Posted on 06/13/2005 9:38:41 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
In the past day or so three national journalists have denied liberal bias or claimed they are really centrists. Asked by the Houston Chronicle if he's "liberal or conservative?", MSNBC's Keith Olbermann admitted that "a lot of my personal world view is unmistakably sympathetic to things in a liberal play book," but he insisted "my point of view is about delivering information and context. It has nothing to do with a political point of view." Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, recalling a conversation with Roger Ailes about joining FNC, related on Huffington Post that "I never pursued it after it was clear he just wanted me on his air as a liberal punching bag. When I told him I was a centrist on many issues and didn't care to be announced as a liberal every time I appeared (his terms of employment), our discussions ended." CBS's Bob Schieffer, on Imus in the Morning on Thursday, conceded "there may be one or two people in journalism" with a political agenda, "but for the most part, most reporters are just trying to find out what happened."
-- MSNBC's Keith Olbermann: Romenesko (www.poynter.org on Thursday highlighted a glowing June 9 review, in the Houston Chronicle, of Olbermann's Countdown. Mike McDaniel advised readers: "May I direct you to Countdown With Keith Olbermann, an hour-long MSNBC show that rivals Jon Stewart's Daily Show in entertainment value while also serving up smart takes on the news of the day. Heck, some days it even makes news."
Near the end of his column, McDaniel asked: "Is he liberal or conservative?" He passed along Olbermann's response: "'A lot of my personal world view is unmistakably sympathetic to things in a liberal play book,' he said, 'but honest to God, I have been called a reactionary by some on the far left, a liberal by some on the far right and I'm insulted by both terms. My point of view is about delivering information and context. It has nothing to do with a political point of view.'"
"And he's not afraid to give it, when necessary.
"'Only if it serves to illuminate would I do it. I don't look for opportunities to be critical of a particular party. I look for opportunities to be critical.'"
-- Newsweek's Jonathan Alter: "Fox, Watergate and Intimidation Journalism" read the headline over his June 9 Huffington Post blog entry. An excerpt from the top:
I got a little insight today into how the bullies at Fox News play the game. In this week's Newsweek, I wrote a column under the headline "If Watergate Happened Now." The satirical conceit was that I was writing a column looking back at the successful completion of Nixon's second term. In a light vein, I sideswiped lots of people in today's media culture by way of explaining why the scandal never came out and Nixon survived in office. At one point, I wrote: "Those of us who hoped it would end differently knew we were in trouble when former Nixon media adviser Roger Ailes banned the word 'Watergate' from Fox's coverage and went with the logo 'Assault on the Presidency' instead."
Well, it turns out Mr.-Dish-It-Out apparently can't take it. Today I heard that his stooges were out peddling a story to the press that I was guilty of a conflict-of-interest and should have disclosed in my column that I twice unsuccessfully sought employment at Fox News and now do part-time work under contract to NBC News and MSNBC.
The facts: Five years ago, I once had a conversation with Ailes in his office about going to Fox but I never pursued it after it was clear he just wanted me on his air as a liberal punching bag. When I told him I was a centrist on many issues and didn't care to be announced as a liberal every time I appeared (his terms of employment), our discussions ended....
As for Alter's centrism, the June 7 CyberAlert recounted: Declaring that he's "really ticked off these days about the stem cell research debate," Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, a cancer survivor, admitted on Monday's Imus in the Morning that because of that "personal thing...I don't have a lot of neutrality on it." Indeed, in last week's Newsweek he argued that while "most Americans still don't know" all the "details" about how opponents of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research are distorting the facts, "they're beginning to understand that religious extremists are hijacking the political system and robbing us of our essential national character -- faith in the future."
And the MRC's Rich Noyes reminded me of this unintentionally hilarious defense from Alter, quoted by Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz on June 4, 2001: "People send me e-mails full of dopey attacks -- 'I bet you've never written anything positive about a Republican in your whole life' -- obviously never having read any of the columns I wrote praising John McCain during the campaign."
-- CBS's Bob Schieffer: During the same Thursday MSNBC Imus in the Morning interview recited in item #2 above, Schieffer contended:
"We [Bob Woodward and I] were on a symposium not so long ago together, and you know, he was asked what was his mind-set when all this was happening. He said, 'We didn't have any mind-set, we were just trying to find out what happened.' And I thought that, you know, you ought to print that up and put it over the door of every newsroom in the country, so it's the last thing a reporter sees when he goes out the door: try to find out what happened. That's a pretty important thing. It sounds kind of simple, but generally when reporters do that, they're performing a real service and when they kind of get off of that, that's when we all seem to get into trouble. But that's what journalism's all about, and when these people talk to me about everybody has, you know, a mind-set or a bias or some sort of an agenda, yeah, there may be one or two people in journalism like that, but for the most part, most reporters are just trying to find out what happened."
blah blah blah blah! Now what is really being said here.
Nahh, Olbermann isn't liberal. He's just a total hero to DU'ers for pushing how he thinks Bush conspired to steal the election in Ohio.
If they lie about what they believe why wouldn't they lie about what they report?
Oh, thats right they do...
NEW CENTRAL PLANNING MODEL sponsored by socialist journalists
This is hilarious!
I thought all of the "journalists" denied any liberal bias. Most of them claim to be "moderate."
And if nothing happened, they just make something up.
No bias there.
Nope.
It's the same with Gay Pride parades. If they are so proud, why do they hide their faces behind outrageous makeup and masks?
MSM = Liar
One fine day, 80% of the voters will vote Republican. And the liberals will call them all extreme far right, while calling themselves centrist.
Olbermann is the biggest liberal shill on television. I had a correspondence with him about a year ago. (Realize, I'm almost finished with a book on liberal bias that features TONS of NEW RESEARCH never before published on such scientific measures as word counts, "loaded" terms, ect). I gave Olbermann about a dozen studies in JOURNALISM journals---top of the line, academic journals---showing clear liberal bias. He blew them off---never challenged the results of any of them.
Summary:In the grand old tradition, he was not biased before he was biased.
What percentage voted Bush?
They all love to say that Fox News is some sort of dictatorship where all opinions and shows are regulated by Ailes, totally overlooking of course the fact there isn't a single real Republican on CNN and many other networks. And if they do have a "token" conservative on those networks they most definitely ARE "punching bags"!
But my point is that why not admit what they believe. Its like the idiots that come here and on other blogs and pretend to be conservatives trying to "prove" something. The reality is if you have to lie about what you believe then what you believe has some shame attached to it.
Inotherwords its wrong.
Alter comes from a big time Chicago political family and is definitely not Republican. A relation worked for the Daley administration and the family is also a heavy contributor to liberal democratic political causes and candidates.
Consider what was required of pledges in the old days.
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.