>It is just plain naive to �forget�/�overlook� the left wing >propoganda that our national media broadcasts cloaked in >the veil of �national news.�

There is nothing to forget. I started out on the Right (raised Conservative Republican, voted Republican the first several years I could vote, then switched parties and have been traveling to the Left ever since.) Never in my life have I believed the myth of the Liberal Media however, not when I was on the Right and supported Bush I, not when I was in the Center and supported Perot, and not now. A Right Wing media I can show you — a Liberal media I cannot. Are there liberal reporters? Sure. More than the proportion in the general populace? Sure — “What Journalists Think of Journalists in 2004: Views on Profits, Performance and Politics” reveals the following statistics :

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.” . . .

(the study was collaborative between Pew Research and the Princeton Institute of Journalism)

So absolutely, more reporters consider themselves liberal than consider themselves liberal in the general populace (though that difference goes away if you do an issue by issue poll — but that’s another whole discussion on language), and fewer consider themselves conservative.

Even ignoring the fact however that the study ignores the issue of where pundits and owners stand (the two groups most likely to be conservative in media), and also ignores the fact that highly partisan media on both sides were excluded or underrepresented in the study — even so — the question really is WHAT IS BROADCAST AND WRITTEN — not where do people individually stand. Outside of the two lightning rods in the social arena (gay rights and abortion) I deny the presumption that the media is liberal in any real sense. I’m a liberal, don’t you think that I would recognize my own rhetoric being fed back to me? Believe me, I would. In general, it isn’t. When dealing with important issues, the media tends primarily to spread pap [meaningless, and unimportant information] rather than substance — when they do deal with substance, they deal primarily with negativity, and when they deal with negativity, they do it in such a manner that they benefit those on the right. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by media statistics and research on important issues. Let me give you a couple of examples that are praticularly important to us today:

Let me refer you to a series of studies by the Princeton Associates for the Committee of Concerned Journalists and the Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Charitable Trust (long name, amazing results! *smile*) regarding the last Presidential election, they examined content and quality of 430 stories from major news publications, programs and websites from the time period leading up to the 2000 election.

My contentions: Pap — well, 70% focused on either the candidates television performances or strategies. Fewer than 10% dealt with policy and policy differences. Less than 1% dealt with either candidates vision for his presidency and America. [Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Charitable Trust The Last Lap: How the Press Covered the Final Stages of the Presidential Campaign. Princeton, NJ, 2001.]

Negatives intended to influence to the Right — let’s see. Of 1,149 stories randomly selected over the course of the election in 2000 for review, themes were that Gore was scandal-tainted (42% of all stories regarding Gore), that he was a liar (34% of all stories published about him at all) and coming in dead last, that he was competent, experienced, and widely knowledgeable (14% of all stories). This despite the fact that any amount of research would have revealed that the he simply was not part of the Monica Lewinski scandal (which is the scandal the press most often linked him to) and that in fact, he had made not a single one of the three statements that the media pegged him as a liar for, in anything resembling the form which he was accused of making them in by the opposing party.

The same study however clearly showed that the opposite was true for Bush. 40% of all assertions and stories about Bush were shown in the study to be that he was a different kind of conservative, a “compassionate conservative” — one of his direct campaign themes being parroted by the media. Another 16% challenged this idea — the only negatives to be found attacking Bush in the random article sample — effectively the opposite of Gore’s positive and negative numbers. [Both paragraphs from Project for Excellence in Journalism; Character: How the Media Handled the Issue and How the Public Has Reacted; Princeton, NJ, 2001]

Simultaneously, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, in combination with the Pew Charitable Trust found that the majority (83%) of statements about candidates were actually given by either the candidates themselves, or by their opponents, and were taken without reference to the public record, or investigative methods. To be fair therefore, no one, not even Sasso, claims that the Left is as good at what I would call shameless self-promotion, and lying, as is the Right on the national political scene — so I cannot call this outright proof of right-wing bias, but what I can say is that the effective result of reporting is that the media consistently paints conservative candidates in a better light than liberal ones — and I would maintain likewise, that a factual study of articles will show that outside the narrow constraints of social liberalism, where there is a significant majority of Americans that support the “liberal” positions — the papers will be revealed to also publish more articles with right wing slant than with left wing slant.

>Didn�t anyone watch the debates? Can anyone honestly say >that Kerry wasnt thrown softballs in all 3 debates?

I certainly did watch the debates, and I counted 4 debates, because I count Vice Presidential candidates as people too. Let’s see, in an election where Mr. Rove (Republican strategist) has said that he makes turning out the final 4,000,000 of the President’s evangelical right wing base the basis for his reelection, two (2) of the four (4) moderators spent significant amounts of time discussing wedge issues that are important to the Right (gay rights, abortion, roe v. wade, and faith). Even setting aside serious policy questions, which were asked of both sides, and should have been asked — and regardless of whether or not the wedge issues should have been accorded as much time as they were considering the more serious issues facing us – those questions and questions about the War on Terror and Iraq dominated the debates. So no, I don’t think Kerry got softballs by any stretch, neither by the way do 2 fairly close friends of mine who are members of the Republican Committee in my area. Both have congratulated me on “my team” sweeping the debates.

