<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://xml.world-of-newave.info/katie-couric.atom.xsl" media="screen"?>
<feed version="0.3" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#" xml:lang="en-us">
<title>Katie Couric - World-of-Newave.info</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://answers.world-of-newave.info/katie-couric.htm"/>
<author>
<name>World-of-Newave.info</name>
<url>http://www.world-of-newave.info/</url>
</author>
<modified>2008-08-30T03:40:35Z</modified>
<tagline>Latest news and articles about Katie Couric</tagline>
<copyright>Copyright (c)2004-2008.§/Newave SARL. All rights reserved.</copyright>
<entry>
<title>{ISSUES &gt; BIAS AND BALANCE} - Conservative echo chamber pushes story about Obama's brother, despite brother's reported refutation</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/conservative-echo-chamber-pushes-story-about-obama-20080863539.htm"/>
<summary type="text/plain">In an August 20 article, the British
newspaper The Telegraph reported
that the Italian edition of Vanity Fair
quoted Sen. Barack Obama's half brother George Obama as saying, "No
one knows who I am...I live here [near Nairobi] on less than a dollar a
month." Several conservative media figures have recently called attention
to the reported quote and suggested Barack Obama is neglecting his
half brother. However, these media figures, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Wes Pruden, and Steve Doocy, have all disregarded subsequent reports,
including one in the British newspaper the Times,
which quoted George Obama
saying: "They say I live on a dollar a month, but this is all lies by
people who don't want my brother to win." Further, George Obama said on the August 22
edition of CNN's The Situation Room: "I was brought up
well. I live well even now. The magazines, they exaggerated everything."

Since the Telegraph article was published and linked to on August 20
by Internet gossip Matt Drudge, several conservative media figures have called
attention to George Obama's reported quote: 

On
     the August 22 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush
     Limbaugh claimed: "We found out the other day that Obama -- and [ABC
     News senior national correspondent] Jake Tapper, by the way, has done some
     research into Obama's family tree, and so far he's been able
     to count eight half siblings of Obama. One of them was George Hussein
     Obama, found in a hut in Kenya,
     outside Nairobi.
     And we found that old George Hussein Obama living on less than $1 a
     month." Limbaugh continued, asking: "How come Barry
     can't send his half brother a $20 bill and almost double the
     guy's annual income?"


On
     the August 22 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Sean
     Hannity said: "Barack Obama's lost brother, George Hussein
     Anyango Obama, living in a hut in a ramshackle town on the outskirts of Nairobi, who is
     literally living there on less than a dollar a month." Hannity
     added: "Even though Obama met with him in 2006, you know, the guy is
     suffering. And if Obama -- charity doesn't begin at home with Obama,
     then I guess we've got to do something about it."


During
     the August 25 edition of Fox News' Fox
     &amp; Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated: "Down in
     Texas, the GOP party now has a brand new Web video out -- they have paid
     for it -- and what they're doing is they're using some
     information that they gleaned from the Italian Vanity Fair article that came out toward the end of
     last week regarding Barack Obama's half brother, who lives on a
     dollar a month just outside of Nairobi." After co-host Gretchen
     Carlson responded by stating that Obama's half brother lives
     "[i]n a shack," Fox &
     Friends aired the ad, produced by the Republican Party of
     Texas, which shows a picture of Obama's half brother while the
     narrator asks, "If Obama cares so much about your family, why
     doesn't he take care of his family first?"


On
     the August 25 edition of the syndicated radio program The War Room with Quinn &amp; Rose, co-host Rose
     Tennent repeated the Vanity Fair quote,
     and then said: "I'm going to talk to Vanity Fair, get George Hussein
     Obama's address. I will send him the same amount that I'm
     sending that family, also in Africa and Ethiopia -- I will send to
     George Hussein and I will -- and then -- and get him out of that shack.
     I'll send him less than $500 a year, and his standard of living will
     increase like you have never seen before." In response, co-host Jim
     Quinn asked: "Why can't Barack pull 20 bucks out of his
     pocket?"


In
     his August 26 Washington Times column, Wesley Pruden wrote: "There's
     the story now afloat that an Obama half brother is living in grim poverty
     in Kenya, scratching out a bare living on a dollar a month while the
     senator lives in luxury on $5 million a year."


These media figures did not mention that
in an August 22 article, the British newspaper the Times reported:


George,
26, had been living a quiet life, studying to become a car mechanic until
earlier this week when Vanity Fair tracked him down to Huruma, on the edge of Nairobi. 

He said
that he was furious at subsequent reports that he had been abandoned by the
Obama family and that he was filled with shame about living in a slum.
"It seems there are people who want to destroy me and my family,"
he said. 

"They
say I live on a dollar a month, but this is all lies by people who don't
want my brother to win." He said that he was supported by his mother,
Jael, who now lives in the US,
and by a cousin in Huruma.


Nor did they mention the following report
on the August 22 edition of CNN's The
Situation Room:


WOLF BLITZER (host): Barack
Obama has written and spoken about his relationship with his Kenyan father and
his family there, but little has been said about one of the candidate's closest
relatives, who lives in a Nairobi
slum. CNN's David McKenzie sat down with him in his first television interview.

[...]

DAVID McKENZIE (CNN correspondent): Some
of the neighbors feel that perhaps the candidate Obama should help the brother
Obama. 

EMELDA MARGRETTE NEGEI (George
Obama's neighbor): I'd like Obama to visit his brother, to see how he's
living, to improve our way of life. See the place he's living. He'll have
to come and change the place.

McKENZIE: George bristles at the thought.
Recent magazine articles, claiming that he is impoverished and desperate, just
don't sit well.

GEORGE OBAMA: I was brought up well. I
live well even now. The magazines, they exaggerated everything. I think I kind
of like it here. I'm Kenyan, so definitely I'd really love to live in
Kenya.


From the August 22 broadcast of Premiere
Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:


LIMBAUGH:
But here's -- here's a way of looking at it. We found out the other
day that Obama -- and Jake Tapper, by the way, has done some research into
Obama's family tree, and so far he's been able to count eight
half siblings of Obama. One of them was George Hussein Obama, found in a hut in
Kenya, outside Nairobi. And we found that
old George Hussein Obama living on less than $1 a month. We also found out that
one of [Sen. John] McCain's houses, a condo, is one that they provide for
an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain's.

How
come Barry can't send his half brother a $20 bill and almost double the
guy's annual income? Well, a $20 bill would almost double his
brother's annual income, and McCain said to be so out of touch with the
common man, he's using one of his houses to house an elderly
aunt.


From the August 22 broadcast of ABC Radio
Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:


HANNITY:
Now, you know, we spent a lot of time yesterday on the Rezko hypocrisy. If they
want to make housing an issue and the fact -- by the way, it appears that John
McCain and his wife, Cindy, use these houses for their family. They actually
take care of their family. Which leads us to what we discussed at length
yesterday, and that is Barack Obama's lost brother, George Hussein
Anyango Obama, living in a hut in a ramshackle town on the outskirts of Nairobi, who is literally
living there on less than a dollar a month.

Now, I
can't get anybody from the Obama camp to give me an address so I can send
this man some money. Even though Obama met with him in 2006, you know, the guy
is suffering. And if Obama -- charity doesn't begin at home with Obama,
then I guess we've got to do something about it. 


From the August 25 edition of Fox
News' Fox &amp; Friends:


DOOCY:
Down in Texas, the GOP party now has a brand new Web video out -- they have
paid for it -- and what they're doing is they're using some
information that they gleaned from the Italian Vanity
Fair article that came out toward the end of last week regarding
Barack Obama's half brother, who lives on a dollar a month just outside
of Nairobi.

CARLSON:
In a shack.

DOOCY:
Yeah.

CARLSON:
In a shack. He's met his -- he's met Barack Obama twice.
Let's watch.

[begin
video clip]


UNIDENTIFIED
FEMALE: Barack Obama has viciously attacked John McCain and his family for
being successful and living the American Dream. This, even after McCain gave so
much for his country. Obama claims he's looking out for our families in
an economic downturn. But ask yourself this: if Obama cares so much about your
family, why doesn't he take care of his own family first? Barack Obama lives in
this house, wants to live in this house, while his own brother lives in this
one. 

UNIDENTIFIED
MALE: Paid for by the Republican Party of Texas and not authorized by any
candidate or candidate's committee.


[end
video clip]

BRIAN
KILMEADE (co-host): All right, so we don't know how the McCain camp feels
about that but we do know this, John McCain went on a day vacation right after
he was not able to answer the question how many homes he had. Joe Biden
mentioned how many homes he had, how many kitchen tables he could sit at.
Everyone's having fun with it, Bob Beckel talked about it all day. Well,
John McCain answered that question when Katie Couric asked him about how many
homes he had and why he couldn't answer. Here it is.

McCAIN
[video clip]: We spend our time primarily in Washington,
D.C., where I have a condominium in Crystal City
[in Arlington, Virginia];
here in this beautiful Sedona that I am blessed every moment that I can spend
here; our condominium in Phoenix, Arizona; and a place over in San Diego. The others are also for investment
purposes. So all I can say is I am blessed to have the opportunity to continue
to be part of a country where you can succeed and do well.

DOOCY:
So he's the embodiment of the American Dream.

KILMEADE:
Right.

CARLSON:
The thing I glean from this is that this getting nasty, folks. 

DOOCY:
Yeah.

CARLSON:
This is getting nasty. If we go back to that Texas
ad where they're bringing up the half brother now who lives in Nairobi.

DOOCY:
On a buck a month.

CARLSON:
That's -- it's getting nasty because the minute you bring up the
whole house problem, then you can talk about Rezko with Barack Obama, you can
talk about his half brother living in Nairobi.
Without a doubt, though, that was a gaffe for McCain talking about his homes.

KILMEADE:
Well, it is. The others are investment properties. And the other thing is, I
let Bob Beckel -- Bob Beckel says to me yesterday, "Have you seen John --
has John McCain commented yet on the homes thing?" I said,
"Yeah." I showed him on my Blackberry and I showed him that
verbatim. He said, "That's a good enough answer."

DOOCY:
Yeah. Well, it's very complicated because --

KILMEADE:
Does it stop the storyline now?

DOOCY:
-- John McCain's wife is really rich, and because, you know, they keep --
they file separate income tax and all that stuff, so he does not know exactly
what his wife's investments are, and it was all lined up in the -- I
think it was The New York Times
on Saturday. It's complicated.


From the August 25 edition of Clear
Channel's The War Room with Quinn
&amp; Rose:


TENNENT:
You know, he [Obama] quotes Matthew and he says, whatever you do to the least
of these or how -- whatever you neglected to give unto one of these, the least
of these, you neglected to do to me. Let me ask you a question, Barack Obama.
Your brother, George Hussein Obama, who exists on a dollar a day, we found out,
in a tiny little shack -- not even a hut, but a shack --

QUINN:
Oh, it's worse --

TENNENT:
-- in Nairobi, Africa
-- would you consider him, George Hussein Obama, your brother, one of the least
of these?

QUINN:
Oh, it's worse than you just said.

TENNENT:
Well, I know, and I've got that story, but that's not my point. My
point is that you're talking about whatever you do to the least of these
-- Barack Obama, would you consider your brother, George Hussein Obama, the
least of these? The man is living on a dollar a day in Nairobi,
Africa. Here's the story, I'll
read the story, you wanna hear how bad it is. This is from the Italian edition
of Vanity Fair and it said that
they found George Hussein Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town on the
outskirts of Nairobi.
This Mr. Obama is 26 years old, he's the youngest of the presidential
candidate's half brothers who spoke for the first time about his life,
which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.
Indeed, it couldn't be more different. His brother, George Hussein Obama,
says, "no one knows who I am. I live here on less than a dollar a
month." 

And
according to Italy's Vanity Fair, his
two-meter by three-meter shack is decorated with football posters of the
Italian football giants Milan
and also as well as a calendar showing exotic beaches of the world. That poor
little guy is probably sitting in there thinking, "Someday I'd like
to see one of those beautiful beaches. But, right now I'm stuck in this
-- this tiny little wood shack, no roof over it." It's just
different pieces of wood and aluminum pounded together for some protection from
the elements. Anyway, Vanity Fair
also noted that he had a front-page newspaper picture of his famous brother
born of the same father, Barack Hussein Obama, but to a different mother, named
only as Jael. But he told the magazine, "I live like a recluse. No one
knows I exist." So he says that, "if anyone says anything to me
about my surname, I say we are not related; I am ashamed." For
10 years, George Obama lived rough. However, he now hopes to try to sort out
his life by starting a course at a local technical college. He's only met
his famous older brother twice. Once when he was five and the last time in 2006
when Obama was on tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi. And also, Obama mentions his brother
in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as "a
beautiful boy with a rounded head." What the hell does that mean? 

QUINN:
Yeah, and -- 

TENNENT:
A beautiful boy with a rounded head.

