Sunday, September 12, 2004
Media Matters
The media ignored for weeks the Swift Boat Vets' claims from hundreds of Vietnam veterans, some of those documented and provably true (forcing the Kerry campaign to modify their story). Then finally when they did address the story, usually they just questioned their credibility and distorted their claims.
CBS attempted to turn the tables, questioning Bush's service in the Vietnam era, in what was is now obviously a transparent attempt to sully Bush's trustworthiness in the way Kerry has suffered. And the media couldn't get enough of this story. See (here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Of course, it has totally backfired, in that it is clear the whole thing was a partisan hatchet job, and there is likely little if any truth behind any of the stories. It seemed like Dan Rather was the first wave of an all-out media assault on President Bush. NBC's Today Show was preparing to follow up with three separate features on Kitty Kelly, who is making some outrageous anti-Bush claims of her own. But they are probably they are reassessing their sources now, in light of Rather's pickle. (Ms. Kelly seems to have her own problems with authenticity.) All future Bush bashing in the media will now face new scrutiny by viewers.
So what about Evan Thomas' claim that the media would secure 15% of America's votes for John Kerry? Did they just blow it?
I think, yes and no. I believe that 15% is already reflected in the current poll numbers, given the anti-Bush half-truths and lies already promulgated by the media and absorbed as Conventional Wisdom. (Dan was caught red-handed, but how many stories has the media slipped by?)
Had the media just continued in their normal negativity, Bush's slim lead would probably have slowly eroded, leading to a very close race by Election Day. In doing so, they probably would have captured another 5% of the vote for Kerry.
But instead they got greedy. Their man was still losing! Didn't Americans get it yet? So Dan went ahead with a juicy story, ignoring reservations at CBS News, and thereby probably eliminated any chance of having a large impact from here to election day. Now it seems probable that Americans will largely disregard any future media claims against Bush. How could they be believed, when even the esteemed "60 Minutes" has been caught red-handed?
So I think, thankfully, Dan's blunder may have leveled the playing field a bit. Neither candidate is likely to get much of a boost from the media from here on out. Now, it's up to each campaign to make their pitch to the voters, and the voters, not the media, will decide who will be our next President.
The way it should be.
Aside:
Consider an alternate universe where Dan Rather isn't quite so stupid. He recognizes that the memos are clearly fake, doesn't run the Bush hit-piece, and thereby doesn't expose the otherwise covert attempt by the liberal media to steal the election for Kerry. And the media continues in its current, less-obvious propaganda campaign against Bush.
Could the media have succeeded? I think this is a very important question. After all, what does it say about our country if the media establishment can unduly influence voters to grab 15% of the votes for their candidate? That's a huge number, considering how the usual margin in America today. So let's take a look...
Recall Evan Thoma says the media can grab 15% of the votes for their man. But let's be generous to the intelligence of Americans and say that only 5% can be swayed by the obvious media bias. (I know, ok, very generous.)
Bush has an 8 point lead, so hypothetically for Kerry to win without the help of the media, he would need to gain, conservatively, 13 points in less than two months, accounting for the 5 points he would otherwise get for free from the media. As polarized as the country seems to be, this would be very likely to be impossible.
In other words, if Kerry is elected President, it will almost definitely be because of his friends in the media.
In the last election, some Democrats said that Bush was unfairly elected -- actually selected by the Supreme Court (though evidence says otherwise). But now in this election, there is a chance that our next President will be unfairly selected by the Media.
I think this is a big problem. Do you?
But I think there is some hope. With the advent of the internet and other news outlets, such as Fox, the influence of the media should lessen. And, thanks to Dan, that may happen even faster.
