It’s one of the great mysteries of our time: If the news media have a liberal bias, as is generally supposed, why is the press so much more deferential to Republicans than it is to Democrats?
You might disagree with that premise, but I don’t think it can be denied. Bill Clinton was ripped apart for a nonexistent scandal (Whitewater) and for his personal failings (the Lewinsky matter). Al Gore was battered for minor exaggerations and for things he didn’t even say (such as the false assertion that he’d claimed to have “invented” the Internet). John Kerry was deeply wounded by the obvious lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration has never really been held to account for offenses both high (launching a disastrous war on the basis of hyped intelligence) and low (Dick Cheney’s shooting an elderly hunting partner in the face).
In recent years, media observers such as Eric Alterman (“What Liberal Media?”) and Joe Conason (“Big Lies”) have tried to explain this conundrum. Now comes former Salon media columnist Eric Boehlert, whose “Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush” (Free Press) documents in sometimes mind-numbing detail the ways in which the media routinely pick over every minor Democratic flaw while ignoring much more important instances of perfidy on the Republican side.
My own view — not entirely original — is that though much of our major media are imbued with a mild liberal cultural bias on issues such as gay rights, reproductive choice and the role of religion in society, that bias does not extend to the way they cover politics. Indeed, it often seems that the way liberal reporters make their bones is by tormenting liberal politicians. And with partisan Republican media such as the Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and the Wall Street Journal editorial page constantly charging “liberal bias,” life is much easier for journalists if they tilt to the right.
Boehlert’s book would have benefited from a stronger analytical tone. His methodology is largely one of documenting media somnolence in the face of outrageous behavior by Bush, Cheney, et al. and then asking his readers how the media would have reacted if a Democrat had engaged in similar offenses. Most of the material Boehlert offers will be familiar to readers who follow this stuff. The principal strength of “Lapdogs” is that Boehlert shows the easy treatment of Bush has continued since the 2004 election, thus updating the earlier work done by Alterman and Conason.
Slate’s Jack Shafer recently criticized “Lapdogs” on the grounds that Boehlert largely confines his critique to television news and talking-heads shows, giving a pass to our two most important news organizations, the New York Times and the Washington Post. If the Times and the Post aren’t part of the problem, Shafer asks, how can Boehlert complain that the media lean Republican? But I don’t read “Lapdogs” the way Shafer does; in fact, Boehlert cites numerous examples from both papers. A very short list would include:
- The Times’ decision to hold its Pulitzer Prize-winning story on the secret, no-warrant NSA wiretapping program from before the 2004 election until December 2005.
- The Post’s repeated editorializing in favor of the war in Iraq.
- The Times’ indulgence of Judith Miller’s flawed reporting on Iraq’s supposed weapons capabilities.
- The Post’s role in concocting that fake Gore quote about “inventing” the Internet, endlessly repeated by the sneering Washington press corps.
Boehlert gives due credit to media watchdogs such as the Daily Howler and Media Matters for America. Ultimately, though, that’s the problem with “Lapdogs.” The distinctive voice and edge Boehlert usually brings to his work is frequently missing here, replaced by his voluminous but not fully digested research.
Still, there’s a lot of valuable information in “Lapdogs,” and it shows how the goal of the right, as Boehlert puts it, “is to create a news culture where there are few if any agreed upon facts, thereby making serious debate impossible.” That is by far the most disturbing aspect of the media wars taking place today, and Boehlert does a good job of shining a light on it.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My guess is that there are several things at play in creating a MSM that has been deferential to Bush. Part of it are the personal relationships between members of the press and individual political leaders and how that leads to less scrutiny, especially when those political leaders wield considerable power. But this doesn’t really explain why Clinton got such negative press.I think another thing that may be going on is that individual members of the press have so internalized criticism of liberal bias that they are altering the way they report the news. There are some great examples of the double-standards that this leads to. For example, when the GOP former governor of Illinois was convicted of corruption, most major news organizations failed to mention that he was a Republican. However, when Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana was found to have $90K of apparent bribe money in his freezer, these same news organizations dutifully reported that Rep. Jefferson was a Democrat.Sometimes this isn’t very subtle. Remember last year’s failed push for changes in Social Security and the number of MSM outlets that switched their terminology from “private accounts” to “personal accounts” when the White House said using the former term was evidence of bias. Ditto for “nuclear option,” which started as a GOP term for ending the filibuster on judicial nominations, but which they later disavowed and pushed some reporters to say it was the Democrats’ term.I think there’s also something in the liberal mindset that resists orthodoxy, even when it’s liberal orthodoxy.
