The Senate Democrats' #2 compares the American military to Nazis, Stalinists, and Pol Pot's killer, and the story never gets near to the cover of the Washington Post. Karl Rove makes a valid assertion about the behavior of liberals, backed by evidence, and the fake outrage of those Senate Democrats makes page 1, but in a story without the pointed reply of George Pataki which happens to pivot on Durbin's slander. At least the New York Times included a portion of the Pataki quote, which has now vanished from the original Newsday article.
But there is no MSM bias, right? My World column looks at the Minneapolis Star Tribune's repulsive editorial on Durbin's speech, but that's just the obvious bias against truth at work. Placement and pitch matter just as much. The contrast between the MSM's smothering of Durbin's slander and his non-apology versus its treatment of the false outrage directed at Rove joins the massive set of examples of MSM bias which, while it will never be corrected, will always be there to explain the collapse of credibility among the elite media.
So... there's his analysis and what he claims is evidence of bias. Seems true to me. But, as always, I'll let you be the judge.
In case you're wondering, here's what Pataki said:
I think it is a little hypocritical of Senator Clinton to call on me to repudiate a political figure's comments when she never asked Senator Durbin to repudiate his comments. Senator Clinton might think about her propensity to allow outrageous statements from the other side that are far beyond political dialogue --insulting every Republican, comparing our soldiers to Nazis or Soviet gulag guards-- and never protesting when she serves with them.
For more on this issue, check out Hugh's blog. He has evidence to support Rove's accusation and more discussion about the whole issue.
8 comments:
CBS News didn't even cover the Durbin gaffe... until he was forced to apologize.
If you can call what he did apologizing. He said "I'm sorry if I was misunderstood" and then "I'm sorry if I offended you" but never "I'm sorry I said those things. It was wrong of me and they are not true."
Here's a fresh perspective: I think Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of saying stupid, ridiculous stuff. I wasn't offended by either Durbin or Rove--they're both clowns. I freely grant that Rove took plenty of heat for what he said, though I think Durbin got whacked too. See my blog for what I think of supposed MSM bias. (I think the MSM is biased towards stupidity and corporate hegemony.)
Here's MSM coverage of Durbin:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/16/whitehouse.durbin.ap/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/politics/22durbin.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/Search?keywords=durbin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8307379/
I don't know if this will appeal to you, but I hate playing these games where we try to decide who was more wrong for saying what. I like to deal in truth and falsehood: right and wrong, sound arguments and unsound arguments. For example, I think (as I've said) that Durbin was not only wrong but hypocritical. Karl Rove was also wrong, ironically enough proved so BY Durbin's hypocrisy: Durbin voted FOR all of the decisions giving Bush the power to do the things he's done. That's hardly offering therapy. In my book, that's being a spineless weasel, but I digress.
Anyway, my point is, I think we'd be better served by attacking issues head on. As this is the blogosphere and none of us is doing any real reporting anyway, do we really have to get upset about whether or not the Durbin Upsetness Index is higher or lower than the Rove counterpart? Do you really think all this pathetic, hypocritical furor by empty, idea-less Democrats is enabling terrorists to do stuff? Do you really think that?
We'd be better served by trying to come to agreement on the things that matter.
Sorry if this sounds like I'm lecturing--I don't mean to, Mr. Frodo, I don't mean to. I just get frustrated with debates that 1) no one can get anywhere with and 2) lead to no practical conclusions.
My point in this post was to say that there is evidence of bias in the media, mostly for your benefit, charles, since you don't think there is any. The bias is not in what they report only, but in how it is reported. The Rove stuff makes headlines, the Durbin stuff was buried. Rove made a generalization that can be proven (look at Hugh Hewitt's website for examples) while Durbin made a claim that was an opinion and very insulting. If the parties were reversed I think things would have been very different. Look at Trent Lott, and he made a mistake about civil rights, not about holocaust accusations.
But, as you say, there is no real value in such discussions other than to say it seems to me that the media may, indeed, be biased.
I think there's huge value to such discussions.
While claiming media bias has become a buzzword of both right and left and is over-done and passe, it's extremely important. Some huge percentage of our population isn't searching 9 internet sources to find the truth out there, Charles; they're watching CBS or CNN before they go to bed, and then voting in the morning. The MSM reporting intelligensia feed the masses public opinion, and, biased or not, most people are swallowing it. I'll be the first to say that the people themselves are at fault for not being more critical with the information they're given, but until they change, I'll also consider media bias a very serious issue.
Speaking of Trent Lott, that whole thing was ridiculous.
The statement he made obviously wasn't intended to be racist. He's been around too long to intentionally make a racist statement, knowing what the consequences would be. Another victim of the racial witchhunt...
That's my point: Lott says something that is obviously misunderstood, and he apologizes and he still loses his leadership position. Durbin says something thats intentionally insulting and provocative and refuses to apologize and nothing happens to him. Its a double standard.
Post a Comment