QUINN:
And an income of just $12 a year. Now -- 

TENNENT:
Now, here -- I want to tell you something. There's a little family in
Africa, in Ethiopia, Africa,
not Nairobi, but Ethiopia. And they have a couple of
children, and the little girl touched my heart, so I give her $26 a month. That
$26 a month goes to school supplies, it gets her into a school, clothes for
school. They asked me the other -- about a month ago, "Would you consider
helping her brother?" And I said, "Sure, put him on." So, now
it's, what, $52 a month. Fifty-two dollars a month I spend to make sure
someone is having -- gets a chance, gets a chance to get out of where they are
and make something out of themselves. And one year I bought them a cow for the
family for Christmas. And the next year you joined me and bought me some ducks
-- we bought them ducks and hens to lay eggs. And now this family, on less than
what, $400, $500 a year from me --

QUINN:
Something like that, yeah.

TENNENT:
-- OK, is living high on the hog in Africa.
So, here's what I'm suggesting. I will -- if they said -- I'm
going to talk to Vanity Fair, get
George Hussein Obama's address. I will send him the same amount that
I'm sending that family, also in Africa and Ethiopia -- I will send to George
Hussein and I will -- and then -- and get him out of that shack. I'll
send him less than $500 a year and his standard of living will increase like
you have never seen before. 

QUINN:
Why can't Barack pull 20 bucks out of his pocket?

TENNENT:
Why, indeed. What the heck is that all about? So don't -- you know,
don't you tell me that as a nation we have failed because we don't
live by Matthew.

    
</summary>
<id>http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/conservative-echo-chamber-pushes-story-about-obama-20080863539.htm</id>
<issued>2008-08-27T01:58:01Z</issued>
<modified>2008-08-27T01:58:01Z</modified>
<author>
<name>Mediamatters.Org</name>
<url>http://mediamatters.org/items/200808260023</url>
</author>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.world-of-newave.info/"><![CDATA[
<table cellspacing="4" cellpadding="0" border="0" style="margin:9px;">
<tr><td colspan="2" style="font:bold 12pt Arial;vertical-align:top;"><a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/conservative-echo-chamber-pushes-story-about-obama-20080863539.htm"><b>Conservative echo chamber pushes story about Obama's brother, despite brother's reported refutation</b></a> <sup style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;">{<a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/conservative-echo-chamber-pushes-story-about-obama-20080863539.htm" target="_blank">new window</a>}</sup></td></tr>
<tr>
<td style="font:6pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;text-align:center;vertical-align:top;">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="100%" style="font:9pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;font-variant:small-caps;">Mediamatters.Org</span> - In an August 20 article, the British
newspaper The Telegraph reported
that the Italian edition of Vanity Fair
quoted Sen. Barack Obama's half brother George Obama as saying, "No
one knows who I am...I live here [near Nairobi] on less than a dollar a
month." Several conservative media figures have recently called attention
to the reported quote and suggested Barack Obama is neglecting his
half brother. However, these media figures, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Wes Pruden, and Steve Doocy, have all disregarded subsequent reports,
including one in the British newspaper the Times,
which quoted George Obama
saying: "They say I live on a dollar a month, but this is all lies by
people who don't want my brother to win." Further, George Obama said on the August 22
edition of CNN's The Situation Room: "I was brought up
well. I live well even now. The magazines, they exaggerated everything."

Since the Telegraph article was published and linked to on August 20
by Internet gossip Matt Drudge, several conservative media figures have called
attention to George Obama's reported quote: 

On
     the August 22 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush
     Limbaugh claimed: "We found out the other day that Obama -- and [ABC
     News senior national correspondent] Jake Tapper, by the way, has done some
     research into Obama's family tree, and so far he's been able
     to count eight half siblings of Obama. One of them was George Hussein
     Obama, found in a hut in Kenya,
     outside Nairobi.
     And we found that old George Hussein Obama living on less than $1 a
     month." Limbaugh continued, asking: "How come Barry
     can't send his half brother a $20 bill and almost double the
     guy's annual income?"


On
     the August 22 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Sean
     Hannity said: "Barack Obama's lost brother, George Hussein
     Anyango Obama, living in a hut in a ramshackle town on the outskirts of Nairobi, who is
     literally living there on less than a dollar a month." Hannity
     added: "Even though Obama met with him in 2006, you know, the guy is
     suffering. And if Obama -- charity doesn't begin at home with Obama,
     then I guess we've got to do something about it."


During
     the August 25 edition of Fox News' Fox
     & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated: "Down in
     Texas, the GOP party now has a brand new Web video out -- they have paid
     for it -- and what they're doing is they're using some
     information that they gleaned from the Italian Vanity Fair article that came out toward the end of
     last week regarding Barack Obama's half brother, who lives on a
     dollar a month just outside of Nairobi." After co-host Gretchen
     Carlson responded by stating that Obama's half brother lives
     "[i]n a shack," Fox &
     Friends aired the ad, produced by the Republican Party of
     Texas, which shows a picture of Obama's half brother while the
     narrator asks, "If Obama cares so much about your family, why
     doesn't he take care of his family first?"


On
     the August 25 edition of the syndicated radio program The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Rose
     Tennent repeated the Vanity Fair quote,
     and then said: "I'm going to talk to Vanity Fair, get George Hussein
     Obama's address. I will send him the same amount that I'm
     sending that family, also in Africa and Ethiopia -- I will send to
     George Hussein and I will -- and then -- and get him out of that shack.
     I'll send him less than $500 a year, and his standard of living will
     increase like you have never seen before." In response, co-host Jim
     Quinn asked: "Why can't Barack pull 20 bucks out of his
     pocket?"


In
     his August 26 Washington Times column, Wesley Pruden wrote: "There's
     the story now afloat that an Obama half brother is living in grim poverty
     in Kenya, scratching out a bare living on a dollar a month while the
     senator lives in luxury on $5 million a year."


These media figures did not mention that
in an August 22 article, the British newspaper the Times reported:


George,
26, had been living a quiet life, studying to become a car mechanic until
earlier this week when Vanity Fair tracked him down to Huruma, on the edge of Nairobi. 

He said
that he was furious at subsequent reports that he had been abandoned by the
Obama family and that he was filled with shame about living in a slum.
"It seems there are people who want to destroy me and my family,"
he said. 

"They
say I live on a dollar a month, but this is all lies by people who don't
want my brother to win." He said that he was supported by his mother,
Jael, who now lives in the US,
and by a cousin in Huruma.


Nor did they mention the following report
on the August 22 edition of CNN's The
Situation Room:


WOLF BLITZER (host): Barack
Obama has written and spoken about his relationship with his Kenyan father and
his family there, but little has been said about one of the candidate's closest
relatives, who lives in a Nairobi
slum. CNN's David McKenzie sat down with him in his first television interview.

[...]

DAVID McKENZIE (CNN correspondent): Some
of the neighbors feel that perhaps the candidate Obama should help the brother
Obama. 

EMELDA MARGRETTE NEGEI (George
Obama's neighbor): I'd like Obama to visit his brother, to see how he's
living, to improve our way of life. See the place he's living. He'll have
to come and change the place.

McKENZIE: George bristles at the thought.
Recent magazine articles, claiming that he is impoverished and desperate, just
don't sit well.

GEORGE OBAMA: I was brought up well. I
live well even now. The magazines, they exaggerated everything. I think I kind
of like it here. I'm Kenyan, so definitely I'd really love to live in
Kenya.


From the August 22 broadcast of Premiere
Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:


LIMBAUGH:
But here's -- here's a way of looking at it. We found out the other
day that Obama -- and Jake Tapper, by the way, has done some research into
Obama's family tree, and so far he's been able to count eight
half siblings of Obama. One of them was George Hussein Obama, found in a hut in
Kenya, outside Nairobi. And we found that
old George Hussein Obama living on less than $1 a month. We also found out that
one of [Sen. John] McCain's houses, a condo, is one that they provide for
an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain's.

How
come Barry can't send his half brother a $20 bill and almost double the
guy's annual income? Well, a $20 bill would almost double his
brother's annual income, and McCain said to be so out of touch with the
common man, he's using one of his houses to house an elderly
aunt.


From the August 22 broadcast of ABC Radio
Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:


HANNITY:
Now, you know, we spent a lot of time yesterday on the Rezko hypocrisy. If they
want to make housing an issue and the fact -- by the way, it appears that John
McCain and his wife, Cindy, use these houses for their family. They actually
take care of their family. Which leads us to what we discussed at length
yesterday, and that is Barack Obama's lost brother, George Hussein
Anyango Obama, living in a hut in a ramshackle town on the outskirts of Nairobi, who is literally
living there on less than a dollar a month.

Now, I
can't get anybody from the Obama camp to give me an address so I can send
this man some money. Even though Obama met with him in 2006, you know, the guy
is suffering. And if Obama -- charity doesn't begin at home with Obama,
then I guess we've got to do something about it. 


From the August 25 edition of Fox
News' Fox & Friends:


DOOCY:
Down in Texas, the GOP party now has a brand new Web video out -- they have
paid for it -- and what they're doing is they're using some
information that they gleaned from the Italian Vanity
Fair article that came out toward the end of last week regarding
Barack Obama's half brother, who lives on a dollar a month just outside
of Nairobi.

CARLSON:
In a shack.

DOOCY:
Yeah.

CARLSON:
In a shack. He's met his -- he's met Barack Obama twice.
Let's watch.

[begin
video clip]


UNIDENTIFIED
FEMALE: Barack Obama has viciously attacked John McCain and his family for
being successful and living the American Dream. This, even after McCain gave so
much for his country. Obama claims he's looking out for our families in
an economic downturn. But ask yourself this: if Obama cares so much about your
family, why doesn't he take care of his own family first? Barack Obama lives in
this house, wants to live in this house, while his own brother lives in this
one. 

UNIDENTIFIED
MALE: Paid for by the Republican Party of Texas and not authorized by any
candidate or candidate's committee.


[end
video clip]

BRIAN
KILMEADE (co-host): All right, so we don't know how the McCain camp feels
about that but we do know this, John McCain went on a day vacation right after
he was not able to answer the question how many homes he had. Joe Biden
mentioned how many homes he had, how many kitchen tables he could sit at.
Everyone's having fun with it, Bob Beckel talked about it all day. Well,
John McCain answered that question when Katie Couric asked him about how many
homes he had and why he couldn't answer. Here it is.

McCAIN
[video clip]: We spend our time primarily in Washington,
D.C., where I have a condominium in Crystal City
[in Arlington, Virginia];
here in this beautiful Sedona that I am blessed every moment that I can spend
here; our condominium in Phoenix, Arizona; and a place over in San Diego. The others are also for investment
purposes. So all I can say is I am blessed to have the opportunity to continue
to be part of a country where you can succeed and do well.

DOOCY:
So he's the embodiment of the American Dream.

KILMEADE:
Right.

CARLSON:
The thing I glean from this is that this getting nasty, folks. 

DOOCY:
Yeah.

CARLSON:
This is getting nasty. If we go back to that Texas
ad where they're bringing up the half brother now who lives in Nairobi.

DOOCY:
On a buck a month.

CARLSON:
That's -- it's getting nasty because the minute you bring up the
whole house problem, then you can talk about Rezko with Barack Obama, you can
talk about his half brother living in Nairobi.
Without a doubt, though, that was a gaffe for McCain talking about his homes.

KILMEADE:
Well, it is. The others are investment properties. And the other thing is, I
let Bob Beckel -- Bob Beckel says to me yesterday, "Have you seen John --
has John McCain commented yet on the homes thing?" I said,
"Yeah." I showed him on my Blackberry and I showed him that
verbatim. He said, "That's a good enough answer."

DOOCY:
Yeah. Well, it's very complicated because --

KILMEADE:
Does it stop the storyline now?

DOOCY:
-- John McCain's wife is really rich, and because, you know, they keep --
they file separate income tax and all that stuff, so he does not know exactly
what his wife's investments are, and it was all lined up in the -- I
think it was The New York Times
on Saturday. It's complicated.


From the August 25 edition of Clear
Channel's The War Room with Quinn
& Rose:


TENNENT:
You know, he [Obama] quotes Matthew and he says, whatever you do to the least
of these or how -- whatever you neglected to give unto one of these, the least
of these, you neglected to do to me. Let me ask you a question, Barack Obama.
Your brother, George Hussein Obama, who exists on a dollar a day, we found out,
in a tiny little shack -- not even a hut, but a shack --

QUINN:
Oh, it's worse --

TENNENT:
-- in Nairobi, Africa
-- would you consider him, George Hussein Obama, your brother, one of the least
of these?

QUINN:
Oh, it's worse than you just said.

TENNENT:
Well, I know, and I've got that story, but that's not my point. My
point is that you're talking about whatever you do to the least of these
-- Barack Obama, would you consider your brother, George Hussein Obama, the
least of these? The man is living on a dollar a day in Nairobi,
Africa. Here's the story, I'll
read the story, you wanna hear how bad it is. This is from the Italian edition
of Vanity Fair and it said that
they found George Hussein Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town on the
outskirts of Nairobi.
This Mr. Obama is 26 years old, he's the youngest of the presidential
candidate's half brothers who spoke for the first time about his life,
which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.
Indeed, it couldn't be more different. His brother, George Hussein Obama,
says, "no one knows who I am. I live here on less than a dollar a
month." 

