[Rhodes22-list] Political- media bias in reporting exposed...

[Brad Haslett]

Say it ain't so!  Brad

---------------

(from PowerLine)


War Coverage Fades Away

The New York Times<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23logan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin>confirms
what we've all observed: as violence in Iraq recedes, our news
outlets take less interest in events there:

According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who
monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been
"massively scaled back this year." Almost halfway into 2008, the three
newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with
1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The "CBS Evening News" has devoted the fewest
minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC's "World News" and 74 minutes
on "NBC Nightly News." (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where
some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.

I suppose it's understandable, in a way, that coverage would be "massively
scaled back" when there is less violence to report on. One wonders, though,
whether the change may be due in part to the fact that network executives
are more excited about publicizing apparent failure in Iraq than success
there.

The journalists who complained to the Times about their employers' lack of
interest in Iraq and Afghanistan also noted that interest has flagged among
the American public:

On "The Daily Show," Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists when
she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr. McCarthy
said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a dinner
party "is like a conversation killer."

I'm afraid that's also true. The conclusion of the Times piece is revealing,
too:

Journalists at all three American television networks with evening newscasts
expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the
Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only on
the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.

It's interesting that the journalists themselves link their employers'
interest in Iraq to the election. I think it's fair to say that the
mainstream media's interest in Iraq has always been driven largely by the
opportunity to spin events there in a way that advances a political agenda.
Remember al Qaqaa <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/10/008280.php>?
That story dominated the news for a week before the 2004 Presidential
election. It was a story of great importance, however, only as long as it
could be used to help John Kerry's Presidential campaign. Once the election
was over, al Qaqaa was never heard of again. With hindsight, that episode
might be taken as a paradigm of far too much of the mainstream media's
coverage of the war.



On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
wrote:

> Wasn't there talk on here along the lines of most of the troops are
> supporting Obama? I know, I know, check the archives. I would, but it's
> just not important to me...
>
> Tootle wrote:
> > Recently I received an email about media bias.  I tried to check it out
> with
> > snopes.  They have finally replied:
> >
> > http://www.snopes.com:80/politics/war/raddatz.asp
> >
> > And when these things are done without any way to check things out, well
> > that is usually the way it is done by the Liberal Northeast Media
> types...
> >
> > Ed K
> > Greenville, SC, USA
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>