ABC Gets Its Pound Of Corpse For Inauguration Coverage

Captain's Quarters ^ | January 21, 2005 | Captain Ed

[puppets]

Two days ago I posted about ABC's effort to find a military funeral taking place on Inauguration Day for a casualty from Iraq, presumably to "balance" the coverage of George Bush and his speech. Their web site invited anyone who knew of such a funeral to send the information to ABC News -- they even provided a web form for submission (and Doc Weasel has it better here) -- so that they could exploit the death in order to somehow shame Bush on his inauguration.

After Power Line and I wrote about this and the blogosphere erupted into protest, the page quickly disappeared -- and we presumed that wiser heads at ABC News had prevailed. Unfortunately, it appears that we overestimated ABC's capacity for shame and embarrassment. Several CQ readers have written to me this morning (and The Corner also reports this) telling me that at the 6:12 break, World News Tonight ran a brief report of a military funeral for Matthew Holloway, a 20-year-old soldier killed by an IED in Iraq:

"In Rockport, Texas today, just about the time the President was speaking, there was a funeral for a young Marine reservist: 21-year-old Matthew Holloway was killed in Iraq last week by a roadside bomb."

Just about the time the President was speaking. Of course, that's exactly what they wanted to do from the start -- to tie Bush to the funeral of the young soldier in order to attack Bush passive-aggressively. It's exploitation of the worst order, and more to the point, a cowardly act. Did ABC ever run a funeral of a soldier killed in Bosnia or Somalia during a Clinton event, let alone an inauguration? Moreover, did ABC ever pursue such an angle like this with web pleas to its viewers?

No. ABC reserves that revolting kind of hearse-chasing journalism for Republican administrations. It recalls the infamous Halperin Memo, the instruction from ABC News director Mark Halperin to his staff to focus their investigative energies on George Bush and not John Kerry:

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004:

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave

I do not want to set off and [sic] endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

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.

We can argue endlessly about which campaign distorted more, and never reach agreement. I think, however, we can all agree that it isn't ABC's job to make that decision and bend over backwards for their preferred candidate in an attempt to "balance" an election. Even more, the network has no business balancing an inauguration. ABC has decided to go full tilt down the same path as CBS in allowing its political biases to determine the content of its news programs. Those who continue to watch ABC should make their objections known at the highest levels of the network and Disney, its parent corporation.

UPDATE: Just in case, I checked the World News Tonight home page, and they don't even mention the funeral. Do you suppose they want to avoid more blogosphere criticism? If so, they've miscalculated. For more thoughts, be sure to check out LaShawn Barber and all of the trackbacks.

UPDATE: Despite what the trackbacked blog for this says, we did suffer military casualties in Bosnia -- and Bosnia isn't Kosovo. Here's one who got killed by a land mine in December 1995, for example -- Spc. Martin John Begosh.

[puppets]

More liberal media bias more here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

ABC's Funeral
DocWeasel.com has re-created the ABC News page seeking "military funerals for Iraq war casualties" to cover "for a possible Inauguration Day story." Sure enough, they found one. We checked the transcript of yesterday's "World News Tonight" (available on Factiva, but not on the public Net) and found this:

Peter Jennings: Fair to say, we think, that at some point today here in Washington, the war in Iraq was on everyone's mind, when the president spoke; when the antiwar demonstrators shouted as the president went by; when one or another military unit did something here today as part of the celebration. And we thought, too, of the many wounded at the army hospital here, watching it all on television.

And in Rockport, Texas, today, just about the time the president was speaking, there was a funeral for a young marine reservist, 21 year-old Matthew Holloway was killed in Iraq last week by a roadside bomb. His brother told a local paper that as much as Matthew wanted to be home, he was very proud of what he was doing in Iraq, and it is something you hear from so many people in the services, including the 10,000 who have already been wounded.

We didn't actually see the show, but reading the transcript Jennings seems rather condescending when he observes that servicemen are "very proud." It's as if he was expecting them not to be.

[beyond the sea]

ABC eats it for this crap!

[Coldwater Creek]

Someone needs to look Jennings in the eye and tell him that we are war, and that is why we have a military. Unfortunately people are hurt and people die during war.

He makes me sick.

[Jaysun]

We didn't actually see the show, but reading the transcript Jennings seems rather condescending when he observes that servicemen are "very proud." It's as if he was expecting them not to be.

Now I don't know about that. I hate Jennings, ABC, and what they did here, but I don't read that part of the transcript and see it as condescending to servicemen.

[Bahbah]

Unfortunately people are hurt and people die during war.