Your post on the lack of liberal media bias is filled with…liberal bias. Perfect.Whitewater was a non scandal? Tell that to the 15 people convicted, including the sitting governor of Ark. and the deputy attorney general appointed by Clinton.”Fifteen individuals were convicted as part of the Whitewater scandal,according to a web page called “Clinton Convicts.”http://members.tripod.com/~cbn2/convicts.htmlAccording to an Independent Counsel report on the web site of C-Span [http://www.c-span.org/report/Final%20ICreport/appe.pdf ] KennethStarr was appointed on August 5, 1994. During Mr Starr’s tenure,convictions were obtained from the following individuals:Robert PalmerWeb Hubbell Christopher WadeNeal AinleyStephen SmithLarry KucaJim Guy TuckerJames McDougalSusan McDougalWilliam Marks SrJohn HaleyThus, it would appear that the individuals whose convictions wereobtained by a prosecutor other than Mr Starr were:David HaleEugene FitzhughCharles MatthewsJohn LathamIt’s worth noting that Susan McDougal, Robert Palmer, Stephen Smith and Christopher Wade received pardons from President Clinton on1/20/01.”Some non-scandal. Clinton’s ‘personal failings’ became public once he stared orchestrating a cover-up. He lied to his cabinet and the American people. He urged people to lie on the stand and committed perjury himself. There is nothing personal about that!As for the Iraq war being a “disaster” that is laughable considering what we have accomplished. Liberating 25 million from tryanny used to be reason for alleged liberals to celebrate. Establishing a democracy in the heart of the middle east, no big deal. We should have maintained the Clinton posture of leaving AlQaeda alone and treating global terrorism as a law enforcement matter.How’s the weather on the moral high ground? Please keep writing about the lack of liberal media bias, I can’t think of anything more amusing.
DAn you really lose credibility with this post. You make so many inaacuarate assetrtions, that you only further make the case that liberalism has devolved into a “bumper sticker” ideology/religion with no substantial basis. Your claims are so absurd and so easy to debunk. You should really start to do your hmework Dan.For exampleYou say:”It’s one of the great mysteries of our time: If the news media have a liberal bias, as is generally supposed, why is the press so much more deferential to Republicans than it is to Democrats?”According to the findings of The Freedom Forum (an independent foundation that examines media related issues) and The Roper Center (an opinion research firm with an outstanding reputation) journalists in the mainstream media are predominantly liberal: 89 percent of the journalists said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, compared with just 43 percent of non-journalist voters.7 percent of the journalists voted for George Bush; 37 percent of the voters did.2 percent of the news people voted for Ross Perot while 19 percent of the electorate did.50 percent (of journalists) said they were Democrats.4 percent (of journalists) said they were Republicans.Prominent liberal journalist Evan Thomas of Newsweek attests to the liberal bias in the media. “There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some of the statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic; they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.” The political leanings of the mainstream media are out of touch with mainstream Americans. “A poll back in 1972 showed that of those reporters who voted, 70 percent went for McGovern, the most liberal presidential nominee in recent memory, while 25 percent went for Nixon- the same Richard Nixon who carried every single state in the union except Massachusetts.” In 1985 the LA times conducted a nationwide survey of about three thousand journalists and the same number of people in the general public to gauge their feelings on important issues:23 percent of the public said they were liberal; 55 percent of the journalists described themselves as liberal.56 percent of the public favored Ronald Reagan; 30 percent of the journalists favored Reagan.49 percent of the public was for a woman’s right to have an abortion; 82 percent of the journalists were pro-choice.74 percent of the public was for prayer in public schools; 25 percent of the journalists surveyed were for prayer in the public schools.56 percent of the non-journalists were for affirmative action; 81 percent of the journalists were for affirmative action.75 percent of the public was for the death penalty; 47 percent of journalists were for the death penalty.Half the public was for stricter hand gun controls; 78 percent of the journalists were for tougher gun controls. ABC’s late Peter Jennings admits a liberal media bias. “ Historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too ling in my view to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are.” In his book Weapons of Mass Distortion, Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, chronicles media bias with regard to taxation, environmental issues, gun control, religion, and abortion. For example he references the three broadcast networks’ coverage of the Bush tax-cut proposal of January 2003. Between January 2-15 of that year he and his colleagues found on ABC, CBS, and NBC 28 stories about the proposal. In these he says, “the liberal mantra was repeated over