And
according to Italy's Vanity Fair, his
two-meter by three-meter shack is decorated with football posters of the
Italian football giants Milan
and also as well as a calendar showing exotic beaches of the world. That poor
little guy is probably sitting in there thinking, "Someday I'd like
to see one of those beautiful beaches. But, right now I'm stuck in this
-- this tiny little wood shack, no roof over it." It's just
different pieces of wood and aluminum pounded together for some protection from
the elements. Anyway, Vanity Fair
also noted that he had a front-page newspaper picture of his famous brother
born of the same father, Barack Hussein Obama, but to a different mother, named
only as Jael. But he told the magazine, "I live like a recluse. No one
knows I exist." So he says that, "if anyone says anything to me
about my surname, I say we are not related; I am ashamed." For
10 years, George Obama lived rough. However, he now hopes to try to sort out
his life by starting a course at a local technical college. He's only met
his famous older brother twice. Once when he was five and the last time in 2006
when Obama was on tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi. And also, Obama mentions his brother
in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as "a
beautiful boy with a rounded head." What the hell does that mean? 

QUINN:
Yeah, and -- 

TENNENT:
A beautiful boy with a rounded head.

QUINN:
And an income of just $12 a year. Now -- 

TENNENT:
Now, here -- I want to tell you something. There's a little family in
Africa, in Ethiopia, Africa,
not Nairobi, but Ethiopia. And they have a couple of
children, and the little girl touched my heart, so I give her $26 a month. That
$26 a month goes to school supplies, it gets her into a school, clothes for
school. They asked me the other -- about a month ago, "Would you consider
helping her brother?" And I said, "Sure, put him on." So, now
it's, what, $52 a month. Fifty-two dollars a month I spend to make sure
someone is having -- gets a chance, gets a chance to get out of where they are
and make something out of themselves. And one year I bought them a cow for the
family for Christmas. And the next year you joined me and bought me some ducks
-- we bought them ducks and hens to lay eggs. And now this family, on less than
what, $400, $500 a year from me --

QUINN:
Something like that, yeah.

TENNENT:
-- OK, is living high on the hog in Africa.
So, here's what I'm suggesting. I will -- if they said -- I'm
going to talk to Vanity Fair, get
George Hussein Obama's address. I will send him the same amount that
I'm sending that family, also in Africa and Ethiopia -- I will send to George
Hussein and I will -- and then -- and get him out of that shack. I'll
send him less than $500 a year and his standard of living will increase like
you have never seen before. 

QUINN:
Why can't Barack pull 20 bucks out of his pocket?

TENNENT:
Why, indeed. What the heck is that all about? So don't -- you know,
don't you tell me that as a nation we have failed because we don't
live by Matthew.

    
<blockquote style="background:#FAFAFA;border:1px dotted #E6E6E6;font:italic 10pt Times New Roman;padding:9px;">Media Matters - Conservative echo chamber pushes story about Obama&#39;s brother, despite brother&#39;s reported refutation {...} Numerous conservative media figures have promoted a story in the Italian edition of Vanity Fair that reportedly quoted Sen. Barack Obama&#39;s half brother George Obama as saying that he lives "on less than a dollar a month," but have disregarded reports that quoted George Obama saying, "They say I live on a dollar a month, but this is all lies by people who don&#39;t want my brother to win," and, "The magazines, they exaggerated everything." {...}</blockquote><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Published:</span> August 27, 2008, 1:58 am - <span style="color:#808080;">Indexed:</span> August 27, 2008, 4:35 pm - <span style="color:#808080;">Page Size:</span>&nbsp;33KB</div><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Category:</span> <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/">Society</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/">Issues</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/">Business</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/">Media</a> &gt;  <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/"><b>Bias and Balance</b></a></div></td></tr></table>
<br/>
]]></content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>{ISSUES &gt; BIAS AND BALANCE} - Couric didn't challenge McCain's false claim that Biden proposed "break[ing] Iraq up into three different countries"</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/couric-didn-t-challenge-mccain-s-false-claim-that-20080850632.htm"/>
<summary type="text/plain">During an August 23 interview with
Sen. John McCain, the video of which
is available on CBS' website, CBS Evening
News anchor Katie
Couric did not
challenge McCain's false claim that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) "said you had to break Iraq up into three different countries" as
part of his Iraq
plan. McCain's false statement was also aired without challenge on the August
24 edition of CBS News Sunday Morning.
Additionally, on the August 23 edition of Fox News' America's
Election HQ, Fox News contributor Karl Rove
falsely asserted that Biden's proposal for Iraq involved "unilaterally splitting up a sovereign
nation," while Fox News Sunday
host Chris Wallace falsely stated that Biden's plan consisted of
"unilaterally dissolving a sovereign nation." In fact, Biden introduced
a "five-point plan" to "[m]aintain a unified Iraq
by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in
their own regions." The plan also states that "[t]he Iraqi
constitution already provides for federalism" and that "[t]he
central government would be responsible for common interests, like border
security and the distribution of oil revenues." Further, Biden has made
clear that he was not proposing that
his plan be imposed on Iraq
"unilaterally."

Biden and Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus
Leslie H. Gelb initially proposed their Iraq plan in a May 1, 2006, New York Times op-ed.
They wrote that the idea "is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving
each ethno-religious group --
Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab --
room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of
common interests." In an October 3, 2007, Washington Post op-ed,
Biden and Gelb explained that "we are not trying to impose our plan. If
the Iraqis don't want it, they won't and shouldn't take
it."

Indeed, a September 2007 Senate amendment proposed
by Biden stated
that "the United States should actively support a political settlement
among Iraq's major factions based upon the provisions of the Constitution
of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation
of federal regions." It did not call for "unilaterally"
imposing such a system. Biden's amendment was co-sponsored by Republican
Sens. Sam Brownback (KS), Arlen Specter (PA), Gordon Smith (OR), and Kay Bailey
Hutchison (TX), as well as Democratic Sens.
Barbara Boxer (CA), John Kerry (MA), Bill Nelson (FL), Charles Schumer (NY),
Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Blanche Lincoln (AR). It passed the Senate on
September 26, 2007, by a 75-23
vote.

From Couric's interview
with McCain: 


COURIC: Do you think it will be more
difficult now, Senator McCain, to criticize Barack Obama's foreign policy
credentials when someone like Joe Biden is on the ticket, a very experienced
and respected voice on Capitol Hill in these matters?

McCAIN: Well, I've always
respected Joe Biden, but I've disagreed with him from the time he voted
against the first Gulf War to his position where he said you had to break Iraq
up into three different countries. I've never agreed with that, but I
appreciate very much his dedication to trying to solve this genocide that's going on in Darfur and other things that Joe Biden has done. But we
really have different approaches to many important national security issues. I
look forward to whoever my running mate will be having a respectful debate with him on that as well.

COURIC: Where are you, Senator
McCain, in the vice-presidential
process?  


From the August 24 edition of CBS News Sunday Morning: 


DEAN REYNOLDS (CBS News correspondent):
John McCain's campaign reacted critically, releasing a statement raising
doubts about the pick more than an hour before it was even made official, and
then following it up with an advertisement.

[begin video clip] 


STEPHANOPOULOS: You said, "I
think he can be ready, but right now, I don't believe he is. The
presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

BIDEN: I think I stand by the
statement. 


[end video clip]

REYNOLDS: McCain himself kept the
pressure on in an interview yesterday afternoon with Katie Couric.

McCAIN [video clip]: Well,
I've always respected Joe Biden, but I've disagreed with him from
the time he voted against the first Gulf War to his position where he said you
had to break Iraq
up into three different countries. I've never agreed with that. 


From the August 23 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ: 


ROVE: And most important of all, as we begin to
examine the ideas, you know, particularly on foreign policy, I wonder if it's going
stand up well to scrutiny. Barack
Obama says John McCain is disqualified to be president by his judgment and
supporting and voting for the Iraq
war. Well, guess what? So did Joe Biden.

And some of the ideas that Biden has
offered from his foreign policy perch are frankly a little goofy. You know, when the surge -- when there was an
argument about the surge, he said, well -- his answer was to split the country into a Kurdish state,
a Shia state, and a Sunni state. You
know, the United States
unilaterally splitting
up a sovereign nation, Iraq,
and telling everybody they had to move to their own geographically separate quarters.
A little
strange.

WALLACE: Yeah, it's interesting, because we got some reporting out of Iraq
today, Karl, that one of the few subjects that all of the various ethnic and
religious factions in Iraq agree about now is what a bad idea Joe Biden's
tripartite splitting up of the country there would have been, and, as you say, the United
States unilaterally dissolving a sovereign nation.


You talked about the weaknesses of
Joe Biden. Now tell us about his
strengths. If
you're sitting there in the McCain camp, what about Joe Biden worries
you? 

    
</summary>
<id>http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/couric-didn-t-challenge-mccain-s-false-claim-that-20080850632.htm</id>
<issued>2008-08-25T01:57:31Z</issued>
<modified>2008-08-25T01:57:31Z</modified>
<author>
<name>Mediamatters.Org</name>
<url>http://mediamatters.org/items/200808240008</url>
</author>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.world-of-newave.info/"><![CDATA[
<table cellspacing="4" cellpadding="0" border="0" style="margin:9px;">
<tr><td colspan="2" style="font:bold 12pt Arial;vertical-align:top;"><a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/couric-didn-t-challenge-mccain-s-false-claim-that-20080850632.htm"><b>Couric didn't challenge McCain's false claim that Biden proposed "break[ing] Iraq up into three different countries"</b></a> <sup style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;">{<a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/couric-didn-t-challenge-mccain-s-false-claim-that-20080850632.htm" target="_blank">new window</a>}</sup></td></tr>
<tr>
<td style="font:6pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;text-align:center;vertical-align:top;">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="100%" style="font:9pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;font-variant:small-caps;">Mediamatters.Org</span> - During an August 23 interview with
Sen. John McCain, the video of which
is available on CBS' website, CBS Evening
News anchor Katie
Couric did not
challenge McCain's false claim that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) "said you had to break Iraq up into three different countries" as
part of his Iraq
plan. McCain's false statement was also aired without challenge on the August
24 edition of CBS News Sunday Morning.
Additionally, on the August 23 edition of Fox News' America's
Election HQ, Fox News contributor Karl Rove
falsely asserted that Biden's proposal for Iraq involved "unilaterally splitting up a sovereign
nation," while Fox News Sunday
host Chris Wallace falsely stated that Biden's plan consisted of
"unilaterally dissolving a sovereign nation." In fact, Biden introduced
a "five-point plan" to "[m]aintain a unified Iraq
by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in
their own regions." The plan also states that "[t]he Iraqi
constitution already provides for federalism" and that "[t]he
central government would be responsible for common interests, like border
security and the distribution of oil revenues." Further, Biden has made
clear that he was not proposing that
his plan be imposed on Iraq
"unilaterally."

Biden and Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus
Leslie H. Gelb initially proposed their Iraq plan in a May 1, 2006, New York Times op-ed.
They wrote that the idea "is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving
each ethno-religious group --
Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab --
room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of
common interests." In an October 3, 2007, Washington Post op-ed,
Biden and Gelb explained that "we are not trying to impose our plan. If
the Iraqis don't want it, they won't and shouldn't take
it."

Indeed, a September 2007 Senate amendment proposed
by Biden stated
that "the United States should actively support a political settlement
among Iraq's major factions based upon the provisions of the Constitution
of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation
of federal regions." It did not call for "unilaterally"
imposing such a system. Biden's amendment was co-sponsored by Republican
Sens. Sam Brownback (KS), Arlen Specter (PA), Gordon Smith (OR), and Kay Bailey
Hutchison (TX), as well as Democratic Sens.
Barbara Boxer (CA), John Kerry (MA), Bill Nelson (FL), Charles Schumer (NY),
Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Blanche Lincoln (AR). It passed the Senate on
September 26, 2007, by a 75-23
vote.

From Couric's interview
with McCain: 


COURIC: Do you think it will be more
difficult now, Senator McCain, to criticize Barack Obama's foreign policy
credentials when someone like Joe Biden is on the ticket, a very experienced
and respected voice on Capitol Hill in these matters?

McCAIN: Well, I've always
respected Joe Biden, but I've disagreed with him from the time he voted
against the first Gulf War to his position where he said you had to break Iraq
up into three different countries. I've never agreed with that, but I
appreciate very much his dedication to trying to solve this genocide that's going on in Darfur and other things that Joe Biden has done. But we
really have different approaches to many important national security issues. I
look forward to whoever my running mate will be having a respectful debate with him on that as well.

COURIC: Where are you, Senator
McCain, in the vice-presidential
process?  


From the August 24 edition of CBS News Sunday Morning: 


DEAN REYNOLDS (CBS News correspondent):
John McCain's campaign reacted critically, releasing a statement raising
doubts about the pick more than an hour before it was even made official, and
then following it up with an advertisement.

[begin video clip] 


STEPHANOPOULOS: You said, "I
think he can be ready, but right now, I don't believe he is. The
presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

BIDEN: I think I stand by the
statement. 


[end video clip]

REYNOLDS: McCain himself kept the
pressure on in an interview yesterday afternoon with Katie Couric.

McCAIN [video clip]: Well,
I've always respected Joe Biden, but I've disagreed with him from
the time he voted against the first Gulf War to his position where he said you
had to break Iraq
up into three different countries. I've never agreed with that. 


