Reconsidering All Things
October 1, 2003
by Mike Webb

A LOOK AT AMERICA'S FREE MEDIA

Who cares if the media is liberal or conservative? That can be debated (and has been) for years. But in the wake of the NY Times’ Jayson Blair scandal, and the long overdue exposing of Bush’s Iraq lies (that were refuted back in the winter), it’s time to take a look at America’s free media.

9/11/2001

The Thing: According to a Washington Post poll, 69% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein is responsible for what happened on the worst day in American history. RAT somehow thought we all understood that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind of the evil deed, yet 7 out of 10 of US citizens seem to be confused. Which is actually understandable when you consider that a couple of weeks ago Vice President Cheney tried to link the two on Meet The Press. Under pressure the following week, both President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld finally backed off that idea and asserted that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 (so could someone please remind RAT why we attacked Iraq?).

The Reconsideration: RAT could be wrong, but a president rebuking a vice president’s statement – no matter what the topic - would normally be front page news. But according to Editor & Publisher, of the 12 highest circulating newspapers in America, only the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Dallas Morning News ran President Bush’s correction on page one. The Houston Chronicle found room on page 3, while the story didn’t even crack the top 10 pages in the rest (and was not mentioned at all in the Wall Street Journal or Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post). If the most read papers in the US of A couldn’t find room to set the record straight and inform their readers of a misunderstood 9/11 fact, then no wonder the co-workers to the left and right of you are lucky to remember how to get to work at all.

SECRET AGENT WOMAN

11 Weeks Ago: The former ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson (who was honored by and fully supportive of Bush 41’s Gulf War), spoke out in early July and wrote an editorial in the New York Times that more or less created the media frenzy story of Bush 43’s lies about Iraq’s attempts to build a nuclear program. A few days later, Wilson’s wife was outed as a CIA operative by “two senior administration officials” in a column by Bob Novak, apparently in an attempt to discredit Wilson and intimidate others from disclosing the holes in 43’s Iraq intelligence. (Outing CIA operatives is illegal under federal law with a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.)

Today: Two nightly news programs (ABC & NBC), all of CNN’s shows, none of Fox’s and most other cable news-talk shows led with the story. Seventy-seven days after a story about an abuse of power and potential federal crime at the highest level of government (that recalls the Nixon Administration) broke, the national news media finally decided it was news. Sen. Charles Schumer’s news conference demanding an investigation 10 weeks ago didn’t rate as news in most newspapers. Paul Krugman’s NY Times columns didn’t move it along. Even my home page – Salon.com – failed to report on it. But today, after reports on MSNBC and in the Washington Post that said the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the leaks a few weeks ago, the story is the top news of the day. Better late to the party than not getting there at all, but if you feel like a relatively informed person and you’re just now hearing about this story, your news medium is merely mediocre.

THE NEW YORK SLIMES

The papers of record: A couple of days after Gen. Wesley Clark announced his presidential candidacy, he agreed to a sit down interview with reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times. The interview lasted 75 minutes and here’s how the different papers played the interview in print:

NY Times headline “Clark Says He Would Have Voted For War.” Their story plays up his apparent flip-flopped of originally being against the resolution that basically gave Bush Congressional approval to wage war on Iraq. The reporter also notes that Clark called his press aide over (“Mary, help”) to clarify his stance, and mainly focuses on his thoughts about the war and where he stands on Bush’s call for $87 billion more to finance it. (In fairness I should note that as of writing this, the story was no longer available online because “all the news that’s fit to print” is only available for a week before it costs you money to read it.)

Washington Post headline “Clark ‘Probably’ Would Have Backed War.” Their story says Clark says his position on the war was closer to Kerry and Lieberman’s, that he had just made up his mind to run the previous weekend, and that he didn’t offer many specifics on policy issues but did talk about a wide range of them. They also gave an overview of his decision to run and state of mind on Iraq and the job President Bush has done.

Boston Globe – who cares.

LA Times headline “Clark Comes Out Blazing At Bush’s ‘Arrogance’ On Iraq.” They lead with Clark’s strong criticisms of Bush’s foreign policy, and report that “Clark said he would likely have voted to authorize the war because ‘the simple truth is that when the president of the United States lays the power of office’ on the line, ‘the balance of judgment probably goes to the president.’” It also gives background on his decision to run, reports on the audience response to his speech, quotes party insiders, notes the ‘bumps’ candidates run into when they campaign, fleshes out his statements on various issues, and even explains how he packs his luggage.

The actual record: The outrage here is not that the reports are so different, but that the slimey NY Times says Clark changed war positions without offering his entire statement of the need to support the president. Newspapers are allowed to have a political bent or outlook, and if you don’t like it, don’t read it. But to say a candidate had a different position on an issue when all 4 reporters had the opportunity to include the same quote is fowl. It’s inconceivable that the alleged paper of record would call Clark out for a flip-flop, but not include his entire line of thinking that was used in the LA Times story. RAT has long felt that the NY Times was merely a corporate newspaper that merely looked out for corporate interests. But not giving a reader the full range of facts on any story is an unforgivable act that shows there is a clear intent to set an agenda – an agenda that RAT wants no part of.

WESLEY CLARK

Spoke Too Soon: Gen. Wesley Clark jumped into the Democratic presidential sweepstakes and RAT quickly jumped on the bandwagon. Clark had impressed RAT in an appearance on Meet The Press when he clearly articulated a liberal agenda. And since RAT is always a bit naïve, we believed him and even hoped that he would be the kind of candidate who would remind people that the word liberal really shouldn’t be a bad word. After all it’s liberals who brought social security, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, LBJ’s Great Society and the GI Bill into our social conscience. Those achievements are nothing to be ashamed of.

The Take Back: Not so fast my little RAT bastard. It turns out Clark voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I, and had high praise for the current Bush Administration as recently as Spring 2001. Which doesn’t disqualify RAT’s support for Clark’s candidacy, but it does tend to put him in the category of a just another guy who’ll say and do whatever it takes to win instead of being a person who plainly speaks from the heart. RAT promises to be more measured in the future and not get its hopes up so quickly.

(Mike Webb is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine and is not actually Alexander Washburn in disguise)