Thursday, August 19, 2004
The Media Unravelling
The Instapundit believes that the media are now so blatently biased, that we are watching their "unravelling". (A bit of an optimistic viewpoint, I'm afraid.)
But this story seems to me to be absolutely fascinating in that it reveals just how in the tank for the Democrats the mainstream media are, and how little the vaunted Cronkitean claims of objectivity and research and factual accuracy really mean when the chips are down. What's more, lots of people are noticing.
To me, that's a bigger deal than the underlying issue or even, in some ways, the election itself. Elections come and go, politicians come and go, and pretty much all of them turn out to be disappointments one way or another. But the "Fourth Estate" is a big part of the unelected Permanent Government that in many ways does more to run the country than the politicians. And it's unravelling before our very eyes, which I think is the biggest story of the election so far.
Two other posts looking at how the major media refuses to touch the story of hundreds of Vietnam veterans questioning Kerry's version of the truth, while the behaved like rabid wolves when Michael Moore resurrected previously debunked allegations that Bush was AWOL.
The Media Research Center compares treatment by the national news networks. As they say, read the whole thing. Introduction:
Back in February, the three broadcast networks were obsessed with the story of President Bush’s National Guard service. But in May, when John Kerry’s former Navy colleagues from Vietnam went to the National Press Club to charge that Kerry’s tales of heroism as a Swift Boat commander were highly exaggerated, those same networks acted as if their job was to bury the news, not report it.
And the New England Republican dug up the transcript from a hostile press briefing at the White House. Here's a taste of the badgering that Scott McClellan got:
Q It's your position that these documents specifically show that he served in Alabama during the period 1972, when he was supposed to be there. Do they specifically show that?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think if you look at the documents, what they show are the days on which he was paid, the payroll records. And we previously said that the President recalls serving both in Alabama and in Texas.
Q I'm not interested in what he recalls. I'm interested in whether these documents specifically show that he was in Alabama and served on the days during the latter part of 1972 --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I just answered that question.
Q You have not answered that question. You --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said -- no, I said, no, in response to your question, Keith.
Q No, so the answer is, "no"?
MR. McCLELLAN: I said these documents show the days on which he was paid. That's what they show. So they show -- they show that he was paid on these days.
Q Okay, but they do not show that he was in Alabama when he was supposed to be --
MR. McCLELLAN: These are payroll records, and they reflect the fact that he was paid on the days on which he served.
Q Do any of them show that he was paid on days that he served in the latter part of 1972 when he was in Alabama? I don't see any dates for that.
MR. McCLELLAN: It just kind of amazes me that some will now say they want more information, after the payroll records and the point summaries have all been released to show that he met his requirements and to show that he fulfilled his duties.
Q But these documents do not show that. They do not show that he was in Alabama and served at that time. I don't even see any pay dates during that period.
MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments. No, they show pay dates during that fall of 1972 period.
Q They do?
MR. McCLELLAN: There's October on there, there's November on there, and then there's January on there, as well, in '73. There's some pay dates on there.
Q Okay, so then, do they specifically show that he served in Alabama during that time?
MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments in October; they show payments in November.
Q But just because he's paid doesn't mean that he served and worked there, does it?
...
When Bush is being questioned, the onus is on him to prove without a doubt that 30 year old charges are false. But when there are allegations against Kerry, the media requires that the charges be proven, without a doubt. Seems fair to me.
Just for fun, look at the Tom Brokaw interview of John Kerry and his tough questions like
Senator, at the end of this week in Boston, what will the American people learn about you that will surprise them?
oooooh, Tom, don't pull any punches!