From the August 23 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ: 


ROVE: And most important of all, as we begin to
examine the ideas, you know, particularly on foreign policy, I wonder if it's going
stand up well to scrutiny. Barack
Obama says John McCain is disqualified to be president by his judgment and
supporting and voting for the Iraq
war. Well, guess what? So did Joe Biden.

And some of the ideas that Biden has
offered from his foreign policy perch are frankly a little goofy. You know, when the surge -- when there was an
argument about the surge, he said, well -- his answer was to split the country into a Kurdish state,
a Shia state, and a Sunni state. You
know, the United States
unilaterally splitting
up a sovereign nation, Iraq,
and telling everybody they had to move to their own geographically separate quarters.
A little
strange.

WALLACE: Yeah, it's interesting, because we got some reporting out of Iraq
today, Karl, that one of the few subjects that all of the various ethnic and
religious factions in Iraq agree about now is what a bad idea Joe Biden's
tripartite splitting up of the country there would have been, and, as you say, the United
States unilaterally dissolving a sovereign nation.


You talked about the weaknesses of
Joe Biden. Now tell us about his
strengths. If
you're sitting there in the McCain camp, what about Joe Biden worries
you? 

    
<blockquote style="background:#FAFAFA;border:1px dotted #E6E6E6;font:italic 10pt Times New Roman;padding:9px;">Media Matters - Couric didn&#39;t challenge McCain&#39;s false claim that Biden proposed "break[ing] Iraq up into three different countries" {...} During an interview with Sen. John McCain, Katie Couric did not challenge McCain&#39;s false claim that Sen. Joe Biden "said you had to break Iraq up into three different countries" as part of his Iraq plan. On America&#39;s Election HQ , Karl Rove falsely asserted that Biden&#39;s proposal for Iraq involved "unilaterally splitting up a sovereign nation," a statement that Chris Wallace echoed. In fact, Biden introduced a "five-point plan" to "[m]aintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions." Further, Biden has made clear that he was not proposing that his plan be imposed on Iraq "unilaterally." {...}</blockquote><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Published:</span> August 25, 2008, 1:57 am - <span style="color:#808080;">Indexed:</span> August 25, 2008, 7:59 pm - <span style="color:#808080;">Page Size:</span>&nbsp;25KB</div><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Category:</span> <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/">Society</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/">Issues</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/">Business</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/">Media</a> &gt;  <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/"><b>Bias and Balance</b></a></div></td></tr></table>
<br/>
]]></content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>{ISSUES &gt; BIAS AND BALANCE} - CBS Evening News aired only part of Bill Clinton quote about Obama, ignored praise that followed</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-evening-news-aired-only-part-of-bill-clinton-2008089972.htm"/>
<summary type="text/plain">On the August 5 edition of the CBS Evening
News with Katie Couric, CBS senior
political correspondent Jeff
Greenfield reported that "despite the image of unity, some [Sen. Hillary]
Clinton supporters are still wounded" by the Democratic presidential
primary, "apparently including former President Clinton, who offered a
decidedly lukewarm endorsement of [Sen. Barack] Obama's
credentials." Greenfield then aired a
portion of a recent interview Bill Clinton gave to ABC's Kate Snow, in
which Snow asked Clinton:
"Is he ready to be president?" But, in his report, Greenfield
aired only the first sentence of Clinton's
response, "Well, in -- you could argue that no one is ever ready to be
president," and omitted what followed: "I mean, I certainly learned
a lot about the job in my first year. He's shown a keen strategic sense
and his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire people and
motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being
president, and he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he
can't learn."

From Greenfield's report on the August 5
edition of the CBS Evening News with
Katie Couric: 


GREENFIELD: It was the longest, tightest primary battle in some 30 years,
and at times it was testy.

HILLARY CLINTON [video
clip]: Shame on you, Barack Obama.

OBAMA [video clip]: I
opposed that bill, and you know I did.

GREENFIELD: And despite
the image of unity, some Clinton supporters are still wounded, apparently
including former President Clinton, who offered a decidedly lukewarm
endorsement of Obama's credentials.

[begin video clip]



SNOW: Is he ready to be
president?

BILL CLINTON: Well, in
the -- you could argue that no one's ever ready to be president.



[end video clip]

GREENFIELD: And
while poll numbers suggest that Obama has won the backing of some six in 10 Clinton supporters, that
leaves a whole lot more of her backers who have yet to be persuaded.



From Clinton's
interview with Snow, posted
August 4 to ABCNews.com, the omitted portion of Clinton's response bolded:



SNOW:
Is he ready to be president?

CLINTON: Well, in the -- you could argue that no one is ever ready to be
president. I mean, I certainly learned a lot
about the job in my first year. He's shown a keen strategic sense and his
ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire people and
motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being
president, and he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he
can't learn. 

    
</summary>
<id>http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-evening-news-aired-only-part-of-bill-clinton-2008089972.htm</id>
<issued>2008-08-06T18:37:00Z</issued>
<modified>2008-08-06T18:37:00Z</modified>
<author>
<name>Mediamatters.Org</name>
<url>http://mediamatters.org/items/200808060002</url>
</author>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.world-of-newave.info/"><![CDATA[
<table cellspacing="4" cellpadding="0" border="0" style="margin:9px;">
<tr><td colspan="2" style="font:bold 12pt Arial;vertical-align:top;"><a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-evening-news-aired-only-part-of-bill-clinton-2008089972.htm"><b>CBS Evening News aired only part of Bill Clinton quote about Obama, ignored praise that followed</b></a> <sup style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;">{<a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-evening-news-aired-only-part-of-bill-clinton-2008089972.htm" target="_blank">new window</a>}</sup></td></tr>
<tr>
<td style="font:6pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;text-align:center;vertical-align:top;">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="100%" style="font:9pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;font-variant:small-caps;">Mediamatters.Org</span> - On the August 5 edition of the CBS Evening
News with Katie Couric, CBS senior
political correspondent Jeff
Greenfield reported that "despite the image of unity, some [Sen. Hillary]
Clinton supporters are still wounded" by the Democratic presidential
primary, "apparently including former President Clinton, who offered a
decidedly lukewarm endorsement of [Sen. Barack] Obama's
credentials." Greenfield then aired a
portion of a recent interview Bill Clinton gave to ABC's Kate Snow, in
which Snow asked Clinton:
"Is he ready to be president?" But, in his report, Greenfield
aired only the first sentence of Clinton's
response, "Well, in -- you could argue that no one is ever ready to be
president," and omitted what followed: "I mean, I certainly learned
a lot about the job in my first year. He's shown a keen strategic sense
and his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire people and
motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being
president, and he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he
can't learn."

From Greenfield's report on the August 5
edition of the CBS Evening News with
Katie Couric: 


GREENFIELD: It was the longest, tightest primary battle in some 30 years,
and at times it was testy.

HILLARY CLINTON [video
clip]: Shame on you, Barack Obama.

OBAMA [video clip]: I
opposed that bill, and you know I did.

GREENFIELD: And despite
the image of unity, some Clinton supporters are still wounded, apparently
including former President Clinton, who offered a decidedly lukewarm
endorsement of Obama's credentials.

[begin video clip]



SNOW: Is he ready to be
president?

BILL CLINTON: Well, in
the -- you could argue that no one's ever ready to be president.



[end video clip]

GREENFIELD: And
while poll numbers suggest that Obama has won the backing of some six in 10 Clinton supporters, that
leaves a whole lot more of her backers who have yet to be persuaded.



From Clinton's
interview with Snow, posted
August 4 to ABCNews.com, the omitted portion of Clinton's response bolded:



SNOW:
Is he ready to be president?

CLINTON: Well, in the -- you could argue that no one is ever ready to be
president. I mean, I certainly learned a lot
about the job in my first year. He's shown a keen strategic sense and his
ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire people and
motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being
president, and he's smart as a whip so there's nothing he
can't learn. 

    
<blockquote style="background:#FAFAFA;border:1px dotted #E6E6E6;font:italic 10pt Times New Roman;padding:9px;">Media Matters - CBS Evening News aired only part of Bill Clinton quote about Obama, ignored praise that followed {...} CBS&#39; Jeff Greenfield reported that President Clinton "offered a decidedly lukewarm endorsement of Obama&#39;s credentials," but Greenfield aired only a small portion of a response Clinton gave to the question from ABC&#39;s Kate Snow: "Is he ready to be president?" Greenfield did not air Clinton saying: "I mean, I certainly learned a lot about the job in my first year. He&#39;s shown a keen strategic sense and his ability to run an effective campaign. He clearly can inspire people and motivate people and energize them, which is a very important part of being president, and he&#39;s smart as a whip so there&#39;s nothing he can&#39;t learn." {...}</blockquote><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Published:</span> August 6, 2008, 6:37 pm - <span style="color:#808080;">Indexed:</span> August 6, 2008, 11:15 pm - <span style="color:#808080;">Page Size:</span>&nbsp;20KB</div><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Category:</span> <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/">Society</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/">Issues</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/">Business</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/">Media</a> &gt;  <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/"><b>Bias and Balance</b></a></div></td></tr></table>
<br/>
]]></content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>{ISSUES &gt; BIAS AND BALANCE} - Boehlert: Trust me, John McCain doesn't know what bad press looks like  </title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-trust-me-john-mccain-doesn-t-know-what-bad-2008087573.htm"/>
<summary type="text/plain">Did you know the big bad media are beating up on John McCain?

For weeks, the campaign's media debate centered on whether the
press was being too
kind to Sen. Barack Obama -- whether it was fawning over the
Democrat's historic run and drowning him in rapturous coverage. (Recent studies and analysis
have cast that claim into doubt.) 

But now the narrative has
been expanded to include the
laughable notion that, following a string of McCain campaign stumbles, including botched staging and
questionable photo-ops, the press has suddenly turned on McCain and is mocking the Republican. That
the same press corps that branded McCain a maverick and for
years worshipped his loose-talking demeanor,
has now soured on the senator. Meaning, the
love is gone. 

The New
York Observer trumpeted that trend last
week when it published a front-page article detailing the transformation from
McCain-as-media-hero to "McCain-as-marginalized-victim" who's suffering "rough treatment" from journalists. The Observer piece came complete with
an illustration that showed the
press as a two-by-four-wielding playground bully setting his sights on a vulnerable and
childlike McCain. (Run Johnny, run!) 

Aside from asking for
the world's smallest violin, I'd like
to make the point that rather than bemoaning the
type of press attention McCain has
been attracting, most recent Democratic candidates for
president, who were pummeled and
even savaged by the press, would pay
for the kind of respectful coverage McCain has accumulated this summer. They would
be rejoicing if the press ever treated them as kindly and as softly as it has
McCain this campaign. 

Let me put it another way: When
McCain gets regularly portrayed in the press as a serial liar the way
Al Gore was in 2000, then he can complain about the press. When McCain is portrayed as an angry lunatic the way
Howard Dean was in 2003, then he can complain. When
McCain's war record is dragged through the mud while the press looks on for weeks too
frightened to call out
the partisan accusers, the
way John Kerry's military record was,
then he can
complain. When McCain's campaign is defined by his
haircut the way
John Edwards' was, then he can
complain. When McCain is portrayed as a cackling witch the way
Hillary Clinton was this
winter, then he can complain. When
McCain is portrayed as arrogant and presumptuous the way Obama is today, then he can complain. 

But pretending that when
the press simply chronicles McCain's disjointed campaign means that reporters and pundits have
somehow turned on the
candidate -- that they
are attacking him and
piling on -- is just ludicrous. 

It's true the McCain campaign has
received some unkind press notices in recent weeks, but that's because the
McCain campaign has been
very poorly run. As The Atlantic's conservative blogger Ross
Douthat conceded last week, "John McCain is running a staggeringly inept campaign."


That's what
Republican boosters were saying about the
Arizona senator. But
simply acknowledging the campaign's missteps, however gingerly the
traditional media have done it in recent weeks, does
not mean the press is being nasty to the candidate or attacking the GOP.


What's happened in recent White House campaign cycles is that people have
become so accustomed to the press openly mocking the
Democrat that when that
pattern is altered, however slightly, as it's been in 2008, it's perceived to be a massive shift. 

Since the media are simply not trashing the
Democratic nominee as aggressively as in campaigns past, conservatives are claiming that's being unfair. They
liked the old model where the press effortlessly adopted GOP
spin about Democratic candidates being phony and untrustworthy. That worked for the
GOP. Today, that model has been modestly tweaked, and
the GOP is crying foul. 

That's expected. But it was distressing to see the New York Observer buy
into the spin about the media turning on McCain. After all,
the evidence to support the
meme is quite thin. Yes, partisan Republican Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, assured the
Observer that McCain "got slapped upside the
head" by the media. But
in terms of pinpointing actual instances of mockery, the Observer didn't seem to have much to work with. It did cite this
recent cable chatter scene: 













"On a recent segment on Fox News' The Beltway Boys ... Morton Kondracke, countered a little later with
this: "McCain did not
have a great week. His visual was riding around in a golf cart
with old George Bush
the First." Mr.
Kondracke waved his hands in the
air, comically mimicking Mr.
McCain at the wheel of a golf car.
Mr. [Fred] Barnes crossed his
arms and
chuckled.