and over. Bush’s tax cuts comforts only the rich.” Americans’ trust of the mainstream media continues to decline. A July 2003 Pew Center repost showed that 53% “believed that news organizations are politically biased” and “twice as many say news organizations are politically biased” and “twice as many say news organizations are ‘liberal’ (51%) than ‘conservative.’”An August 2003 Gallup survey showed that 46% of Americans when asked how much trust they have in the news media, said, “not very much” or “none at all.” Dan, to deny there is no liberal bias in the media is risible at this point. Totally absurd and an insult to our intelligence.On another point you claim:”Bill Clinton was ripped apart for a nonexistent scandal (Whitewater) and for his personal failings (the Lewinsky matter).”Wrong again Dan.First with regards to Whitewater;Independent Counsel Robert Ray’s final Whitewater report released the week of March 18, 2002, concluded that Whitewater was a “serious bank fraud involving numerous Clinton intimates; a dozen people went to jail. The main Clinton business partners Jim and Susan McDougal were convicted on multiple fraud and conspiracy charges. A former Governor of Arkansas (Jim Guy Tucker) was convicted and so was their close friend, Webb Hubbell, whom Mr. Clinton made the number three man at the Justice Department.” Nonexistent scandal? That was more accurately the so-called “Rove-leak scandal” or the non-existent “Bush lied” scandal. Come on Dan.As for the Lewinsky matter bieng a “personal issue.”Lewinsky’s testimony was vital to the Paula Jones sexual harassment case against Clinton. Paula Jones accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment. She alleged that Clinton pulled his pants down while governor of Arkansas and told her to “kiss it”. To build her case Mrs. Jones had to demonstrate that there was a clear pattern of this type of behavior exhibited in the past by Mr. Clinton. When the Lewinsky tapes were made public Jones’ attorneys called Lewinsky to the Grand Jury to testify. Indeed Lewinsky fit the pattern of Clinton sexual exploitation of women. Lewinsky’s testimony was vital to the Paula Jones case. While “consenting sex” may be a “private” matter, when this sexual relationship influences a public court case involving the president himself, the “consenting” sex becomes publicly relevant. Those on the left claim that the Lewinsky affair was nobody’s business because of its “private nature”. Yet as soon as the affair became public news, it ceased to be a “private matter.” The fact moreover, that the sexual acts between Clinton and Lewinsky took place in the Oval Office (paid for by taxpayers money) further made this a “public” matter. Clinton attempted to use his political power to fix a court case of which he was the lone defendant. The Clinton apologists who assert that “it was just sex” however miss the larger point. The issue is not whether it was legally permissible for the two to engage in sexual acts of perversion with cigars. Although it might have been “legal”, it was not “legal” to hide the relationship from investigators in hearing the Jones’ case. Clinton in essence tried to fix the Jones’ court case by appealing to witnesses to lie about Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky claiming at first (before the “blue dress”) that Lewinsky only delivered “pizza to the president.” He also made calls to Betty Curry, his secretary, asking her to hide gifts that he had previously purchased for Ms. Lewinsky. Clinton lied about the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky before the tapes and blue dress surfaced. He then asked other witnesses to lie on his behalf in front of the Grand Jury. Clinton obstructed justice. The Lewinsky scandal was much more than a private sexual matter, as those on the left continue to claim even today. The main issue, which this assertion conveniently ignores, is that when the Lewinsky relationship went public, Mr. Clinton had a legal obligation not to interfere with the Jones’ case of which he was the defendant. Jones had every legal right to call Lewinsky and other pertinent witnesses to testify to build her case. When Clinton perjured himself, suborned the perjury of others, and tampered with witnesses he obstructed justice. Clinton violated his sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of our country. What Clinton did in the final analysis was far more destructive than merely conducting an immoral and indiscrete sexual relationship with an intern in the Oval Office (and via the telephone-, which by the way could have easily been intercepted by a foreign nation inimical to the U.S.). As the Chief Executive of the United States arguably the most powerful person in the free world, Clinton had the sacred and sworn obligation to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution and laws of our country. Because the president is entrusted with overseeing that the laws of our country are faithfully and properly executed, any breach of that duty and obligation by the president himself can have disastrous consequences for the entire country. If the president doesn’t follow the laws and he is the chief executive primarily responsible for executing them why should an average citizen comply with the law? Is it any wonder that corporate corruption and moral decline in our nation during the Clinton