|
JANUARY 26, 2003 – Just in case
you were wondering how news people could be a part of something so
clearly biased and out-of-whack and not notice, the answer is that
they did notice.
Check out these excerpts, first from
today’s Boston Globe (article:
Clark Takes Lumps While Honing Media Savvy):
“NASHUA -- He may have expected the
frenzied pace and the competition for voters' attention. But perhaps
the most difficult challenge retired Army General Wesley K. Clark
has faced in New Hampshire in recent days is the way every statement
he makes gets repeated and magnified in the media.
“That fact has been particularly tough
for Clark. If Howard Dean has not been able to escape the videotape
of his Iowa whoop, Clark has been dogged almost as much by his
refusal to denounce filmmaker Michael Moore for calling President
Bush a "deserter" at a Clark-for-president rally Jan. 17, and by his
quick retort on CNN as Senator John F. Kerry's win in Iowa was being
reported: "He's a lieutenant, and I'm a general."
Another article (No
Win In Battle For Vets) in the Globe today explains that they
know the Bush/Limbaughians are involved in the hit on Clark:
“In fact, the persistent attacks on
Clark for having once spoken of Saddam Hussein as a threat to the
United States are coming from Republicans as much as Democrats. By
insinuating that Clark changed his views for political reasons, they
are planting the idea that he's worse than a hypocrite: They are
hinting that he has betrayed the military”
The Washington Post’s media
correspondent, Howard Kurtz, is onto the game as well (article:
Dean Fights Back):
“The other campaigns, especially the
Dean folks, are starting to complain that the Massachusetts senator
isn't getting the kind of media scrutiny that had previously been
applied to, say, front-runners named Howard. And they're right.”
However, Kurtz doesn’t really look into
why this is, but just throws a couple possibilities meant to make
light of the situation:
“It may be that journalists feel they
know Kerry, a senator for 20 years, and that he's been vetted over
the years--as opposed to some guy from a state with less than
one-third the population of Brooklyn.
“Or it may be that the investigative
reporters are piling into their cars and driving from Montpelier to
Boston.”
Right. It’s a coincidence, Howard. It
just happened that right now the press – unanimously and
collectively and simultaneously - decided to cut just one of the
candidates a break. His second comment is simply dumb as that would
not explain why only one candidate is getting a free ride.
Kurtz didn’t miss Clark’s take on it
though:
“Wesley Clark lobbed a grenade at Fox
News after anchor Brit Hume, one of the moderators at last week's
presidential debate, asked when "you first noticed that you were a
Democrat?"
Clark, a former CNN military analyst,
said afterward: "I looked at who was asking the questions, and I
think that was part of the Republican agenda in the debate."
Neither did FOX, as he reports:
“Fox spokesman Paul Schur returned fire:
"Clark should be used to facing tough questions about his record. .
. . His handlers should spend their time on more constructive things
like trying to come up with reasons for the general's slippage in
the polls."
They didn’t mean “tough questions about
his record” but actually “ an organized, multi-pronged smear
campaign.” However, we don’t entirely disagree that Clark should
have been prepared to deal with it – and bet he will be next time.
It is clear that the media is so used to
it’s absurd swings of bias and unfair coverage that they don’t take
it seriously or make a big issue out of it. This is also in part
because the Democrat Party and American people have not paid
attention nor voiced their unhappiness.
The right-wing, on the other hand, sends
e-mails and launches protest campaigns every time they see or hear
something they don’t like – or even suspect they might not like
something, such as the campaign they launched against the Reagan
miniseries CBS planned to run.
Non-Bush/Limbaugh, Americans, however,
don’t. They don’t e-mail, they don’t call, and their leadership
doesn’t make a big case. Believe me, reporters read the e-mail and
letters people send. Barrages on angry e-mails don’t go unnoticed –
and absolutely make them think twice. This, in fact, has been one
of the main tools the right-wing has used in managing to badger the
press so far to the right. Ownership of the media is only one of
their tools – bullying the media they don’t own is the other.
Without complaints flooding in and
without leaders making the case loudly and publicly, why should Mr.
Kurtz or the Boston Globe or even FOX News take the situation
seriously? As we’ve said before, all it takes to turn the tide is
standing up to the bully. And The Moderate Independent and our
readers are leading the charge. | 
