficient wiggle room to enable the offending member of the media to offer some explanation not owing to bias. We are often left with having to lump a particular story in with many other stories of its kind in order to make a case on a macro level. One story about about a bombing in Iraq in and of itself is not evidence of bias. But combine that story with a thousand other bombing stories, and juxtapose that with the complete lack of any positive story out of Iraq, and you’ve got a pretty strong argument of systematic bias.
The problem is systematic bias is an indirect indictment on the industry as a whole, and therefore holds no particular news organization to account.
And so the plausible, yet unlikely, explanations from the MSM continue. And so does the bias. However, every once in a while we have an opportunity to witness an undeniable example of media abuse. Rathergate was one example. The Israel/Hezbollah war photo-shopping was another.
This week we have yet another example. Powerline has the details: Two candidates. Two criminal complaints made against each (with the one against the Democratic candidate being far more recent). The complaint against the Republican (on a decades old charge) makes the front page. The complaint against the Democrat gets no coverage at all.
Its as if it was part of a social/scientific experiment involving a manipulated control group. There’s no wiggle room here.
Like a rat going for the cheese, the MSM just couldn’t help itself.