Posted on 10/09/2004 5:06:50 AM PDT by FlyLow
ABC News to deliberately correct Bush more often than Kerry? In an internal memo which was given to the Drudge Report, ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin declared that "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done." Halperin told his colleagues: "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that." He also bemoaned the "stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage," claiming it "is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible." ABC's post-debate fact check matched Halperin's advice with two corrections for Bush to one for Kerry.
An excerpt from the text of the October 8 memo posted by the DrudgeReport.com:
....The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
END of Excerpt
For the full Drudge posting: http://www.drudgereport.com/mh.htm
An October 8 posting by Clay Waters, on the MRC's TimesWatch.org site, looked at the New York Times article praised by Halperin: "Only one side makes political exaggerations on the campaign trail, judging by Friday's Times report from Adam Nagourney and Richard Stevenson, 'In His New Attacks, Bush Pushes Limits on the Facts.' The cut-out line attempts to smear the Bush campaign with an old liberal bogeyman: 'Taking a page out of the Lee Atwater campaign book.'" The Times duo claimed: "But the scathing indictment that Mr. Bush offered of Mr. Kerry over the past two days -- on the eve of the second presidential debate and with polls showing the race tightening -- took these attacks to a blistering new level. In the process, several analysts say, Mr. Bush pushed the limits of subjective interpretation and offered exaggerated or what some Democrats said were distorted accounts of Mr. Kerry's positions on health care, tax cuts, the Iraq war and foreign policy."
For the rest of Nagourney and Stevenson on Bush's "distortions": http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/politics/campaign/08campaign.html
For Clay's full analysis of the Times news story: http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/1008.asp
ABC's post-debate fact check matched Halperin's advice with two corrections for Bush to just one for Kerry.
Peter Jennings began the fact checking at about 10:50pm EDT, 9:50pm CDT: "First of all, there was this question of the President being accused by Senator Kerry of owning a timber company, or having a part interest in a timber company and taking $84 in a tax rebate. Mr. Bush looked up and said, 'I own a timber company?' We all sort of looked at one another and said who was right? Well, it turns out Senator Kerry was right and here's how he figured it out, that under the Republican definition and based on the President's federal income tax returns of 2001, he reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. He shifted it in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as royalties on a different tax schedule."
Turning to Jake Tapper, Jennings pointed out how "the President said twice that 75 percent of al-Qaeda had been brought to justice or captured. Right or wrong?" Tapper: "Well, that's not right, Peter. There's actually no way to know how many members of al-Qaeda there are in total. What the President probably meant to say was that, according to intelligence, 75 percent of al-Qaeda leadership, known al-Qaeda leadership as of September 11th, 2001, has been killed or brought to justice. But intelligence experts also caution that many of those individuals have been replaced." Jennings: "Okay, second one. Senator Kerry kept saying, and he's repeated it more than once, that General Shinseki lost his job and was retired after he made critical remarks about the campaign in Iraq and the number of troops that were required. Right or wrong?" Tapper: "That is incorrect and Senator Kerry must know this by now -- it's been pointed out on fact checks all over the country. But General Shinseki, who was the Army Chief of Staff, announced his retirement in 2002. He did not make his controversial remarks until 2003, so the idea that he left the military because of the remarks is just not a fact."
Obviously ABC News thinks Americans are stupid. First they post a story about Bush wearing a microphone to the first debate so that he could be fed responses and now they pull this stunt. You would think that after CBS they would realize that the days of treating voters like uneducated sheep are over. Evidently they are the ones who are a little slow on the uptake! Time to boycott ABC News - that is if anyone actually watches it in the first place . . .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1239754/posts
ABCNEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR MEMO SPARKS CONTROVERSY: BOTH SIDES NOT 'EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE' (Drudge)
Drudge Report ^ | 10/8/04 | Drudge
Companion piece.
Old media is dying a slow death. They will lash out at anything and everyone that does not conform to their view.
Think that's why Gibson chose to end the debate with a question which basically said, "Mr. Bush, admit three of your mistakes, and Mr. Kerry, you also admit three of his mistakes."
Disgusting bias, obvious set-up, but Bush threw it back in charlie-boy's face.
Kerry utters distortion after distortion -- saying over and over that Bush instituted a tax cut for the rich (it was across the board), stressing only negative developments in Iraq and downplaying or ignoring positive developments, etc.
ABC 'MEMO' - ping.
As much as it amazed me, I thought that Charles Gibson did a pretty decent job. He did not hesitate to point out to John Kerry that tax breaks would not level the playing field when it comes to outsourcing - I think Kerry was actually stunned that anyone from the MSM would actually question him. Compared to the first debate, I thought this was pretty fair moderating!
I agree..the mistake question was the only really big one.
I wish it were true (that Americans aren't dummies), but in fact, many seem to be dummies. A poll yesterday showed that a huge majority of people twenty and under believed the hype about the draft being reconstituted. That was a big fat lie concocted by the Democrats--and of course we know Charlie Rangel (what party might he be in, I wonder?) actually put forth a bill to do that--and voted against it.
This is not encouraging for those of us who love freedom. If people will believe any lie put forth by mediots and politicians (provided they tell it often enough), this country is in deep trouble.
We watched the debate with some of our neighbors. One of them snorted at this question, and said, "Oh, yeah, this is the classic 'when did you stop beating your wife' question." Bush answered it very well, because it was designed to be the Sunday talk show sound bite. But the President gave them nothing. Teeth must be gnashing all over demo-lala-land.
How could anyone distort what Kerry says, in view of the fact that his own words are so often contradictory? What IS the context? Is Kerry anti-war, or for the war on terror, but only in the "right" way? What is the "right" way? And not just simply, "I would have done it differently." Differently HOW? Everything he proposed sounds just like what Bush has ALREADY done.
Back in the dark days of the New Deal, Republicans were floundering around, trying to carry their case to the voters, by offering similar but less extensive programs of their own to compete with Roosevelt's "Brain Trust", and they were promptly labled "Me Too". Kerry is reduced to the position of saying, to whatever Bush is doing, "Me too."
If you have the real thing, and it appeals to the voters, why go for the imitation?
Time to be outspoken and active against ABC
Der propagada chief has emitted.
Kerry contradicted himself within a few minutes tonight on Iraq:
At one point he said that he's always thought Saddam was a threat and has never changed that position.
A few minutes later he said the president took his eye off the ball and went after Saddam even though he wasn't a threat to us.
Funny, ABC didn't seem to catch that. LOL
Muleteam1
Email add for Halperin?
It is really simple:
CBS=NBC=ABC = MSM = leftest leaning anti Republican & Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.