How to slant the news

  1. How to Slant the News: NBC's Andrea Mitchell Distorts CIA Testimony to Benefit Democrats

    The Mitchell story serves as a case study of how to manipulate the news in order to make a political point.

    To make matters worse, Mitchell falsely claimed that Tenet had apologized for allegedly getting the intelligence wrong.
    http://www.aim.org/

    Whatever happend to the days when reporters and journalists just reported the news, just the facts please and without the slant that would be great.
    •  
  2. 13 Comments

  3. by   Jaaaman
    Quote from mkue
    How to Slant the News: NBC's Andrea Mitchell Distorts CIA Testimony to Benefit Democrats

    The Mitchell story serves as a case study of how to manipulate the news in order to make a political point.

    To make matters worse, Mitchell falsely claimed that Tenet had apologized for allegedly getting the intelligence wrong.
    http://www.aim.org/

    Whatever happend to the days when reporters and journalists just reported the news, just the facts please and without the slant that would be great.
    I have never been crazy about her news reporting anyway.
  4. by   fergus51
    Not a lone example by any means. Look at that NY times reporter, or anything out by Ann Coulter.
  5. by   donmurray
    Every single news item is slanted in some way, if only for the fact that it was chosen by some editor instead another item. Anyway, news is only slanted if you disagree with the opinion expressed. :chuckle
  6. by   gwenith
    ITA Don - I have seen it here a news item is about something to the disadvantage of one party and whoever is in that camp will start screaming "slanted news" instead of taking it all with a grain of salt and accepting that no one is perfect and especially no politician is perfect.
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    Published on Friday, April 2, 2004 by the New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/>
    Smear Without Fear
    by Paul Krugman
    A funny thing happened to David Letterman this week. Actually, it only started out funny. And the unfunny ending fits into a disturbing pattern.
    On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches.
    CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video.
    On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: "That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape."
    But here's the really interesting part: CNN backed down, but it told Mr. Letterman that Ms. Kagan "misspoke," that the White House was not the source of the false claim. (So who was? And if the claim didn't come from the White House, why did CNN run with it without checking?)
    In short, CNN passed along a smear that it attributed to the White House. When the smear backfired, it declared its previous statements inoperative and said the White House wasn't responsible. Sound familiar?
    On Tuesday, I mentioned remarks by CNN's Wolf Blitzer; here's a fuller quote, just to remove any ambiguity: "What administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically, that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting there are some weird aspects in his life."
    Stung by my column, Mr. Blitzer sought to justify his words, saying that his statement was actually a question, and also saying that "I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today." Silly me: I "alleged" that Mr. Blitzer said something because he actually said it, and described "so-called unnamed" officials as unnamed because he didn't name them.
    Mr. Blitzer now says he was talking about remarks made on his own program by a National Security Council spokesman, Jim Wilkinson. But Mr. Wilkinson's remarks are hard to construe as raising questions about Mr. Clarke's personal life.
    Instead, Mr. Wilkinson seems to have questioned Mr. Clarke's sanity, saying: "He sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden, and bin Laden has a mystical mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of `X-Files' stuff." Really?
    On Page 246 of "Against All Enemies' Mr. Clarke bemoans the way the invasion of Iraq, in his view, played right into the hands of Al Qaeda: "Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed. . . . It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush." That's not " `X-Files' stuff": it's a literary device, meant to emphasize just how ill conceived our policy is. Mr. Blitzer should be telling Mr. Wilkinson to apologize, not rerunning those comments in his own defense.
    Look, I understand why major news organizations must act respectfully toward government officials. But officials shouldn't be sure-as Mr. Wilkinson obviously was-that they can make wild accusations without any fear that they will be challenged on the spot or held accountable later.
    And administration officials shouldn't be able to spread stories without making themselves accountable. If an administration official is willing to say something on the record, that's a story, because he pays a price if his claims are false. But if unnamed "administration officials" spread rumors about administration critics, reporters have an obligation to check the facts before giving those rumors national exposure. And there's no excuse for disseminating unchecked rumors because they come from "the White House," then denying the White House connection when the rumors prove false. That's simply giving the administration a license to smear with impunity.
    Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
  8. by   molecule
    heard about the Iraqi outpost for Bush's re-election?

