Posted on 07/26/2004 9:45:38 PM PDT by knuthom
Media Bias: When ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson said President Bush lied, it set off a media stampede. When he turned out to be wrong, the hoofbeats fell silent.
In fact, as the chart below shows, that might be an understatement. The coverage is so one-sided that you might think something was at work here — something like, say, extreme media bias.
For a recap, the CIA sent Wilson to Niger to look into charges that Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein sought nuclear materials from Africa. Wilson reported that, no, Saddam hadn't; it was all a fraud.
For some, that was enough to debunk President Bush's sentence from his 2003 State of the Union Address, used to bolster the U.S. case for war with Iraq: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
After Wilson's report suggested Bush was wrong, the "Bush lied" chant began — amplified by Democratic Party activists and far-left anti-war groups like moveon.org.
The left lionized Wilson, who signed on as a Kerry adviser. But in the past month, two reports — one from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the other from Britain's so-called Butler Report on intelligence leading up to the Iraq War — both concluded Bush was right. Saddam sought uranium in Africa to make WMD.
Big news, right?
It wasn't treated that way. It got cursory treatment by the big media. Worst was CBS. It broadcast some 30 stories on Wilson's initial charges, according to Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. It still hasn't done anything on the undoing of this big story.
That's right, nothing. For those keeping score: lies 30, truth 0.
This, of course, is media bias in action. It's what happens when the media all believe one thing, but deceive themselves by insisting they're objective and fair. They are, in fact, neither.
This is no surprise to those watching the 2004 presidential campaign. As Evan Thomas, Newsweek's assistant managing editor, recently let slip, the media "want Kerry to win." No surprise there.
We'll at least give The New York Times credit. Under the headline "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" the news giant's public editor Daniel Okrent answered, "Of course it is."
Admitting your problem, as they say in the self-help biz, is the first step to a cure. Too bad the rest of the media are still in denial.
Great and true find. Thanks for posting this!
USA TODAY spiked Ann Coulter's column about the convention, I bet they don't do that to Mikey Moore.
Excellent. Good for Howard Kurtz for pointing this out. Now let's see it get hammered just like the "Bush Lies" stories did.
This is the 'Investors' Business Daily' and nobody reads it =o)
bttt
This IBD article refers to Kurtz.
oh. doh!
I dont watch ABC,NBC,CBS......But I think I will write them and include the chart and tell them why I will not watch them..!
Heck of a chart on media bias... 5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Right off the bat, the editorial falls flat with timidity.
Wilson didn't turn out to be "wrong" - - Wilson turned out to be a bold-faced liar. So say it.
Not amazed - but amazed!
DKK
childish.
I could swear I saw one CBS story on Wilson being wrong, but then again, I didn't write it down.
Either way, the coverage is VASTLY different between his initial "revelations" and his being found to be false.
bumpinator
If they tell the truth on this, all the demagogue victims will be forced to know that Bush is NOT a liar.
The media will NOT do the right thing on this one.
ping!
Save for later.
A picture's worth a thousand words.
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.