Administration was so pervasive? Our country was founded upon the rule of law. Lady Liberty is blindfolded to denote the impartiality and equality under the law to all citizens of our justice system regardless of their status. Clinton attempted to remove the blindfold to manipulate the legal system in his favor. He attempted to use the power and influence of his government authority to manipulate the outcome of a court case brought against him by a private citizen. That’s what the case was about. “Sex between two consenting adults” had nothing to do with Clinton’s far worse dereliction and violation of his duty as chief executor of the laws.You claim: “John Kerry was deeply wounded by the obvious lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.” Name one from the book directly Dan. Kerry was not able to. It will be interesting for you to rebut any of their specific claims from the book. did you read hte book Dan?As to this absurd claim:”Meanwhile, the Bush administration has never really been held to account for offenses both high (launching a disastrous war on the basis of hyped intelligence) and low (Dick Cheney’s shooting an elderly hunting partner in the face).””Bush lied?” Again with Bush lied. This is beyond preposterous at this point in time. JDem political hack and Kerry campaign lackey joe Wilson was the proven liar who first made this allegation proven to be a lie. No Bush never lied or manipulated intelligence info.President Bush did not mislead Americans with regard to the threat Saddam posed to the United States. President Bush’s famous 16-word statement in his 2003 State of the Union that Iraq had been seeking uranium ore from Africa was factually correct. Indeed this was the information that the CIA presented to him and vouched for. While the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on pre-war intelligence found that intelligence provided by the CIA was mistaken, they also found that neither Bush nor any of his administration officials, “attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.” The British government released a pre-war intelligence report in July, 2004 which concluded that: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999,” said the Brits. “The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.” The British government still stands by this conclusion.The Senate report said that on Sept. 24. 2002, the CIA instructed the White House that it could say: “We also have intelligence that Iraq has sought large amounts of uranium and uranium oxide, known as yellowcake, from Africa.” The report concludes that: “no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the ‘16 words’” from the State of the Union address. Moreover, the Senate Report concluded that: there was no evidence that any administration official “attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.” Sorry Dan wrong again. You are a nice guy Dan. But this is a really shoddy analysis. B-Team at best. You can do better.Gregg JacksonPundit Review Radio
Anon. 10:38 – That post is filled with conservative bias. I think Dan’s point was that the Clintons were a non-issue in Whitewater. In fact, they were victims. And funny how you move to the coverup issue without noting that at that point, the investigation wasn’t even ABOUT Whitewater anymore – it was about Monica Lewinsky.
For an abridged version of the previous post, please go to: this link.
Gregg –Your post is a weird combination of refuting arguments I did not make and of accepting things I actually said and using them against me. I am not going to take up all of them, so filled as they are with half-truths and distortions. But let me take up a few.1. I assert quite plainly that most journalists are liberal. Please learn to read before you respond. The Brent Bozell thing you quote tracks precisely what I wrote about journalists’ liberal cultural bias. The question is why they are more inclined torment Democrats than Republicans.2. I have been calling Joe Wilson a liar for years. Do you not realize that? Just yesterday, I referred to his “headline-seeking and dissembling”. Indeed, a joint congressional investigation found that Wilson’s trip to Niger lent more support, not less, to the notion that Saddam had sought yellowcake. Still, though — the White House outed an undercover CIA operative.3. Whitewater — please! You really need to educate yourself about the Arkansas Project. The false imprisonment of Susan McDougal is one of the great scandals of the past 20 years.4. Lewinsky — ask yourself how a private sexual matter between consenting adults was transformed into a perjury trap aimed at impeaching and removing a democratically elected president.5. I have not said Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. You accuse me of saying something I deliberately did not say. Pay attention. What Bush must be held account for is going to war at a time when UN weapons inspectors were still ramping up and the question of whether there were WMD in Iraq was as yet unanswered.6. I’m sorry that you have fallen for the lies of the Swifties. I have not read the book, but I am familiar with their claims. I also know that it’s been proven irrefutably that they have lied about their whereabouts when these events occurred, and that the men who actually served with Kerry have stood by their account of his bravery.
Go get ’em Dan!
Woohoo, Dan!
