Me(di)a Culpa?
Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project has an interesting roundup of several media outlets suddenly acting almost contrite for their slanted and one-sided news coverage on this election to date. Is it because they realize it may not be quite the lock they have been predicting?
Perhaps embarrassed by allowing themselves to be so used by Democrat smear operatives, and so many among the MSM actively collaborating, pre-election mea culpas are appearing in some MSM quarters. Or, perhaps, with their Dem sweep less probable, they are just coweringly covering their bets (and butts) a bit.
The George Soros-financed CREW organization has effectively focused particularly on spreading unproven allegations and ancient nitpicks, to be headlined against Republican candidates. The Arizona Republic’s article, “Inquiry on Renzi: Real deal or campaign trickery?” described how such attacks work:
The scenario is a familiar one to state and federal prosecutors during election season:
As the day for casting ballots draws near, a political operative files a complaint alleging criminal misconduct by the opposing candidate. Investigators, with a responsibility to determine whether the allegations have merit, open an inquiry.
The operative then tips off journalists that the candidate is the target of a criminal inquiry.
And, finally, reporters find a law enforcement official, usually anonymous, who confirms that the candidate is under investigation.
However, as the Arizona Republic article points out,
A Justice Department official in Washington, D.C., confirmed a "preliminary inquiry" of allegations about Renzi. The official also cautioned Wednesday that initial media reports contained significant inaccuracies. The official said the Justice Department contacted at least two newspapers Wednesday about "chunks of stuff in their stories that's wrong."
But, the political damage is done, as smear artists intended.
There are other examples from the New York Times and the Washington Post. Even though I have always maintained the position that I am of two minds about the possible outcomes of this election on a political basis, I would like to see the Republicans win if only for one reason. The mainstream media credibility would virtually cease to exist in a flash and they would have to clean up their collective act. That alone would be worth it.
By jpe, Sunday, 5 November , 2006 @ 2:30 pm
The ombudsmen aren’t part of the papers - they serve the public, and are outside of the paper’s operations, not subject to editorial control.
By the way, how’d that Haggard thing work out? I seem to recall you railing against the Denver paper for reporting a true story.
By Gaius, Sunday, 5 November , 2006 @ 2:36 pm
You might want to go back and read what I wrote again, without the ideological blinders. I “railed” against the violation of journalistic standards in publishing based on one source without corroboration. That it proved true later does not change that. That they knew about the story for at least two months and then released it on the eve of election does not change that. That they did not even give the hooker a lie detector test until after the story was published (which he failed) does not change that.
And the backlash from the political hit they attempted may give the House seat to the Republican. How’d that work out?
By mokus, Sunday, 5 November , 2006 @ 3:24 pm
For what it’s worth: An “ombudsman” works for the folks who write his paycheck, and if you don’t know that, Pollyanna, you had better splash your face with cold water, take off the rose colored glasses, and begin a sober examination of the other fairy tales you take for granted.
By daveinboca, Sunday, 5 November , 2006 @ 4:15 pm
The so-called “free press” is deep in the tank for the Democrats, and has been for a number of decades. The fact is that journalism schools like Columbia give out prizes for the most outlandish violations of national security. The joke named the Pulitzer Prize pulls the collective leg of the American people every year with its tendentious, factitious bias to the left in almost every editorial and “reportorial” award.
As long as that lasts, the report by UCLA/U. of Missouri last year that gave the MSM an ADA rating of 70 [out of 100 perfect left wing points] will remain valid, and a “free press” in the electronic and dead-tree media will remain a joke.
By Quilly Mammoth, Monday, 6 November , 2006 @ 1:27 pm
Gaius,
jpe’s comments are exactly what is wrong with modern liberalism. It doesn’t matter that the Denver Post broke every rule of journalism, that it did so in an obvious attempt to sway voters…what matters is that they were right. The ends justified the means.
OTOH, everything Bush does is wrong regardless of the outcome.
Time and again the old phrase “some pigs are more equal than others” comes to the fore.