>Are we so quick to forget Rathergate? Were it not for the >astute observations of the public, including bloggers, the >preconceived political underhandedness of both CBS news >and Dan Rather (dont forget Senator Cleeland), would have >succeeded.

Unlike Senator Kerry’s record, which is public, and proved the lies of the Swiftboat Veterans — public records on President Bush do not yet show him to have actually completed the service that was required of him. To the contrary, they show that he in a number of ways shirked that service. Further, the only testimony we have regarding his entry into the guard, outside of his own, has been that of a political official who says he got him in. A braver, less ethical Democratic party would have rammed that down his throat by now. You had better believe that if similar papers existed for Kerry, the Republican party would have rammed it down his. Dan Rather got fooled, admitted it, and apologized. The Swifties have been repudiated over and over — where’s their apology and admission of error? How about Fox News? Hmmmm?

Regards,

Reynolds C. Jones

Stephen Bainbridge, a (conservative) UCLA corporate law professor has explained the slim chance of getting anywhere by suing Sinclair (he took the same position on CBS).

For slightly off-topic posts:

Raoul: “the FCC has the right to abridge free speech. … If [Powell] personally believes that a broadcast is indecent (defined by his whim) then the FCC can heavily fine each station.”

Sorry, the definition of indecent is written in law. Unfortunately, it can’t include any judgements regarding value, so it says things like “showing breasts” instead of “showing breasts in a sexy manner.” That’s why ridiculous things get called indecent (and why there’s a list of no-no words).

Raoul: “This so funny. Unless you are prepared to suggest that the Vietnam War was a good idea … you have absolutely nothing bad to say about John Kerry�s protest of the war.”

Well, I have more respect for Kerry now that I’ve seen a pretty good documentary on him (I see how Viet Nam shaped his time in the Senate, even without passing many laws, for instance). However, I think there are several ways somebody can disagree with Kerry’s way of doing things while not considering the Viet Nam War a good idea.

I, personally, look at present-day South Korea, compare it to present-day North Korea, and present-day Viet Nam, and I can’t help but wonder what the world would have been like if we had won Viet Nam. As such, I believe Johnson’s decision to run the war single-handedly was a bad idea (and probably led to the many nonsense missions our soldiers were scratching their heads about), and disagree with Kerry’s anti-war protests.

Others disagree with Kerry’s decision to protest the war by tarring the reputation of the soldiers and veterans. In that case, it’s a question of tactics, not message.

Raoul: “Afghanistan? Elections? Are you serious? The so called elections in Afghanistan were a total joke, fraught with intimidation of voters by warlords and their soldiers, multiple registrations and deception from the beginning that resulted in the election of our hand picked puppet dictator.”

The elections in Afghanistan were run by the UN.

The incumbent, in any election, has an advantage, so Karzai’s winning the election didn’t surprise anyone. We (the US) even tried to keep him from running for precisely this reason.

Nate: “Any overseas miltary voter that votes for Bush should have his or her head examined.”

It’s well-known that the military almost always votes Republican (about 60-70%). Even during war.

Are you resorting to calling me a communist? LOL!!! Wow you are desperate. The war in Vietnam didn�t have anything to do with communism, other than the fact that the Soviets claimed to be communist. Our war was one of proxy with the Soviets. We would have been at war with the Soviets no matter what ideology that they claimed to be associated with. They were the other big boys on the block. And I got news for ya, they are going to come back, and after Bush has decimated our military, we will not be able to stand toe to toe with the Russians or the Chinese. Way to go Bush and Rummy, selling our future down the road just to chase cheap 3rd rate thugs like Osama and Saddam.

And as far as dealing with communist are concerned, we don�t have any problems kissing the Chinese communists on the ass and giving them whatever they want, why because they have money to spend. The idea that we were trying to protect the Vietnamese from communism is a joke.

Our involvement in Vietnam led to the deaths of at least 3 million people that would not have necessarily died otherwise but for our involvement.

Interesting that you mention communists since the war in Iraq was orchestrated by �Neo-cons� who all happen to be former communists and students of Leo Strauss and Trotsky. Fairly ironic stuff.

With regards to the Taliban, we installed that government. We were responsible for their rise to power. At best, we are trying to clean up our own mess. No credit given for cleaning up your own mess.

�Where are their complaints about the Taliban and fundamentalist Islam in general.� How about the fact that we armed, trained, financed and then threw away an entire generation of Islamic Jihadists for our own selfish purposes. We as a people are directly responsible for all of their atrocities.

What should we do? We should stay in Afghanistan for about another year or two and then leave. However, after we leave we should stay engaged with them and not ignore them like Bush did when he was on vacation.