“Your post is a weird combination of refuting arguments I did not make and of accepting things I actually said and using them against me. I am not going to take up all of them, so filled as they are with half-truths and distortions. But let me take up a few.” Why don’t you take up the specific examples I cite? What “haof truths are you referring to?” You have not refiuted one.1. I assert quite plainly that most journalists are liberal. Please learn to read before you respond. The Brent Bozell thing you quote tracks precisely what I wrote about journalists’ liberal cultural bias. The question is why they are more inclined torment Democrats than Republicans.”No you claim the MSM is more “deferential to Republicans which is absurd and can offer not one specific example.2. I have been calling Joe Wilson a liar for years. Do you not realize that? Just yesterday, I referred to his “headline-seeking and dissembling”. Indeed, a joint congressional investigation found that Wilson’s trip to Niger lent more support, not less, to the notion that Saddam had sought yellowcake. Still, though — the White House outed an undercover CIA operative.Fine, but what you claim: “Meanwhile, the Bush administration has never really been held to account for offenses both high (launching a disastrous war on the basis of hyped intelligence)” is a fallacious assertion. What should Bush admin be held “accountable” for if the only person who lied was a Dem apparchik Joe Wison? 3. Whitewater — please! You really need to educate yourself about the Arkansas Project. The false imprisonment of Susan McDougal is one of the great scandals of the past 20 years.I need to eduacte myself Dan? No I ponted out quite correctly how huge Whitewater was and how many people went to jail for their involvement in it. You are bieing disingenuous referring to it as a “non-existent scandal.” I have made the case that it was a very serious scandal indeed. You have not rebutted my claim.4. Lewinsky — ask yourself how a private sexual matter between consenting adults was transformed into a perjury trap aimed at impeaching and removing a democratically elected president.Dan, I answered this clearly. If you cannot read and rebut specific reasons why this was more than “just sex” between two consneitng adults, I can’t help you. You many want to resond to the specifics of what I said about it and write aobut in my book.5. I have not said Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. You accuse me of saying something I deliberately did not say. Pay attention. What Bush must be held account for is going to war at a time when UN weapons inspectors were still ramping up and the question of whether there were WMD in Iraq was as yet unanswered.Nice try. The fact is that The U.N. weapons inspectors were given 12 years to find weapons of mass destruction. Hussein during that time violated 16 United Nations Security Council Resolutions. “Hussein continued to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return Kuwaiti property; and working to circumvent UN’s economic sanctions.” Saddam failed to prove that he had disarmed during that 12-year inspection period. Only the threatened use of force by the United States and the “coalition of the willing” made Saddam destroy a handful of illegal missiles that he denied ever having. It was also discovered that Saddam had drone airplanes that could have been used for distributing poison gas or biological agents. According to the Iraq Survey Group’s Duelfer Report, there were multiple informants working within Unscom and Unmovic that kept the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed as to what sites were going to be inspected by the U.N. Weapons Inspectors. In late 2002 and early 2003, equipment and materials were removed from several sites 24 hours prior to U.N. inspections. The reports that there were multiple accounts of bribery of officials from several countries that were advocating either lifting or weakening sanctions. Inspectors could not be effective, according to the report, without the full support of the U.N. Security Council that was non-existent from late 1996 onward. Those are the facts Dan that rebut the silly notion that we “didn’t give the feckless UN enough time.”6. I’m sorry that you have fallen for the lies of the Swifties. I have not read the book, but I am familiar with their claims. I also know that it’s been proven irrefutably that they have lied about their whereabouts when these events occurred, and that the men who actually served with Kerry have stood by their account of his bravery.Sorry Dan. You have still to point out one example of a lie from the Swift Vets account in their book. I want you to substantiate the claims you posit.Looking forward to your responose. gregg
Gregg — I’ve already responded. Lord knows I don’t want to get bogged down in a debate over proven liars like the Swifties. I’m not going to bother to look up their names. But surely you know that one of them claims to have been on Kerry’s boat despite all evidence to the contrary, and that several of them had publicly praised Kerry on numerous occasions until 2004. Then there’s the guy who went from supporting Kerry to trashing him, then took it back, then took that back and started trashing him again. I mean, there’s just nothing there. Good luck with your book. It sounds like quite a read.
Dan,Thanks for the compliment on my book. It will be out in a few weeks. Can’t wait! It systematically rebuts the most common claims of the left from A to Z (“Bush Lied”, “Bush rushed to war,” “the media doesn’t have a left wing-liberal bias”, “the Swift Vets smeared kerry,” “Whitewater/Lewinsky were non-scandals” etc… Actually many of the same claims you make in your post that I rebutted with thoroughly documented well researched facts. I would love to het your feedback if you read it. Your response speaks volumes. For the record I will assume that since you cannot rebut my last post that you concur with it. While I am all about civil discourse, I am more concerned that the truth is acknowledged. When you make accusations that our vets are “proven liars” it is incumbant upon you to be very specific- not cast vague aspersions without documented proof. that is slander in my book and when our vets are slandered that bothers me. In the future I would advise you to be very careful about the claims you posit. When they can be easily and summarily disporven- as I have done-you lose credibility as a writer/blogger/journalist. For whatever its worth. By the way, we’ll be talking about many of hte issues you’ve raised on our Sunday night and will probably refer to this post if you would like to call in, we’d love to have you respond live.GreggGregg j Gregg
Gregg — I do hope you do well with your book. But let me explain something to you about the rules of debate: We both have to agree to debate. If you weigh in with a long, detail-laden, well-documented (but wrong) post explaining why the world is flat, it doesn’t necessarily follow that I must be wrong simply because I’m not going to take six hours to track down the information I need to rebut it. I know the world is round.You want documentation on the Swifties? Here you go. Bob Somerby is one of the finest media critics on the planet. And if you can’t offer me a detailed explanation of why he isn’t, well, I guess that means you must agree with me. And Gregg, you’re right, there are vets being viciously slandered. Let’s start with John Kerry and the brave men who served with him.
Dan,On the original topic (and I’ll keep my post brief– there’s a fine line between exhaustive and exhausting– you’re welcome, everybody!), I’m glad you pointed to Bob Somerby. He has been tireless (to the point of even me getting tired of it) in documenting how the press used Al Gore for a punching bag in 2000, and how the MSM was sycophantic towards Bush in the early going of the Iraq war (especially Bumiller’s “White House Letters,” best described as unpaid campaign advertisements in 2004).There is lots of bias pie to pass around on both sides of the aisle, depending on the topic, the author, the date, and your own point of view. Not having read the book you mention in the original post, I am just glad to see that both sides, not just Bernie Goldberg’s, of the bias issue are being examined, even if it takes two authors (and more) to do it….and I am huge fan of blogs like this one, Daily Howler (and Pundit Review too, Gregg and Kevin), that, at their best, hold the mainstream media accountable for shoddy, lazy, or biased reporting.
Dan,You claim still that my “well documented post” was “wrong” but still fail to rebut any of the following points I made regarding your main assertions from your original post. Let’s do a little review shall we- so we can keep accurate score of the debate.1. You claimed that the media is more “deferential” to Republicans than Democrats. you even provided a picture of Bush and his “lap dog” to buttress this insinuation. I provided multiple examples of polls/surveys/ and even libs like Evan Thomas and the late Peter Jennings who all concurred that the media has a strong leftward ideological tilt. You could not rebut my claim and demonstarte with any evidence that the media is more “deferential” to Republicans. 1-0 Me.2. Again you said: “Bill Clinton was ripped apart for a nonexistent scandal (Whitewater) and for his personal failings (the Lewinsky matter).” I disproved that assertion and provided ample evidence to the contrary which you never responded to much less attempted to rebut. On that point I will assume that you acknowledge the veracity of the substantiated evidence I provided which any reasonable person should be able to agree proves that Whitewater was one of the worse bank frauds in American history- not a non-scandal as you assert. 2-0 me.3. Ditto- the Lewinsky scandal. i proved that it was indeed a significant violation of the law by the commander and chief (as did my partner Kevin in his earlier post)- not a non-scandal as you state. The fact that we are even debating whether Clinton’s lying to the nation, subourning perjury, tampering with witnesses testimony, and attempting to fix a court case against a powerless average female citizen trying to get her day in court is pathetic. After ejaculating all over a White House intern his daughter’s age, Clinton later plead guilty and was not only impeached but disbarred from practicing law. Not a scandal? Come on Dan. you cannot be serious. Instead of ignoring my cogent analysis I provided and calling it well documented but false, why don’t you back up your claims and let your readers know what specific things I have said that have been false? I’d be curious to know. 3-0 me.4. You claim: “John Kerry was deeply wounded by the obvious lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.” I’ll ive you one more opportunity to name one from the book directly Dan. Kerry was not able to. It will be interesting for you to rebut any of their specific claims from the book. As to Kerry being a war hero, he admitted to war crimes, adided and abetted the enemy by calling our troops war crimminals wiht no proof,and can’t be trusted anyhow as he is a proven liar (Christmas in Cambodia ring a bell?) Perhaps we can set up a debate on the show with John O’Neil. My publicist was his and I could arrange it if you are willing? Would love to hear that “debate.” 