That was the Observer's strongest piece of evidence of the media "mockery" -- of the "rough treatment" -- that
McCain has had to endure? Kondracke waved his hands and Barnes chuckled. 

Oh, brother. I mean, how does McCain make it through the days
with that kind of media venom flowing in his direction? 

I can't help thinking if Gore wouldn't have preferred suffering
that kind of "mockery" as opposed to having MSNBC's Chris Matthews announce that Gore
was so desperate to
be president in 2000 that he would gladly "lick the bathroom floor" to get elected. Go read the Daily Howler's 2000 archives for a catalog that's as long as a fire station grocery list
of the jarring insults and
attacks the press leveled against Gore,
who, at times, was
portrayed in the press as pathological. And then
compare those attacks to the light-as-a-feather mockery that
McCain has supposedly had
to deal with lately and
tell me which is tougher. 

It's the same reason that
I bet Clinton would have gladly been the
target of a Fox
News anchor's chuckle rather than
having The New York Times print a news section analysis of her
laugh and then watch lots of well-paid, deep-thinking pundits and
reporters at The
Washington Post, The Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle,
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Cincinnati Post, National Public Radio,
Time.com, Reuters, Associated Press, Politico,
ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, among others, pontificate about her humorous
outbursts. 

Indeed, way back in November 2007, months before the
press really let loose on her candidacy, Greg
Sargent amassed a sort of Greatest Hits of the media's phony attacks on Clinton. Read
the list and try
to think of a single event in the last two
months in which the
press, which we're told
has turned on poor
John McCain, ever concocted nonsense like
this and targeted the
GOP front-runner: 













*
Hillary's alleged failure to tip the Iowa waitress 

* Hillary's phony southern drawl 

* The supposed 20-year-plan by Hillary and Bill
to take over the
world, or at least deliver them
both the Presidency, as alleged by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta and denied by
the one person who supposedly had first-hand knowledge of their dastardly plot 

* The baseless claim that Hillary eavesdropped on political opponents in 1992

* The bogus media claim that Bill Clinton accused Hillary's Dem
rivals of "swiftboating" her

* The media's hyping of Hillary's supposed refusal to release Presidential records, a tale that was
taken apart in today's Washington Post and which wasn't matched by any
similar media outrage about Rudy [Giuliani's] refusal to release his Mayoral papers.

P.S. Don't forget the
great cleavage debate of 2007. 

Yet we're supposed to believe the bullying press is now mocking McCain? Give
us a break. 

You'll also note that
with the Democratic trend with
Gore, Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, and
Obama, the caustic coverage candidates have
had to endure almost always revolved around questions of character; being a liar, a phony, unhinged, or
arrogant. 

By contrast, there has
not been a single, sustained press narrative pushed by the
media during this entire campaign season that
has ridiculed or called into
question McCain's character. Not
one. For the press, that kind of
character exploration of McCain remains taboo. But when covering Democrats,
character assassination remains
routine.

Meanwhile, I can't help
wondering if the press is being tagged as mean and nasty simply because reporters belatedly challenged one
of McCain's many campaign lies. Because they decided to come out of their Bush-era shell and actually engaged in a rare bout
of fact-checking, or what
used to be called reporting, when
a Republican tried to smear the character of his Democratic opponent.  

The lie McCain peddled in a television ad was that Obama canceled a trip to visit wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany because the
Pentagon told him he couldn't bring reporters along with him. After some
initial hesitation, NBC, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, finally reported that McCain's central allegation was
not supported by the
facts. 

On the front page on July 30, the Post's Michael Shear and Dan Balz reported
that McCain continued to make the allegation, "despite no evidence that
the charge is true." That might seem like a simple thing. And
unfortunately the press still allowed McCain's planted lie to dictate campaign
coverage last week. But for the Beltway media amidst a White House campaign,
the Post's reporting was
different.  

As the Daily Howler noted: 













"Shear's report represents a major change in the mainstream press culture of the past
sixteen years. In this
report, the Washington Post, on its front page, directly challenges the latest slimy "character" charge against the
latest Dem White House hopeful. This represents a major change in the way this
newspaper does business." 

Quite simply, the Republican Party cannot afford to have
the press become aggressive fact-checkers out
on the trail. So in an attempt to intimidate the press back into the semi-crouch that
has defined campaign journalism for
the last decade, conservatives whine about how mean and
nasty the media are
for attacking McCain. 

But the far-fetched claim just
doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In fact, it directly contradicts very recent
testimonials from starry-eyed journalists on the McCain beat. "Covering McCain is a blast," wrote Ana Marie Cox, in a recent issue of Radar. "He genuinely likes reporters: He'll joke with
us about our drinking habits, playfully request our
cell phones in the
middle of a call and
tell some
unsuspecting editor or parent that the
phone's owner has just
been hauled off to rehab, and engage in gleefully sarcastic banter about both
our colleagues and his." 

And on MSNBC last
week, Time's Mark Halperin, sounding like
somebody putting off making an unwanted dentist appointment, assured viewers that, "McCain deserves scrutiny and he'll get some." Halperin couldn't quite say
when that
pending scrutiny of McCain would take
place. (Stay tuned.)

The truth is that
the press not only
has not turned on McCain but it continues to act
as a key campaign ally
in a way it does not for
Democrats. 

I'm trying to imagine back
during the 2004 campaign, when the debate about Iraq was raging: What if candidate
Kerry had sat down for an interview on the CBS
Evening News and promptly made an egregious factual error regarding
the timeline of events there? Does anybody really think that rather than air
Kerry's blunder, and in fact trumpet the misstep as news, that CBS would
have cut away from his botched answer and replaced it with three separate
spliced-together statements made by Kerry, one of which was the answer to a
different question, and then not tipped off viewers that the interview had been
heavily edited? Does anybody think CBS would have extended Kerry that courtesy?


That's exactly the kind
of oversized life preserver Katie Couric's Evening News threw McCain when
he bungled the timeline of the U.S. military's surge in Iraq during a CBS interview. In an extraordinary act of kindness, Couric and
company covered for McCain -- and violated CBS' ethical guidelines in the
process.

Yet today we're told
the press has turned on the GOP candidate and
that it's mocking John
McCain? 

Trust me, if the
press had turned on Al Gore like
that in 2000, he'd be finishing up his second term
as president right now.

    
</summary>
<id>http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-trust-me-john-mccain-doesn-t-know-what-bad-2008087573.htm</id>
<issued>2008-08-05T17:54:12Z</issued>
<modified>2008-08-05T17:54:12Z</modified>
<author>
<name>Mediamatters.Org</name>
<url>http://mediamatters.org/columns/200808050003</url>
</author>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.world-of-newave.info/"><![CDATA[
<table cellspacing="4" cellpadding="0" border="0" style="margin:9px;">
<tr><td colspan="2" style="font:bold 12pt Arial;vertical-align:top;"><a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-trust-me-john-mccain-doesn-t-know-what-bad-2008087573.htm"><b>Boehlert: Trust me, John McCain doesn't know what bad press looks like  </b></a> <sup style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;">{<a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-trust-me-john-mccain-doesn-t-know-what-bad-2008087573.htm" target="_blank">new window</a>}</sup></td></tr>
<tr>
<td style="font:6pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;text-align:center;vertical-align:top;">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="100%" style="font:9pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;font-variant:small-caps;">Mediamatters.Org</span> - Did you know the big bad media are beating up on John McCain?

For weeks, the campaign's media debate centered on whether the
press was being too
kind to Sen. Barack Obama -- whether it was fawning over the
Democrat's historic run and drowning him in rapturous coverage. (Recent studies and analysis
have cast that claim into doubt.) 

But now the narrative has
been expanded to include the
laughable notion that, following a string of McCain campaign stumbles, including botched staging and
questionable photo-ops, the press has suddenly turned on McCain and is mocking the Republican. That
the same press corps that branded McCain a maverick and for
years worshipped his loose-talking demeanor,
has now soured on the senator. Meaning, the
love is gone. 

The New
York Observer trumpeted that trend last
week when it published a front-page article detailing the transformation from
McCain-as-media-hero to "McCain-as-marginalized-victim" who's suffering "rough treatment" from journalists. The Observer piece came complete with
an illustration that showed the
press as a two-by-four-wielding playground bully setting his sights on a vulnerable and
childlike McCain. (Run Johnny, run!) 

Aside from asking for
the world's smallest violin, I'd like
to make the point that rather than bemoaning the
type of press attention McCain has
been attracting, most recent Democratic candidates for
president, who were pummeled and
even savaged by the press, would pay
for the kind of respectful coverage McCain has accumulated this summer. They would
be rejoicing if the press ever treated them as kindly and as softly as it has
McCain this campaign. 

Let me put it another way: When
McCain gets regularly portrayed in the press as a serial liar the way
Al Gore was in 2000, then he can complain about the press. When McCain is portrayed as an angry lunatic the way
Howard Dean was in 2003, then he can complain. When
McCain's war record is dragged through the mud while the press looks on for weeks too
frightened to call out
the partisan accusers, the
way John Kerry's military record was,
then he can
complain. When McCain's campaign is defined by his
haircut the way
John Edwards' was, then he can
complain. When McCain is portrayed as a cackling witch the way
Hillary Clinton was this
winter, then he can complain. When
McCain is portrayed as arrogant and presumptuous the way Obama is today, then he can complain. 

But pretending that when
the press simply chronicles McCain's disjointed campaign means that reporters and pundits have
somehow turned on the
candidate -- that they
are attacking him and
piling on -- is just ludicrous. 

It's true the McCain campaign has
received some unkind press notices in recent weeks, but that's because the
McCain campaign has been
very poorly run. As The Atlantic's conservative blogger Ross
Douthat conceded last week, "John McCain is running a staggeringly inept campaign."


That's what
Republican boosters were saying about the
Arizona senator. But
simply acknowledging the campaign's missteps, however gingerly the
traditional media have done it in recent weeks, does
not mean the press is being nasty to the candidate or attacking the GOP.


What's happened in recent White House campaign cycles is that people have
become so accustomed to the press openly mocking the
Democrat that when that
pattern is altered, however slightly, as it's been in 2008, it's perceived to be a massive shift. 

Since the media are simply not trashing the
Democratic nominee as aggressively as in campaigns past, conservatives are claiming that's being unfair. They
liked the old model where the press effortlessly adopted GOP
spin about Democratic candidates being phony and untrustworthy. That worked for the
GOP. Today, that model has been modestly tweaked, and
the GOP is crying foul. 

That's expected. But it was distressing to see the New York Observer buy
into the spin about the media turning on McCain. After all,
the evidence to support the
meme is quite thin. Yes, partisan Republican Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, assured the
Observer that McCain "got slapped upside the
head" by the media. But
in terms of pinpointing actual instances of mockery, the Observer didn't seem to have much to work with. It did cite this
recent cable chatter scene: 













"On a recent segment on Fox News' The Beltway Boys ... Morton Kondracke, countered a little later with
this: "McCain did not
have a great week. His visual was riding around in a golf cart
with old George Bush
the First." Mr.
Kondracke waved his hands in the
air, comically mimicking Mr.
McCain at the wheel of a golf car.
Mr. [Fred] Barnes crossed his
arms and
chuckled.

That was the Observer's strongest piece of evidence of the media "mockery" -- of the "rough treatment" -- that
McCain has had to endure? Kondracke waved his hands and Barnes chuckled. 

Oh, brother. I mean, how does McCain make it through the days
with that kind of media venom flowing in his direction? 

I can't help thinking if Gore wouldn't have preferred suffering
that kind of "mockery" as opposed to having MSNBC's Chris Matthews announce that Gore
was so desperate to
be president in 2000 that he would gladly "lick the bathroom floor" to get elected. Go read the Daily Howler's 2000 archives for a catalog that's as long as a fire station grocery list
of the jarring insults and
attacks the press leveled against Gore,
who, at times, was
portrayed in the press as pathological. And then
compare those attacks to the light-as-a-feather mockery that
McCain has supposedly had
to deal with lately and
tell me which is tougher. 

It's the same reason that
I bet Clinton would have gladly been the
target of a Fox
News anchor's chuckle rather than
having The New York Times print a news section analysis of her
laugh and then watch lots of well-paid, deep-thinking pundits and
reporters at The
Washington Post, The Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle,
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Cincinnati Post, National Public Radio,
Time.com, Reuters, Associated Press, Politico,
ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, among others, pontificate about her humorous
outbursts. 

Indeed, way back in November 2007, months before the
press really let loose on her candidacy, Greg
Sargent amassed a sort of Greatest Hits of the media's phony attacks on Clinton. Read
the list and try
to think of a single event in the last two
months in which the
press, which we're told
has turned on poor
John McCain, ever concocted nonsense like
this and targeted the
GOP front-runner: 













*
Hillary's alleged failure to tip the Iowa waitress 

* Hillary's phony southern drawl 

* The supposed 20-year-plan by Hillary and Bill
to take over the
world, or at least deliver them
both the Presidency, as alleged by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta and denied by
the one person who supposedly had first-hand knowledge of their dastardly plot 

* The baseless claim that Hillary eavesdropped on political opponents in 1992

* The bogus media claim that Bill Clinton accused Hillary's Dem
rivals of "swiftboating" her

* The media's hyping of Hillary's supposed refusal to release Presidential records, a tale that was
taken apart in today's Washington Post and which wasn't matched by any
similar media outrage about Rudy [Giuliani's] refusal to release his Mayoral papers.

P.S. Don't forget the
great cleavage debate of 2007. 

Yet we're supposed to believe the bullying press is now mocking McCain? Give
us a break. 

You'll also note that
with the Democratic trend with
Gore, Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, and
Obama, the caustic coverage candidates have
had to endure almost always revolved around questions of character; being a liar, a phony, unhinged, or
arrogant. 

By contrast, there has
not been a single, sustained press narrative pushed by the
media during this entire campaign season that
has ridiculed or called into
question McCain's character. Not
one. For the press, that kind of
character exploration of McCain remains taboo. But when covering Democrats,
character assassination remains
routine.

Meanwhile, I can't help
wondering if the press is being tagged as mean and nasty simply because reporters belatedly challenged one
of McCain's many campaign lies. Because they decided to come out of their Bush-era shell and actually engaged in a rare bout
of fact-checking, or what
used to be called reporting, when
a Republican tried to smear the character of his Democratic opponent.  

The lie McCain peddled in a television ad was that Obama canceled a trip to visit wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany because the
Pentagon told him he couldn't bring reporters along with him. After some
initial hesitation, NBC, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, finally reported that McCain's central allegation was
not supported by the
facts. 

On the front page on July 30, the Post's Michael Shear and Dan Balz reported
that McCain continued to make the allegation, "despite no evidence that
the charge is true." That might seem like a simple thing. And
unfortunately the press still allowed McCain's planted lie to dictate campaign
coverage last week. But for the Beltway media amidst a White House campaign,
the Post's reporting was
different.  

As the Daily Howler noted: 













"Shear's report represents a major change in the mainstream press culture of the past
sixteen years. In this
report, the Washington Post, on its front page, directly challenges the latest slimy "character" charge against the
latest Dem White House hopeful. This represents a major change in the way this
newspaper does business." 

Quite simply, the Republican Party cannot afford to have
the press become aggressive fact-checkers out
on the trail. So in an attempt to intimidate the press back into the semi-crouch that
has defined campaign journalism for
the last decade, conservatives whine about how mean and
nasty the media are
for attacking McCain. 

But the far-fetched claim just
doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In fact, it directly contradicts very recent
testimonials from starry-eyed journalists on the McCain beat. "Covering McCain is a blast," wrote Ana Marie Cox, in a recent issue of Radar. "He genuinely likes reporters: He'll joke with
us about our drinking habits, playfully request our
cell phones in the
middle of a call and
tell some
unsuspecting editor or parent that the
phone's owner has just
been hauled off to rehab, and engage in gleefully sarcastic banter about both
our colleagues and his." 

And on MSNBC last
week, Time's Mark Halperin, sounding like
somebody putting off making an unwanted dentist appointment, assured viewers that, "McCain deserves scrutiny and he'll get some." Halperin couldn't quite say
when that
pending scrutiny of McCain would take
place. (Stay tuned.)

The truth is that
the press not only
has not turned on McCain but it continues to act
as a key campaign ally
in a way it does not for
Democrats. 

I'm trying to imagine back
during the 2004 campaign, when the debate about Iraq was raging: What if candidate
Kerry had sat down for an interview on the CBS
Evening News and promptly made an egregious factual error regarding
the timeline of events there? Does anybody really think that rather than air
Kerry's blunder, and in fact trumpet the misstep as news, that CBS would
have cut away from his botched answer and replaced it with three separate
spliced-together statements made by Kerry, one of which was the answer to a
different question, and then not tipped off viewers that the interview had been
heavily edited? Does anybody think CBS would have extended Kerry that courtesy?


That's exactly the kind
of oversized life preserver Katie Couric's Evening News threw McCain when
he bungled the timeline of the U.S. military's surge in Iraq during a CBS interview. In an extraordinary act of kindness, Couric and
company covered for McCain -- and violated CBS' ethical guidelines in the
process.

Yet today we're told
the press has turned on the GOP candidate and
that it's mocking John
McCain? 

Trust me, if the
press had turned on Al Gore like
that in 2000, he'd be finishing up his second term
as president right now.

    
<blockquote style="background:#FAFAFA;border:1px dotted #E6E6E6;font:italic 10pt Times New Roman;padding:9px;">Media Matters - Trust me, John McCain doesn&#39;t know what bad press looks like   {...} </blockquote><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Published:</span> August 5, 2008, 5:54 pm - <span style="color:#808080;">Indexed:</span> August 6, 2008, 11:14 pm - <span style="color:#808080;">Page Size:</span>&nbsp;28KB</div><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Category:</span> <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/">Society</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/">Issues</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/">Business</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/">Media</a> &gt;  <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/"><b>Bias and Balance</b></a></div></td></tr></table>
<br/>
]]></content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>{ISSUES &gt; BIAS AND BALANCE} - CBS' Reid didn't note that experts, including Energy Dept., have rebutted assertion that expanded offshore drilling "will bring prices down"  </title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-reid-didn-t-note-that-experts-including-energy-20080725827.htm"/>
<summary type="text/plain">During the July 28 edition of the CBS Evening News,
correspondent Chip Reid stated, "[Sen. John] McCain says he now supports
increased offshore drilling, as do 73 percent of Americans, because, he says,
more oil supplies will bring prices down." After airing McCain's
attack on Sen. Barack Obama for opposing efforts to lift a congressional
moratorium on certain off-shore drilling, Reid went on to claim, "Obama
says offshore drilling harms the environment, and looks to the past, not the
future." But Reid provided no indication that, beyond simply expressing
concern that offshore drilling "harms the environment," Obama has
directly rebutted the suggestion that "increased offshore oil drilling
... will bring prices down," by pointing to the conclusion of
"most experts, even within the Bush Administration," that doing so would
not affect gas prices for many years. Reid did not note either that Obama had
rebutted the suggestion that offshore drilling "will bring prices
down" anytime soon or that the Department of Energy has done so as well.

After President Bush lifted the presidential moratorium on
certain offshore drilling on July 14, Obama issued a statement that read, "If
offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term
strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration,
regardless of the risks. But most experts, even within the Bush Administration,
concede it would do neither." Indeed, as Media Matters for
America has repeatedly documented, in 2007, the U.S. Department
of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) considered the likely
effects of allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain
off-shore drilling to expire in 2012 and estimated that access
to offshore areas currently off limits "would not have a significant
impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before
2030."

From the July 28 edition of the CBS Evening News with
Katie Couric:

REID: As important as jobs and taxes
are, polls show it's the price of gas that really gets voters mad.
That's where McCain kept his focus today, as he toured an oil field in California.

McCAIN [video clip]: So offshore drilling --
drilling is something we have to do.

REID: McCain says he now supports
increased offshore drilling, as do 73 percent of Americans, because, he says,
more oil supplies will bring prices down. He says it's time for Obama to
get on board.

McCAIN [video clip]: He is the Dr. No of the --
America's
energy future.

REID: But Obama says offshore
drilling harms the environment, and looks to the past, not the future.

OBAMA [video clip]: If we had made
investments in alternative energy and fuel efficiency, we'd be less
vulnerable to price shocks.

REID: So from gas prices to the
housing crisis to the deficit, there are now so many economic challenges
confronting the nation that, as one key senator put it today, whoever is the
next president will have a very, very sobering first week -- Katie.</summary>
<id>http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-reid-didn-t-note-that-experts-including-energy-20080725827.htm</id>
<issued>2008-07-29T19:36:55Z</issued>
<modified>2008-07-29T19:36:55Z</modified>
<author>
<name>Mediamatters.Org</name>
<url>http://mediamatters.org/items/200807290003</url>
</author>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.world-of-newave.info/"><![CDATA[
<table cellspacing="4" cellpadding="0" border="0" style="margin:9px;">
<tr><td colspan="2" style="font:bold 12pt Arial;vertical-align:top;"><a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-reid-didn-t-note-that-experts-including-energy-20080725827.htm"><b>CBS' Reid didn't note that experts, including Energy Dept., have rebutted assertion that expanded offshore drilling "will bring prices down"  </b></a> <sup style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;">{<a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/cbs-reid-didn-t-note-that-experts-including-energy-20080725827.htm" target="_blank">new window</a>}</sup></td></tr>
<tr>
<td style="font:6pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;text-align:center;vertical-align:top;">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="100%" style="font:9pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;font-variant:small-caps;">Mediamatters.Org</span> - During the July 28 edition of the CBS Evening News,
correspondent Chip Reid stated, "[Sen. John] McCain says he now supports
increased offshore drilling, as do 73 percent of Americans, because, he says,
more oil supplies will bring prices down." After airing McCain's
attack on Sen. Barack Obama for opposing efforts to lift a congressional
moratorium on certain off-shore drilling, Reid went on to claim, "Obama
says offshore drilling harms the environment, and looks to the past, not the
future." But Reid provided no indication that, beyond simply expressing
concern that offshore drilling "harms the environment," Obama has
directly rebutted the suggestion that "increased offshore oil drilling
... will bring prices down," by pointing to the conclusion of
"most experts, even within the Bush Administration," that doing so would
not affect gas prices for many years. Reid did not note either that Obama had
rebutted the suggestion that offshore drilling "will bring prices
down" anytime soon or that the Department of Energy has done so as well.

After President Bush lifted the presidential moratorium on
certain offshore drilling on July 14, Obama issued a statement that read, "If
offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term
strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration,
regardless of the risks. But most experts, even within the Bush Administration,
concede it would do neither." Indeed, as Media Matters for
America has repeatedly documented, in 2007, the U.S. Department
of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) considered the likely
effects of allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain
off-shore drilling to expire in 2012 and estimated that access
to offshore areas currently off limits "would not have a significant
impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before
2030."

From the July 28 edition of the CBS Evening News with
Katie Couric:

REID: As important as jobs and taxes
are, polls show it's the price of gas that really gets voters mad.
That's where McCain kept his focus today, as he toured an oil field in California.

McCAIN [video clip]: So offshore drilling --
drilling is something we have to do.

REID: McCain says he now supports
increased offshore drilling, as do 73 percent of Americans, because, he says,
more oil supplies will bring prices down. He says it's time for Obama to
get on board.

McCAIN [video clip]: He is the Dr. No of the --
America's
energy future.

REID: But Obama says offshore
drilling harms the environment, and looks to the past, not the future.

OBAMA [video clip]: If we had made
investments in alternative energy and fuel efficiency, we'd be less
vulnerable to price shocks.

REID: So from gas prices to the
housing crisis to the deficit, there are now so many economic challenges
confronting the nation that, as one key senator put it today, whoever is the
next president will have a very, very sobering first week -- Katie.<blockquote style="background:#FAFAFA;border:1px dotted #E6E6E6;font:italic 10pt Times New Roman;padding:9px;">Media Matters - CBS&#39; Reid didn&#39;t note that experts, including Energy Dept., have rebutted assertion that expanded offshore drilling "will bring prices down"   {...} CBS&#39; Chip Reid stated, "[Sen. John] McCain says he now supports increased offshore drilling, as do 73 percent of Americans, because, he says, more oil supplies will bring prices down," and went on to claim, "[Sen. Barack] Obama says offshore drilling harms the environment, and looks to the past, not the future." But Reid provided no indication that Obama has directly rebutted the suggestion that "increased offshore oil drilling ... will bring prices down" by pointing to the conclusion of "most experts, even within the Bush Administration," that doing so would not affect gas prices for many years.   {...}</blockquote><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Published:</span> July 29, 2008, 7:36 pm - <span style="color:#808080;">Indexed:</span> July 30, 2008, 4:52 pm - <span style="color:#808080;">Page Size:</span>&nbsp;21KB</div><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Category:</span> <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/">Society</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/">Issues</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/">Business</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/">Media</a> &gt;  <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/"><b>Bias and Balance</b></a></div></td></tr></table>
<br/>
]]></content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>{ISSUES &gt; BIAS AND BALANCE} - "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-matters-by-jamison-foser-20080761325.htm"/>
<summary type="text/plain">Even while carrying McCain's water,
media worry they aren't doing enough for him

John McCain complaining about media coverage is a little like an oil company
complaining about
profit margins: hard to believe, and even harder to feel much sympathy.

This is, after all, a politician who has referred to the
press as his "base,"
and a politician about whom MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has said "every last one
of them [reporters] would move to Massachusetts
and marry John McCain if they could." As Eric
 Alterman and George Zornick recently explained in The Nation, "no candidate since John
F. Kennedy, and perhaps none since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has enjoyed such
cozy relations with the press."

But the coziness of that relationship has become
increasingly one-sided in recent months, as McCain and his campaign lash out at
the media, who then redouble their efforts to please the Arizona senator.

In early May, McCain senior adviser
Mark Salter released a memo accusing the media of "form[ing] a protective
barrier around [Obama],
declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race," adding:





Senator
Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists
have written of the need for 'de-tox' to cure 'swooning' over Senator Obama,
and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the
campaign trail.

Later that month, McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt
claimed MSNBC is "a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the
purpose of attacking John McCain." The
Washington Post's Howard Kurtz dutifully typed up
Schmidt's charge without offering a contrary point of view. Nor did Kurtz note that McCain is
subject of regular and effusive praise from MSNBC employees such as Chris
Matthews, who has a habit
of saying that McCain "deserves" to be president and says he
"loves" McCain.

In June, Salter announced that seats on the comfy sofa next
to McCain's captain's chair on his new plane were available only to
"the good reporters," who would "have to earn
it."  Kurtz responded, "I
think Mark Salter ... was joking and we should all lighten up. Can you imagine
the uproar if the McCain campaign actually had a policy of rewarding favorable
reporters with access to the candidate on the plane and shutting out those who
dared to be critical? There would be a media revolt." But there was no "media
revolt" when Salter reportedly threatened to throw Newsweek
off the campaign bus just a month earlier, or when an Arizona reporter was
kicked off the McCain bus. Rather than leading a "revolt" over such
tactics, Kurtz covered them up, asserting it was all a big joke.

This week, the McCain campaign against the media went into
overdrive. First, McCain allies began complaining that Obama's trip
abroad was garnering a great deal of media attention. Republican Rep. Eric Cantor, for
example, said:
"The question really needs to be posed: Is this type of coverage fair?
... This is nothing but a political stunt." McCain spokesperson Jill
Hazelbaker complained
that "it
certainly hasn't escaped us that the three network newscasts will
originate from stops on Obama's trip." Today, the Republican
National Committee sniffed about Obama's "overwhelming advantage in
attention paid by the media."

And, as they often do when Republicans complain about the
media, the media paid close attention. The Associated Press ran an article
headlined, "Is
media playing fair in campaign coverage?" The article was built around
Republican complaints and contained not a word of criticism that the media has
been excessively kind to McCain rather than Obama. The New York Times
reported
that coverage of Obama's trip abroad "feeds into concerns in Mr.
McCain's campaign, and among Republicans in general, that the news media
are imbalanced in their coverage of the candidates."

Unlike much of the media's navel-gazing in response to
the McCain complaints, the Times
article hinted at one of the basic flaws with criticism that the media is
paying too much attention to Obama's trip: McCain and the Republicans
just spent months building up the
perceived importance of such a trip:





 "If this were John
McCain's first trip to the war zone, that would be a story and we would
cover it big time," said Paul Friedman, senior vice president of CBS
News. "This is Senator Obama's first trip -- his positions and the public's
perception of him on national security issues are important."

Mr. Friedman said Mr. McCain and the Republicans had
helped make the visit a bigger story because they had repeatedly questioned Mr.
Obama's credentials, keeping a running count of the number of days that
have passed since Mr. Obama last visited Iraq, in 2006. 

For months, the Republicans have argued that it was of
utmost importance for Obama to visit Iraq. Then, when Obama did so, the
media behaved as though the visit was important. But Obama didn't commit
whatever mistake the Republicans were hoping for during his trip, so the
Republicans decided the trip shouldn't
get so much coverage --
and many reporters, ever responsive to GOP complaints, rushed to agree.

More broadly, the problem with using the apparent fact that
Obama is the subject of more
media coverage to argue that he is receiving more
favorable coverage is that it completely ignores the content of news reports. Take, for
example, the week of April 28-May 4. Obama was either the "main
newsmaker" or a "significant presence" in 69 percent of
campaign stories, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, drawing significantly more
media attention that week than John McCain and Hillary Clinton combined. Ah, but the bulk of that coverage was about
Obama's relationship to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- 42 percent of the campaign news coverage
that week. Anybody want to argue that the media's obsessive focus on
Obama and Wright was good for Obama and bad for McCain?

All throughout the
spring, as the media were obsessively focusing on every
controversy, real or imagined, involving Obama or Clinton while giving McCain a pass,
journalists kept promising
that they'd scrutinize McCain just as soon as the Democratic primaries
were over. Insisting that they couldn't walk and chew gum at the same
time, reporters argued that the free ride McCain was getting was simply a
result of the media's inability to cover both the Democratic candidates and John McCain. But they'd get
around to the Republican nominee eventually.

That was their excuse for devoting far more attention to
Obama and Wright than to McCain and Rev.
John Hagee. That was their excuse for obsessively demanding
Hillary Clinton release her taxes, but not saying a word about John
McCain's -- even
after Clinton
released hers and McCain still had not done so. They'd get around to
McCain someday, they kept telling us.

Well,
they still
aren't scrutinizing John McCain. And now,
perversely, that lack of scrutiny is in effect being used to argue that the
media are treating McCain poorly
by not paying more attention to him.

In fact, some media are going further than merely failing to
scrutinize McCain. CBS this week actively covered up a McCain blunder by deceptively editing an
interview that Evening News anchor Katie
Couric conducted with McCain. When Couric asked McCain for his response to a
statement by Barack Obama that, in Couric's words, "there might
have been improved security even without the surge," McCain responded by
falsely claiming that the surge "began the Anbar awakening." In
fact, the Anbar awakening began before the surge. But rather than air
McCain's factually incorrect response, and tell viewers that McCain was
wrong, CBS replaced his answer to Couric's question with three separate statements made by McCain
spliced together, one of which was an answer to a different question -- with no indication that they had spliced
the interview. (CBS also omitted another false claim McCain made
during the interview: his description of the Iraq
war as "the first major conflict since 9/11," something that would
come as a surprise to the families of the 554 Americans who have lost their
lives as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.)

In explaining
the deceptive editing of the McCain interview, CBS News senior vice president
Paul Friedman claimed the editing "did not in any way distort what
Senator McCain was saying." CBS had earlier claimed it made the edit in
order to "give viewers a fair expression of the candidates' major
differences."

That's nonsense. CBS showed viewers Katie Couric asking
John McCain a question, edited out McCain's actual answer, which
contained a falsehood, and replaced it with three separate statements spliced together, including
an entirely different answer to a different question, without giving any
indication of what they had done. That isn't a "fair
expression" of anything. It is a gross distortion of reality, and the
suppression of a false claim by John McCain on a topic that the media keep
telling us is his area of expertise. 

That is nothing short of fraudulent "reporting"
by CBS, and it should be a major scandal.

But instead, the media spent the week wringing their hands
over the possibility that they are mistreating
McCain. Incredible.

And in between discussions of how unfair they were being to
McCain, the media cheerfully repeated McCain's nonsensical attacks on
Barack Obama.

When a McCain spokesperson and the RNC chided Obama for
reportedly having people begin to plan for a possible transition, should he be
elected president, the media obligingly repeated that criticism. One MSNBC host read it on-air; another
agreed with the GOP that it is "premature" for Obama to begin to
make such plans. A Fox host called it "unprecedented"; U.S. News
&amp; World Report's Kenneth Walsh called it "very early" and
said "it plays into this notion that the Republicans are
talking about, about Obama being too arrogant." A New Republic
writer called
it "The Earliest Transition Team Ever." Newspapers like the Los Angeles Times and the San
Francisco Chronicle reported
the charge.

Only one problem: this may have been
the dumbest attack any
major presidential campaign has ever made. The McCain camp is criticizing
Obama for preparing to govern effectively should he win. Doesn't that
seem like a good thing? Clay Johnson
apparently thinks so: He's the guy George W. Bush put in charge of
precisely the same kind of planning in 1999 and 2000. See, Bush agreed with
Johnson's assessment that it would be "irresponsible not to be
doing this." Ronald Reagan began making transition plans early, too -- Ed Meese began asking people
to help with the planning in 1979, the year
before Reagan was elected president. Carter began his transition
planning in May 1976, six months before Election Day.

So, whatever transition planning the Obama campaign is doing
isn't "unprecedented" or "premature" or
"The Earliest Transition Team Ever," as the media claimed on
McCain's behalf. It is, instead, completely standard. And, when you think
of the enormous responsibility of running the federal government, it seems -- as Clay Johnson says -- irresponsible not to do so.

The question the media should be pursuing is not whether it
is "arrogant" to undertake such planning -- it plainly is not -- but why on earth the McCain campaign would
criticize it. Instead, they made false claims in support of the McCain
team's self-evidently absurd attacks on Obama.





Then they went back to chattering about whether their
coverage favors Obama.

</summary>
<id>http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-matters-by-jamison-foser-20080761325.htm</id>
<issued>2008-07-26T02:15:37Z</issued>
<modified>2008-07-26T02:15:37Z</modified>
<author>
<name>Mediamatters.Org</name>
<url>http://mediamatters.org/items/200807250013</url>
</author>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.world-of-newave.info/"><![CDATA[
<table cellspacing="4" cellpadding="0" border="0" style="margin:9px;">
<tr><td colspan="2" style="font:bold 12pt Arial;vertical-align:top;"><a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-matters-by-jamison-foser-20080761325.htm"><b>"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser</b></a> <sup style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;">{<a href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-matters-by-jamison-foser-20080761325.htm" target="_blank">new window</a>}</sup></td></tr>
<tr>
<td style="font:6pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;text-align:center;vertical-align:top;">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="100%" style="font:9pt Verdana,Arial,Sans-serif;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;font-variant:small-caps;">Mediamatters.Org</span> - Even while carrying McCain's water,
media worry they aren't doing enough for him

John McCain complaining about media coverage is a little like an oil company
complaining about
profit margins: hard to believe, and even harder to feel much sympathy.

This is, after all, a politician who has referred to the
press as his "base,"
and a politician about whom MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has said "every last one
of them [reporters] would move to Massachusetts
and marry John McCain if they could." As Eric
 Alterman and George Zornick recently explained in The Nation, "no candidate since John
F. Kennedy, and perhaps none since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has enjoyed such
cozy relations with the press."

But the coziness of that relationship has become
increasingly one-sided in recent months, as McCain and his campaign lash out at
the media, who then redouble their efforts to please the Arizona senator.

In early May, McCain senior adviser
Mark Salter released a memo accusing the media of "form[ing] a protective
barrier around [Obama],
declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race," adding:





Senator
Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists
have written of the need for 'de-tox' to cure 'swooning' over Senator Obama,
and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the
campaign trail.

Later that month, McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt
claimed MSNBC is "a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the
purpose of attacking John McCain." The
Washington Post's Howard Kurtz dutifully typed up
Schmidt's charge without offering a contrary point of view. Nor did Kurtz note that McCain is
subject of regular and effusive praise from MSNBC employees such as Chris
Matthews, who has a habit
of saying that McCain "deserves" to be president and says he
"loves" McCain.

In June, Salter announced that seats on the comfy sofa next
to McCain's captain's chair on his new plane were available only to
"the good reporters," who would "have to earn
it."  Kurtz responded, "I
think Mark Salter ... was joking and we should all lighten up. Can you imagine
the uproar if the McCain campaign actually had a policy of rewarding favorable
reporters with access to the candidate on the plane and shutting out those who
dared to be critical? There would be a media revolt." But there was no "media
revolt" when Salter reportedly threatened to throw Newsweek
off the campaign bus just a month earlier, or when an Arizona reporter was
kicked off the McCain bus. Rather than leading a "revolt" over such
tactics, Kurtz covered them up, asserting it was all a big joke.

This week, the McCain campaign against the media went into
overdrive. First, McCain allies began complaining that Obama's trip
abroad was garnering a great deal of media attention. Republican Rep. Eric Cantor, for
example, said:
"The question really needs to be posed: Is this type of coverage fair?
... This is nothing but a political stunt." McCain spokesperson Jill
Hazelbaker complained
that "it
certainly hasn't escaped us that the three network newscasts will
originate from stops on Obama's trip." Today, the Republican
National Committee sniffed about Obama's "overwhelming advantage in
attention paid by the media."

And, as they often do when Republicans complain about the
media, the media paid close attention. The Associated Press ran an article
headlined, "Is
media playing fair in campaign coverage?" The article was built around
Republican complaints and contained not a word of criticism that the media has
been excessively kind to McCain rather than Obama. The New York Times
reported
that coverage of Obama's trip abroad "feeds into concerns in Mr.
McCain's campaign, and among Republicans in general, that the news media
are imbalanced in their coverage of the candidates."

Unlike much of the media's navel-gazing in response to
the McCain complaints, the Times
article hinted at one of the basic flaws with criticism that the media is
paying too much attention to Obama's trip: McCain and the Republicans
just spent months building up the
perceived importance of such a trip:





 "If this were John
McCain's first trip to the war zone, that would be a story and we would
cover it big time," said Paul Friedman, senior vice president of CBS
News. "This is Senator Obama's first trip -- his positions and the public's
perception of him on national security issues are important."

Mr. Friedman said Mr. McCain and the Republicans had
helped make the visit a bigger story because they had repeatedly questioned Mr.
Obama's credentials, keeping a running count of the number of days that
have passed since Mr. Obama last visited Iraq, in 2006. 

For months, the Republicans have argued that it was of
utmost importance for Obama to visit Iraq. Then, when Obama did so, the
media behaved as though the visit was important. But Obama didn't commit
whatever mistake the Republicans were hoping for during his trip, so the
Republicans decided the trip shouldn't
get so much coverage --
and many reporters, ever responsive to GOP complaints, rushed to agree.

More broadly, the problem with using the apparent fact that
Obama is the subject of more
media coverage to argue that he is receiving more
favorable coverage is that it completely ignores the content of news reports. Take, for
example, the week of April 28-May 4. Obama was either the "main
newsmaker" or a "significant presence" in 69 percent of
campaign stories, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, drawing significantly more
media attention that week than John McCain and Hillary Clinton combined. Ah, but the bulk of that coverage was about
Obama's relationship to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- 42 percent of the campaign news coverage
that week. Anybody want to argue that the media's obsessive focus on
Obama and Wright was good for Obama and bad for McCain?

All throughout the
spring, as the media were obsessively focusing on every
controversy, real or imagined, involving Obama or Clinton while giving McCain a pass,
journalists kept promising
that they'd scrutinize McCain just as soon as the Democratic primaries
were over. Insisting that they couldn't walk and chew gum at the same
time, reporters argued that the free ride McCain was getting was simply a
result of the media's inability to cover both the Democratic candidates and John McCain. But they'd get
around to the Republican nominee eventually.

That was their excuse for devoting far more attention to
Obama and Wright than to McCain and Rev.
John Hagee. That was their excuse for obsessively demanding
Hillary Clinton release her taxes, but not saying a word about John
McCain's -- even
after Clinton
released hers and McCain still had not done so. They'd get around to
McCain someday, they kept telling us.

Well,
they still
aren't scrutinizing John McCain. And now,
perversely, that lack of scrutiny is in effect being used to argue that the
media are treating McCain poorly
by not paying more attention to him.

In fact, some media are going further than merely failing to
scrutinize McCain. CBS this week actively covered up a McCain blunder by deceptively editing an
interview that Evening News anchor Katie
Couric conducted with McCain. When Couric asked McCain for his response to a
statement by Barack Obama that, in Couric's words, "there might
have been improved security even without the surge," McCain responded by
falsely claiming that the surge "began the Anbar awakening." In
fact, the Anbar awakening began before the surge. But rather than air
McCain's factually incorrect response, and tell viewers that McCain was
wrong, CBS replaced his answer to Couric's question with three separate statements made by McCain
spliced together, one of which was an answer to a different question -- with no indication that they had spliced
the interview. (CBS also omitted another false claim McCain made
during the interview: his description of the Iraq
war as "the first major conflict since 9/11," something that would
come as a surprise to the families of the 554 Americans who have lost their
lives as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.)

In explaining
the deceptive editing of the McCain interview, CBS News senior vice president
Paul Friedman claimed the editing "did not in any way distort what
Senator McCain was saying." CBS had earlier claimed it made the edit in
order to "give viewers a fair expression of the candidates' major
differences."

That's nonsense. CBS showed viewers Katie Couric asking
John McCain a question, edited out McCain's actual answer, which
contained a falsehood, and replaced it with three separate statements spliced together, including
an entirely different answer to a different question, without giving any
indication of what they had done. That isn't a "fair
expression" of anything. It is a gross distortion of reality, and the
suppression of a false claim by John McCain on a topic that the media keep
telling us is his area of expertise. 

That is nothing short of fraudulent "reporting"
by CBS, and it should be a major scandal.

But instead, the media spent the week wringing their hands
over the possibility that they are mistreating
McCain. Incredible.

And in between discussions of how unfair they were being to
McCain, the media cheerfully repeated McCain's nonsensical attacks on
Barack Obama.

When a McCain spokesperson and the RNC chided Obama for
reportedly having people begin to plan for a possible transition, should he be
elected president, the media obligingly repeated that criticism. One MSNBC host read it on-air; another
agreed with the GOP that it is "premature" for Obama to begin to
make such plans. A Fox host called it "unprecedented"; U.S. News
& World Report's Kenneth Walsh called it "very early" and
said "it plays into this notion that the Republicans are
talking about, about Obama being too arrogant." A New Republic
writer called
it "The Earliest Transition Team Ever." Newspapers like the Los Angeles Times and the San
Francisco Chronicle reported
the charge.

Only one problem: this may have been
the dumbest attack any
major presidential campaign has ever made. The McCain camp is criticizing
Obama for preparing to govern effectively should he win. Doesn't that
seem like a good thing? Clay Johnson
apparently thinks so: He's the guy George W. Bush put in charge of
precisely the same kind of planning in 1999 and 2000. See, Bush agreed with
Johnson's assessment that it would be "irresponsible not to be
doing this." Ronald Reagan began making transition plans early, too -- Ed Meese began asking people
to help with the planning in 1979, the year
before Reagan was elected president. Carter began his transition
planning in May 1976, six months before Election Day.

So, whatever transition planning the Obama campaign is doing
isn't "unprecedented" or "premature" or
"The Earliest Transition Team Ever," as the media claimed on
McCain's behalf. It is, instead, completely standard. And, when you think
of the enormous responsibility of running the federal government, it seems -- as Clay Johnson says -- irresponsible not to do so.

The question the media should be pursuing is not whether it
is "arrogant" to undertake such planning -- it plainly is not -- but why on earth the McCain campaign would
criticize it. Instead, they made false claims in support of the McCain
team's self-evidently absurd attacks on Obama.





Then they went back to chattering about whether their
coverage favors Obama.

<blockquote style="background:#FAFAFA;border:1px dotted #E6E6E6;font:italic 10pt Times New Roman;padding:9px;">Media Matters - "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser {...} </blockquote><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Published:</span> July 26, 2008, 2:15 am - <span style="color:#808080;">Indexed:</span> July 26, 2008, 1:03 pm - <span style="color:#808080;">Page Size:</span>&nbsp;25KB</div><div style="font:8pt Verdana,Arial;vertical-align:top;"><span style="color:#808080;">Category:</span> <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/">Society</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/">Issues</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/">Business</a> &gt; <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/">Media</a> &gt;  <a href="http://www.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/"><b>Bias and Balance</b></a></div></td></tr></table>
<br/>
]]></content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>{ISSUES &gt; BIAS AND BALANCE} - Media outlets reported McCain's criticism of Obama's "political speech" in Germany, didn't note McCain's own recent speech in Canada </title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-outlets-reported-mccain-s-criticism-of-obama-20080774234.htm"/>
<summary type="text/plain">On July 24 and 25, numerous media outlets
quoted or aired all or part of the following statement that Sen.
John McCain made during a July 24 campaign event in Ohio, in reference to a
July 24 speech that Sen. Barack
Obama gave in Berlin: "I'd love to give a speech in Germany
to -- a political speech or a speech that maybe the German people would be
interested in, but I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United
States, rather than as a candidate for the
office of presidency." Among the media outlets that did so were the
Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg News, The
New York Times, the Los Angeles
Times, The Wall Street Journal,
The Washington
Post, USA Today, Fox News' Special Report, and the CBS Evening News. None of these reports,
however, indicated that McCain himself gave a "political speech" in
a foreign country last month, while also "a candidate for the office of
presidency" rather than president. On June 20, McCain spoke to the Economic
Club of Toronto in Ottawa, Canada, on a trip paid for by his
presidential campaign.

By contrast, in a July 24 post on
MSNBC.com's First Read blog, NBC deputy political director Mark Murray
noted the contradiction between a similar statement McCain made criticizing
Obama's Berlin speech and the fact that "McCain himself gave a
speech in Canada" in June:

In his
interview with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, which will air on NBC's Nightly News
tonight, McCain questions whether Obama
should have given a speech in Berlin
before becoming president.

"I
would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the
country after I am president of the United States," McCain told
O'Donnell. "But that's a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people
will make."

However,
on June 20, McCain himself gave a speech in Canada -- to the Economic Club of
Canada -- in which he applauded NAFTA's successes. An implicit message behind
that speech was that Obama had been critical of the trade accord. Also,
McCain's trip to Canada
was paid for by the campaign.

McCain's speech in Canada
is posted in the "Speeches" section of
McCain's presidential campaign website. During the speech, McCain
asserted: "Demanding unilateral changes and threatening to abrogate an
agreement that has increased trade and prosperity is nothing more than
retreating behind protectionist walls. If I am elected president, have no doubt
that America
will honor its international commitments -- and we will expect the same of
others." Those comments echoed a direct criticism McCain made of Obama in
a statement released the
same day, in which McCain asserted: "For months, Barack Obama said that
he would 'make sure that we renegotiate' NAFTA, demanded unilateral changes and
threatened to unilaterally withdraw if he did not get his way. Barack Obama
knew better." According to a June 20 Reuters article, McCain
"said his trip was organized and paid for by his presidential campaign
because he felt it inappropriate for U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill
when he was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee." 

The following media outlets reported all
or part of McCain's July 24 comment without noting McCain's own
"political speech" in Canada:



In
     a July 24 Reuters article headlined
     "McCain takes swipe at Obama for Berlin speech," Jeff Mason reported: "Republican John McCain said on Thursday he
     would like to give a speech in Germany as U.S. president not as a White
     House candidate, taking a swipe at rival Barack Obama while the Democrat
     gave a major address in Berlin." Mason then quoted McCain's
     comment, "I'd love to give a speech in Germany ... a political
     speech or a speech that maybe the German people would be interested in,
     but I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States
     rather than as a candidate ... for the office of presidency."



A
     July 24 Associated Press article by Tom Raum quoted McCain asserting, "I'd love to give a speech
     in Germany.
     But I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States rather than as a
     candidate for president."



On
     the July 24 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric reported
     that McCain "took a jab at Senator Obama and his Berlin speech," and then aired
     McCain's comment.



On
     the July 24 edition of Special Report,
     Washington
     correspondent James Rosen reported that McCain "chided Senator Obama
     for getting a little ahead of himself," and then aired
     McCain's comment.



In
     a July 25 article, Los Angeles Times staff writer Peter
     Nicholas reported that Republicans are "trying to encourage unease
     among voters by building the impression that Obama's overseas trip and other
     actions show he has a sense of entitlement that suggests he believes the
     White House is already his." Nicholas continued, "In Ohio on Thursday, McCain hit that theme: 'I'd
     love to give a speech in Germany
     . . . but I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States, rather than as
     a candidate for the office of presidency.' "



In
     a separate July 25 Los Angeles Times article, Washington bureau
     political editor Don Frederick reported that "McCain held a brief
     media availability and immediately pressed what is becoming one of his
     party's main narratives in this year's campaign: that Obama is
     prematurely, and arrogantly, assuming the trappings of the presidency."
     Frederick continued: "Asked about the
     point he sought to make with his stop at Schmidt's, McCain said,
     'Well, I'd love to give a speech in Germany
     . . . but I would much prefer to do it as president of the United States
     rather than as a candidate for the office of the presidency.'
     "



In
     a July 25 USA Today article, Kathy Kiely reported that "Republican candidate John McCain
     suggested that Obama is getting ahead of the U.S. electorate." Kiely
     also wrote: "'I'd love to give a speech in Germany,' McCain said at
     Schmidt's Sausage Haus und Restaurant, where he had bratwurst with local
     business leaders. 'But I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States
     rather than as a candidate for president.' "



In
     a July 25 New York Times article, Jeff Zeleny and Nicholas Kulish reported that McCain
     "campaigned in Ohio, where he
     belittled Mr. Obama's grasp of foreign policy and criticized him for
     traveling to Germany
     to deliver the address." Zeleny and Kulish continued: "
     'I'd love to give a speech in Germany - a political
     speech or a speech that maybe the German people would be interested
     in,' Mr. McCain told a crowd in Ohio, 'but I'd much
     prefer to do it as president of the United States rather than as a
     candidate.' " 



In
     a July 25 Washington Post article, staff
     writers Dan Balz and Shannon Smiley reported:







McCain's
campaign fired back at Obama, with an adviser declaring that the Democrat had
taken a "premature victory lap" with his events in Europe.
McCain, who made a campaign appearance at a German restaurant in Columbus,
Ohio, said, "I'd love to give a speech in Germany . . . a political speech
or a speech that maybe the German people would be interested in. But I would
much prefer to do it as president of the United States rather than as a
candidate for the office of the presidency."



In
     a July 25 Wall Street Journal
     article, Jay Solomon and Mike Esterl reported: " 'Well, I'd
     love to give a speech in Germany...or a speech that maybe the German
     people would be interested in,' Sen. McCain told reporters.
     'But I would much prefer to do it as president of the United States
     rather than as a candidate for the office of the presidency.' "
     



In
     a July 25 Bloomberg News article, Julianna Goldman and Andreas Cremer reported that McCain
     "told reporters yesterday that while he'd 'love to give a
     speech in Germany,'
     he would 'much prefer to do it as president of the United States rather than as a
     candidate for the office of the presidency.' "

From July 24 edition of the CBS Evening News:

COURIC:
He couldn't be in Berlin, so John McCain did
the next best thing: stopping for lunch today at a German restaurant in Columbus, Ohio.
He talked about the economy with small-business owners, and he took a jab at
Senator Obama and his Berlin
speech.

McCAIN
[video clip]: I'd love to give a speech in Germany too -- a political
speech or a -- a speech that maybe the German people would be interested in,
but I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States, rather than as
a candidate for -- for the -- for the office of presidency.

COURIC:
Senator McCain had hoped to visit an oil rig off Louisiana today to express his
support for offshore drilling, but bad weat