My previous rant was in response to the comment: �The little coverage afforded those who speak up about Kerry�s horrible record is set up as a hit piece�see the latest ABC interviews with communists in Vietnam to disprove the Swiftvets story – only to also disprove Kerry�s story according to his autobiography�some witnesses!�

My rant was relevant because the fictional propaganda piece that will run on the Sinclair stations is purported to deal mainly with Kerry�s record of Vietnam protests. Therefore, my �rant� was relevant and responsive in that Kerry�s record cannot be �horrible� because he was dead on right with everything he said. Vietnam was a mistake that led to over a decade of financial woes for this country. We were spending over 10% of our GDP on that mistake.

While I�m at it, I find it hysterical that one would assail the credibility of the villagers that were attacked that day by Kerry and the men under his command. Are you suggesting that the Vietnamese� account is un-credible because they are biased towards the commanding officer who was in charge of burning their village to the ground?

Interestingly, in the same breath that you assail their credibility you suggest that they disprove Kerry�s version of the story.

However, the VC commander�s version doesn�t contradict Kerry�s version. He says that the 27/28 year old male VC, in Black pajamas (what practically everyone wore) was shot by machine gun fire from the boat, ran 25 meters and then died. When asked if John Kerry also chased and shot the man, he said he did not know. His account is inconclusive.

As far as the Swiftvets� story goes, those guys are still bent out of shape because Kerry came back from Vietnam called it right, they objected, and were made to look like fools. It�s a tuff call for them, their entire self image is wrapped up in opposing Kerry and the fact that they killed other men in an illegal war that was fought for little or no reason. It�s a hard thing to swallow; killing other people for no reason. Many times people are compelled to keep killing as each additional senseless death make the earlier deaths seem less significant.

If Bush is reelected it is only because, we as Americans are unable to confront our own mistakes and our own guilt. It�s particularly galling that the so-called Republicans are so opposed to accepting responsibility for their own actions.

Don’t worry they will when they vote. The polls are so skewed.

“And the overseas military vote is likely to be even stronger against us than in 2000. Ugh.”

I disagree. The discontent in the miltary is seriously high with the Bush adminstration. The neo-cons have done a number and lots of people are pissed. Another four years and we might be looking at a coup.

If we are going to win this, we must deal with reality. For whatever reason, a very large majority of military personnel and their families favor bush. There are two polls out there in agreement on that conclusion. We can’t just call them crazy or dumb or misguided; we’ve got to try to figure out a constructive way to address them.

And now we have a growing problem with women voters. The Senator’s Wed. night comments have started a backlash among moms. Again, we can’t just deny it; we’ve got to counter it in order to survive.

Similarly, the “Beware the Draft” approach is making us look silly, and worse, painting us as Chicken Littles on all of our other points. We need to be credible to be successful, so let’s put our heads together and think of something real — not exaggerated — that will actually sell among the main stream of this country.

We can’t just cocoon == we’ll lose by a lot. Let’s be constructive NOW.

i’m a bit disappointed to see a reiteration of Powell’s misrepresntation on this site. Josh Marshall posted a letter from Reed Hunt, former chair of the FCC, where he points out:
Reed Hundt responds to Michael Powell …
Dear Josh:

Eighteen senators, all Democrats, wrote to Powell this week and asked him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group’s plan to run the program, “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,” two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.”

But no one has asked the FCC to bar Sinclair from showing the program. There are only two issues for the FCC and only two requests to Chairman Powell.

The issues are: if Sinclair shows this anti-Kerry propaganda (which can be downloaded from Internet, lest anyone question the characterization), then (1) should it also give a free hour to pro-Kerry content selected by any authentic progressive organization, and (2) will Sinclair face at least the prospect after the fact of a review of its fulfillment of its public interest duties.

And the two requests are: (1) will the Chairman of the FCC remind Sinclair and other broadcasters by word and deed that they have public interest obligations, and (2) will the Chairman of the FCC investigate now, before the propaganda airs, whether Sinclair has a duty to give an hour to pro-Kerry content selected by any progressive organization?

Chairman Powell instead pretends that he has been asked to bar the showing of the propaganda — which no one has asked him to do. His remarks are so far off the point, and he is so intelligent, that one must conclude that he knows what he is doing and intends the result — tacit and plain encouragement of the use of the Sinclair airwaves to pursue a smear campaign. No broadcast group in the history of America has ever committed an hour to smearing a presidential candidate, and no FCC chairman before this one would have reacted with equanimity to this radical step down in broadcasting ethics.”

So if we don’t make it perfect than any steps forward that achieve less than a utopian ideal should not have been taken? Complaints by human rights and women’s groups??????? Where are their complaints about the Taliban and fundamentalist Islam in general.

What do you suggest should be done with Afghanistan? I can pontificate and criticize others all day long when I’m not responsible for making things happen in the real world.

You still haven’t answered my question as to what your first post was referring to.

IMHO, we won’t leave Iraq in our lifetime, by the way. Think of post-war Germany – still there after how many years? Look at a map of the region and see how strategic this country is geographically.

In closing, I see from your first posting that you believe that protecting the Vietnam people from communism was not a worthwhile goal. If you feel that communism is no worse than our system of government, then I don’t think our conversation will yield any fruit because our fundamental views of the world differ too much.