Jennings knows this, as do they all. That is not the point. The point is to turn the American public against the war in Iraq and pull off another media lost war the way they did in Vietnam. I expect to see much, much more of this now that we are in Bush's second term.

[EternalVigilance]

Peter Jennings should be deported to his native Canada.

[ml1954]

Those who continue to watch ABC should make their objections known at the highest levels of the network

Ugh, you have the best of intentions, but I think you are posting this in the wrong place for that. I doubt if many, if any, here do (watch ABC), or would bother to complain to ABC. It's a waste of time and effort.

ABC knows exactly what it is doing, and so do we.

[bill1952]

I glanced at the ABC coverage, and even I was dismayed by the blatant partisan attacks on this administration.

I saw zero attempt to even cover up that anti Bush bias.

Jennings made me sick.

[Red Badger]

The Price in Blood!
Casualties in the Civil War

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:

Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222

The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:

Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000

The leading authority on casualties of the war, Thomas L. Livermore, admitting the handicap of poor records in some cases, studied 48 of the war's battles and concluded:
Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.
Mortality was greater among Confederate wounded, because of inferior medical service. The great battles, in terms of their toll in dead, wounded, and missing is listed on this site:

[americanMel]

No, but Jennings is condescending to America, in general. Let's all remember he's a Canadian and I think it's high time he went back to Canada.

The MSM just makes me completely ill.

[Jaysun]

No, but Jennings is condescending to America, in general. Let's all remember he's a Canadian and I think it's high time he went back to Canada. The MSM just makes me completely ill.

If I agreed with you any more we'd be attached at the skull. It's just that we do ourselves a disservice when we make those sort of claims. He does a fine job of making himself an ass on his own, we don't have to "help" him.

[Dog]

Look at the new media low..

[americanMel]

True...maybe one day he'll dig a hole so deep he'll have to leave.

[RetroWarrior]

Why does MSM treat the attacks on our troops as something new? American troops were being killed in Germany when I was stationed there in 1986-1987. Anyone remember the R.A.F. (Red Army Faction?) Then there was the Berlin disco bombing, ect. And this was 40 YEARS after WWII.

[Coldwater Creek]

I agree with your statement, but as a military family tricks like ABC pulls, make my blood boil.

[Coldwater Creek]

I heard just today that almost 100,000 deaths occur each year because of hospital mistakes.

[ml1954]

Something like 40,000 die on our roads every year. Who knows how many are permanently injured.

How often does ABC (or any media, MSM or otherwise) question if this is worth it to our society?

After all, if we lowered the speed limit to 15 mph and aggressively enforced it, we'd probably save almost 40,000 lives, not to mention those who would otherwise be permanently injured.

[RetroWarrior]

Most traffic studies show that the best (fastest) speed should be 45 MPH. Don't remember where I heard that. Make me wonder how many lives would be saved if we follow that advice.

[kempo]

Do you expect anything different out of Jennings. I don't and neither does the majority of the voters of this country who voted Bush back in office by over 4,000,000 votes.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Not surprising,....see this:

*****************************

Unholy Alliance
by David Horowitz
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 089526076X
Hardcover - 256 pages (September 2004)

In this tour de force on the most important issue of our time, David Horowitz, confronts the paradox of how so many Americans, including the leadership of the Democratic Party, could turn against the War on Terror. He finds an answer in a political Left that shares a view of America as the “Great Satan” with America’s radical Islamic enemies. This Left, which once made common cause with Communists, has now joined forces with radical Islam in attacking America’s defenses at home and its policies abroad. From their positions of influence in the university and media culture, leftists have defined America as the “root cause” of the attacks against it. In a remarkable exploration of the “Mind of the Left,” Horowitz traces the evolution of American radicalism from its Communist past to its “anti-war” present. He then shows how this Left was able to turn the Democratic Party presidential campaign around and reshape its views on the War on Terror.

Horowitz’s Unholy Alliance, writes John Haynes, the noted historian of American Communism, “is an insightful, brilliant examination of the mental world of the radical left. Horowitz shows how today’s radicals, unwilling to reflect on the internal flaws that destroyed Marxism-Leninism from within, have embraced an all-consuming nihilism in its place. This has led them to a hatred of American institutions and a solidarity with Islamic terrorists that makes the radical left more properly regarded as dangerous than loony.”

Unholy Alliance is an eye-opening book that should unsettle conventional assumptions and reveals why intellectuals and political leaders who applaud Michael Moore are no laughing matter. As Harvey Klehr, author of Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, writes, “The world Communist movement may be moribund, but its habits of mind and ideological fantasies have not disappeared. This is a fascinating and depressing account.”

Price: $19.01 - Click here to order: