Bush and Wag the Dog

NewsMax ^ | 06/14/2002 | Christopher Ruddy

[Pokey78]

On Wednesday night MSNBC anchor Brian Williams, heir to Tom Brokaw’s anchor job at NBC, started off his nightly broadcast bashing the administration for manipulating the news.

Citing the New York Times and other conspiracy-minded media critics of the Bush administration, Williams said that the Bush administration was essentially creating news to divert the media from stories critical of the administration.

One example cited was President Bush's announcement that he was creating a new Department of Homeland Security on the very same day Coleen Rowley was testifying about a cover-up at the FBI.

Based on a handful of other press announcements, the major media have woven a full-blown conspiracy on the part of the administration to manipulate the media.

Maybe the administration is indeed engaging in media manipulation.

But so far the evidence is very scant. In my mind, a much clearer pattern of events would have to develop to prove this – and to make such a serious accusation against the president and White House in time of war.

But the Williams report, the New York Times story and other media criticism on this point suggest that the media are desperate to hammer Bush and the Republicans – all in an effort to bring their poll numbers down.

One thing we know is that for the most part the major media in this country are an adjunct to the Democratic Party.

It's been that way for decades. I recall journalist Teddy White candidly revealing how the big press wanted Kennedy to win in 1960 so much, reporters actually wrote his speeches on the campaign plane.

In the '90s a Roper study found that 89 percent of the Washington press corps voted for Bill Clinton. And these folks have the gall to call themselves "mainstream."

In fact, the media apparatchiks in this country get their marching orders right out of the DNC and the editorial room of the left-wing New York Times.

With congressional elections fast approaching and Bush's poll numbers still above 70 percent, the Democrats are getting desperate. Expect just about anything.

The irony of all of this is that in eight years of Clinton I never heard the major press make an issue of the Clinton spinroom in the basement of the White House.

Bill Clinton epitomized the concept of "wag the dog."

The Clintons played each scandal like a volleyball, deflecting one scandal after another by contrived news events and even wars.

Bill Clinton's 1999 war over Kosovo was perhaps the most egregious use of presidential power to divert the public's attention and save a presidency.

Remember, when Clinton began the war he had just come out of the Lewinsky scandal, impeachment and near removal from office.

And yet the scandal was still top news on the TV shows. Worse, Kathleen Willey had come forward to say that Clinton made crude sexual advances toward her, right in the Oval Office.

Then in early 1999, still another woman, Juanita Broaddrick, also a one-time campaign supporter, claimed Clinton had raped her. Only days after her story aired on NBC, NATO's first war began against Serbia. Coincidence?

At the time, there was a lot of media hocus-pocus about Serbian war crimes in Kosovo, practically none of which turned out to be true, but it was enough to save Bill Clinton – again.

[Jemian]

Citing the New York Times and other conspiracy-minded media critics of the Bush administration, Williams said that the Bush administration was essentially creating news to divert the media

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I have found that the guilty party is always the one to affix blame.

[Burkeman1]

Duh. I have long since tired of pointing this stuff out anyomore. That the networks have the audacity to say Bush is "wagging the dog" is simply laughable. They are Democratic whores. Their "news" is just as worthless as Pravda's.

[backhoe]

CyberAlert -- 05/07/1996 -- NQ CyberAlert
... recent Freedom Forum survey of Washington reporters and bureau chiefs revealed 89
percent voted for Clinton versus 7 percent for Bush in 1992. Do you think the ...

Great Debate#9
... opinions skew their professional writing. Nuzzo pointed out that a 1995 Freedom
Forum survey showed 89 percent of the media voted for Bill Clinton while the ...

Break up Microsoft?...Then how about the media "Big Six"? [ ...
... Why? They're usually wrong. 92% voted for Clinton. Libertarians, by contrast,
much enjoy being Right. You may (continue to?) derive your understanding of ...

-Poll confirms Ivy League liberal tilt--

[MeekOneGOP]

But the Williams report, the New York Times story and other media criticism on this point suggest that the media are desperate to hammer Bush and the Republicans – all in an effort to bring their poll numbers down.

One thing we know is that for the most part the major media in this country are an adjunct to the Democratic Party.

It's been that way for decades. I recall journalist Teddy White candidly revealing how the big press wanted Kennedy to win in 1960 so much, reporters actually wrote his speeches on the campaign plane.

In the '90s a Roper study found that 89 percent of the Washington press corps voted for Bill Clinton. And these folks have the gall to call themselves "mainstream."

In fact, the media apparatchiks in this country get their marching orders right out of the DNC and the editorial room of the left-wing New York Times.

---

Regarding Media Bias. . .

Dan Rather is the King of Biased Media:

The Free-Market's Solution to Media Bias: FOXNews
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/598124/posts

Also, see:
CBS: Gunga Dan Rather's Home Site
http://www.RatherBiased.com/

*** YOUNG RATHER:
I'M A DEMOCRAT ***
http://www.ratherbiased.com/photos/rather-frown2.jpg

---

Check out the other articles posted here on FR that show the media bias!:

FR Article Search for: Media Bias
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/latest?warp=X&ao=1&s=media+bias

More Media links:

“What’s The Frequency, Kenneth?”
http://www.ratherbiased.com/bizarre.htm#kenneth

Hear R.E.M.’s Song/Lyrics: “What’s The Frequency, Kenneth?”
http://www.ratherbiased.com/frequency.mp3

Gunga Dan in his Natural Environment

[MeekOneGOP]

Huh? FIVE replies and no fundraising plasterers? Must be a record (looks at watch).
Or maybe they're at supper now? LOL!

[ThePythonicCow]

Any cartoon artists out there?

I'd like to see one with two panes:

1. Clinton yanking a dogs tail, with the press looking on, exclaiming in awe the size and import of the tail, and
2. Bush pushing a big junk yard dog around, with a face that looks like Osama or Saddam, the press looking on, protesting that he is wagging the dog's tail (which is visible, untouched, and perhaps looks like some Demo senator running a hearing ...)

Or make it the same big bad Islamic dog in both cases, Clinton taking a timid tug on the tail "nice doggy", Bush lining up a field howitzer straight on its face, getting ready for some serious "justice", while the press protests he's wagging the dog.

[Arkie2]

Wonder how many photos of Dan with Ronald Reagan are floating around? With a huge smile? Can anyone produce one? I'd bet the farm there isn't one.

[thucydides]

Desperate dems tried to change the subject (Enron - didn't work), then actually had the guts to try to insinuate Bush mismanagement (What did he know and when did he know it? - didn't work). Now they think they can dissipate public support for Bush by saying he's politicizing the war for political advantage. It won't work either. Imagine republicans in 1941 - 1942 trying to trash FDR with claims of "politicizing" the war. 'Rats don't seem to realize things have fundamentally changed, and they view 9/11 as just a temporary nuisance interrupting their nonstop devotion to class warfare and redistribution. However, the public is scared, as well they should be, as we reap the Clinton legacy of non-response to terror. What the 'rats are doing now seems like an attempt to continue the old Clinton policy, and I don't think the public will buy it.