4-0 me.5. You say: “Meanwhile, the Bush administration has never really been held to account for offenses both high (launching a disastrous war on the basis of hyped intelligence) and low (Dick Cheney’s shooting an elderly hunting partner in the face).”Again, I proved that your claim was false and you didn’t even attempt to disprove it. i will assume that you concur with my assessment. 5-0 me.So in review, I back up every point I made disproving your ambiguous bumper sticker claims you make in your original post and you can;t even admit to your readers that you have been intellectually lazy and are not able to support your major claims? With all due respect Dan, I am quite capable of debating and know the rules. my understanding is that the two people engaging in the debate answer the other’s questions directly instead of making blanket accusations of providing “false” information without any evidence. That is not B team. It’s d-Team if you ask me and I would beembarrassed that you could not rebut one single point I put forth tearing your origingal post to pieces. Again, 5 for me zip for you. Where am I wrong?Gregg
Gregg — This is pathetic. I’ll say it again: You can’t come into my house and demand that I dance to your tune. You’ve just written a book, and you’ve got all your talking points in your head. It would take me at least a day’s worth of work to rebut you in the kind of detail you’re looking for, and I’m not going to do it. Did you read Somerby? Have you read Alterman, Conason and Boehlert? Have you read the New York Times’ dissections of the Swifties? Of course, I realize I’m wasting my time, because you’ll just dismiss all of those sources as partisan.Tell you what — send me a review copy of your book when it’s ready. At that time, and not until then, I will try to put together the kind of point-by-point refutation you’re looking for. And here’s another invitation: e-mail Eric Boehlert and ask him to debate O’Neill on your show. Eric’s got all the details fresh in his head, and I don’t. I’m sure Eric would be glad to do it.I concede nothing. The time will come — when I get your book.
Once again the dictum that states “if it can’t be posted in 3 lines or less it isn’t worth the keystrokes” rings true. Why, DK, cater to the blather, bleat, and pule?
Dan, I admire your patience.
Geez, Gregg. Take a breath. Anyone who knows everything like you do, must get really tired. It won’t be long before we all get very tired of you.
Dan,Why even bother responding? Gregg Jackson has a book to sell–he can’t admit to being wrong about anything. He has his little set pieces that he has to display whether they are germane to your post or not.Strip away Gregg’s overheated and cliched rhetoric and you’re left with very little–I mean, “Whitewater was one of the worse [sic] bank frauds in American history”? How is it possible to take anyone seriously who can make such an assertion? Good luck with the book Gregg. Perhaps you can find some time to study American history now that you’ve finished writing it.One other thing:I just visited the Pundit Review site. I sure hope they have legal clearance to reprint all of their articles on their website, because otherwise that would be stealing.
Stella — “Pule”? I like that. I’m going to file it away for future use.
While he was so thoroughly researching his book, Gregg evidently didn’t take the time to look up the definition of perjury. Perjury requires that the falsehood be material to the case at hand. The judge in the Puala Jones case ruled that Clinton’s testimony regarding Lewinsky was immaterial. Clinton may have violated legal ethical rules, leading to his disbarment, but he didn’t commit the crime of perjury.
And then to have a wretched puling fool, a whining marmot, in her fortune’s tender.–Romeo and Juliet (What a memory, eh?)Gregg, take hatlo’s advice. Relax. In spite of overwhelming liberal bias in the media the Republican Party has somehow managed to get control of the Executive office and both houses of Congress. That means the liberal threat can be kept at bay long enough for you to take a few deep, cleansing breaths.Congratulations on having your book published. We need more such efforts. The political dialog in this country is already too polarized. You have obviously avoided the temptation to exploit this unfortunate polarizing trend for a quick buck, and have aimed instead for the more ambitious task of seeking common ground. 🙂
Anonymous:Of course Clinton committed perjury. The law has a well known liberal bias and hates America. Didn’t you know that?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Thank you, Dan.
Wow, I missed this whole shibang!Yeah, Gregg, while I mostly agree with everything you’re saying- I am a little puzzled about why you would choose the Comments Section on a blog to bust out your guns?That being said, go get em’ with your book.