    "Inside the marble-floored palace hall that serves as the press office of the U.S.-led coalition, Republican Party operatives lead a team of Americans who promote mostly good news about Iraq"

    "More than one-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP ties, running an enterprise that critics see as an outpost of Bush's re-election effort with Iraq a top concern. Senor and others inside the coalition say they follow strict guidelines that steer clear of politics."


    "The U.S. team stands in deep contrast to the British team that works alongside it, almost all of whom are civil or foreign service employees, not political appointees. Many of the British in Iraq display regional knowledge or language skills that most of the Americans lack."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Apr4.html
  9. by   Mkue
    Someone pinch me.

    One of the three major liberal network broadcasters returned from Iraq just recently and actually stated "there has been progress in Iraq"

    miracles do happen of course it wasn't said on his network, it was an interview on another network less watched probably.
  10. by   Elenaster
    I checked out the link to aim.org and SURPRISE, it's just another right-wing propaganda website pretending to lack partisanship and bias.

    Zero credibility IMO and not even worth debating. There is plenty of bias present on both ends of the spectrum and the mainstream news media is more inclined to report what gets the most attention and biggest ratings, not necessarily to promote a political agenda.
  11. by   fergus51
    There is no liberal bias in the media. That is just a case of the right wing repeating something often enough that some people believe it. If there were a liberal bias, why did they spend 90% of their time criticizing Clinton? Why were reports more favourable about Bush than about Gore during the 2000 election? Why do they now criticize Bush daily? Here's the answer.... and I know it's revolutionary, so hold on to your hats.... The media is full of lazy people catering to the lowest common denominator of their audience. They will report the easiest story that will get the most ratings with the least amount of time put into it.
  12. by   Elenaster
    Quote from fergus51
    There is no liberal bias in the media. That is just a case of the right wing repeating something often enough that some people believe it. If there were a liberal bias, why did they spend 90% of their time criticizing Clinton? Why were reports more favourable about Bush than about Gore during the 2000 election? Why do they now criticize Bush daily? Here's the answer.... and I know it's revolutionary, so hold on to your hats.... The media is full of lazy people catering to the lowest common denominator of their audience. They will report the easiest story that will get the most ratings with the least amount of time put into it.
    AMEN SISTER!!!

    Great post Fergus!
  13. by   Mkue
    We can finally put the liberal media myth to rest.

    I'm starting to feel like a Democrat in the Senate, debating and debating but not getting anywhere !


    7 to 1.... you guys win this round !
  14. by   menetopali
    fergus,

    i think that you are generally right in your claim that the media tends to be lazy and report the story that is easiest to get ratings with. i do believe that the media is liberal leaning however.

    generally the media reports two basic types of stories: what they believe the populace wants to hear, which often reflects the media personality's own views and thus is reported as the 'correct view' from lack of effort, a populist story that pits 'the common man' against a faceless adversary such as 'government', 'big business', or some other faceless entity; and the 'man bites dog story' or the story of the unusual. the latter type of story is often a bit more straightforward, though over reporting of these can skew perception of 'normal' as happened in the 'summer of sharks' when there were actually less shark bites than average but much more reporting of it after a surfer lost an arm.

    the former type of story, the populist one, is where the bias comes in. the 'reporter', 'journalist', or othe media personality makes choices as to what parts of a story is most important and those choices are then reflected in the final story that is presented to the public. it is not likely that the bias is intentional, but it is there just the same. now, this bias exists from both liberals (who control the bulk of the television news) and conservatives (who control the bulk of radio news).

close