41 Comments

1. chuck:

Umm, dunno, Roger. It looked like the little grey schoolhouse. That was my first thought. Maybe I had to be there.

Dec 31, 2004 - 12:44 pm 2. David Thomson:

ìOf course, calling Hewitt biased is like saying the sky is blue.† The subtitle of his most recent book is Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It. Every day, in his nationally syndicated show, weblog, and online columns, Hewitt fights for his political party and makes predictions that donít come trueówhile accusing the media of incorrigible bias.î

—Matt Welch

The difference is that Hugh Hewitt is an unabashed conservative. He makes no bones about it. The MSM, however, pretends to be ìobjectiveî and then proceeds to normally act like a close ally of the national Democratic Party. Matt Welch sounds somewhat like the little boy who is existentially discombobulated by learning that Santa Claus is a myth. He seems to want to believe in a dispassionate and above the fray media, which is intrinsically impossible.

Dec 31, 2004 - 12:52 pm 3. asher:

Roger, thanks for a great post (once again) and some important observations about bloggers.

The media still doesn’t get that blogging is a communal enterprise – and that it’s both a democratic and meritocratic system par excellence.

Dec 31, 2004 - 1:03 pm 4. Allah:

The MSM, however, pretends to be “objective”

Do they, though? I’ve made the “I don’t mind them being left-wing, I mind them pretending that they’re not” argument myself in the past, but truth be told, I’ve never been entirely comfortable with it. The New York Times’s ombudsman acknowledged a few months ago that “of course” the Times is a liberal newspaper. Hasn’t stopped us from bitching about the Times, has it? Which makes me think that maybe our problem isn’t with them pretending their coverage isn’t skewed but with it being skewed in the wrong direction. Look at it this way: We all know that Fox tilts right despite their claims that they’re “fair and balanced.” Yet how many posts have you come across on the right side of the ’sphere complaining about Fox’s “hidden agenda”?

Frankly, the great success enjoyed by right-wing blogs this year has significantly weakened this argument. In light of Rathergate and UNSCAM and a hundred other stories publicized by Instapundit and Powerline and LGF and Hugh Hewitt and Roger, etc., an increasingly large part of the population already accepts that the MSM is biased. It’s almost irrelevant whether or not CNN admits to having an agenda at this point; no matter what the emperor may think or say, we know he has no clothes on. That being so, why would any of us still care whether they’re pretending to be objective? It’s not the pretense, it’s their politics. Just like it is for leftists vis-a-vis Fox.

Dec 31, 2004 - 1:41 pm 5. Morgan:

The Allah?

I have a slightly different take. I don’t think the problem is that the media is biased and won’t admit it, or that they lean the wrong way. I think the problem is that a great many people don’t believe that there is any bias. People see the bias in Fox because it is different. They don’t see it in CBS/CNN (etc.) because that’s the wallpaper, and has been for a long time. It’s dangerous, because a source that is perceived as unbiased has greater power to influence what dta people see as facts rather than opinion.

If we could get to the point where people read the NYT in the same way they read blogs, as a source whose reporting is subject to its own ideas, biases, interpretations, and filters, I’d be quite happy. But we aren’t there yet. Not even close.

Dec 31, 2004 - 1:52 pm 6. Stephen_M:

Agree with your points Morgan.Also as long as it continues to proclaim “All the news that’s fit to print.” rather than “All our news fits our bias.” It doesn’t matter what a mere ombudsman thinks or writes.

Dec 31, 2004 - 2:29 pm 7. chuck:

Well,

I do mind bias in the News, but in Blogs it comes with the territory. Blogs are just one person’s opinion, few if any claim otherwise. Fine, I seek out those whose opinions strike me as worthy or amusing. Naturally my bias affects my choice. Hey, we all pick our friends.

News stories are different. I want who, what, where, when, the whole classic schtick. I want someone who knows the territory. I don’t want articles cluttered up with opinions and out of place sotto voice remarks. Let them leave out the recaps and phony balance. It can be done, I have seen it done; well enough that I wasn’t bothered about the bits of style and personality intrinsic to the reporter.

The problem isn’t bias, the problem is that too many reporters just aren’t good at their job.

Dec 31, 2004 - 2:38 pm 8. John©:

It seems a bit ironic that Matt now writes for ‘Reason’ given the irrationality of his offering. He notes: “Rather already had a serviceable 60 Minutes II segment, another contribution to the already stuffed journalistic dossier showing that George W. Bush received preferential treatment while leaving a strangely incomplete paper trail in the Texas Air National Guard.” Really? Did Rather…or anyone have this ‘dossier’? Where is it? This sounds like McCarthyism to me. Funny, I’ve never seen an actual fact that supports Matt’s or Dan’s smear…where’s this stuffed ‘dossier?’ Rather never presented one on this show. Other than the rants of the hard and hating left, I’ve never seen proof of anything but honorable service by Bush. Waving papers on screen doesn’t prove anything, Tailgunner Matt. Real brave stuff.

Dec 31, 2004 - 2:47 pm 9. PeterUK:

The subjct of bias has come up elsewhere,Belmont Club and Iowahawk.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/12/ed_note_found_i.html

The academic Kathleen Jamieson teaches here http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/03_political_communication/political_communication.htm

One statement is particularly revealing.”Internet blogs are increasingly being used for a darker purpose: to spread unregulated political opinions.”

Dec 31, 2004 - 3:02 pm 10. David Thomson:

ìThe problem isn’t bias, the problem is that too many reporters just aren’t good at their job.î

Nope, you are not even close to being accurate. I now realize that the very premise underpinning modern day journalism is ludicrous. Everybody has an agenda. It is intrinsically impossible to be objective in the sense claimed by the MSM. All human beings possess a ìbias,î a particular way of looking at events. Our particular values and beliefs will determine which stories get covered, their headline, and which facts are highlighted or ignored. The best that can be hoped for is an attempt to be fair and honest with the facts at our disposal.

Dec 31, 2004 - 3:07 pm 11. PeterUK:

I would agree with Morgan,the problem is that the MSM does not think it is biased,that its world view is the only right and proper viewpoint.

Dec 31, 2004 - 3:08 pm 12. chuck:

David,

Hmm, so a military intelligence officer doesn’t need training or reports, he just needs to get in touch with his inner bias to do his job? I use the analogy because I expect reporters to be like military officers and scouts. I expect disciplined observation and accurate information, I expect the reporter to pursue both objectives as if his life and career depended on it. That’s how I see it.

Dec 31, 2004 - 3:17 pm 13. Skookumchuk:

PeterUK:

I couldn’t find her Orwellian statement anywhere on your link. Not that I have the energy to look . . .

. . . but I’m glad somebody does.

Hey, it is almost New Year’s Eve where you are. And here at our place on the West Coast, we’ll be starting in on the Old Overholt and the last of the eggnog in about seven hours.

Dec 31, 2004 - 3:17 pm 14. David Thomson:

ìHmm, so a military intelligence officer doesn’t need training or reports, he just needs to get in touch with his inner bias to do his job?î

An intelligence officerís goal is severely limited merely to defeating the enemy. It is a value free way of earning a living. They have nothing to do with choosing which values will underpin their organization. A media outlet, on the other hand, must embrace a particular point of view. This is intrinsically so, and nonnegotiable.

Dec 31, 2004 - 3:36 pm 15. David Thomson:

“An intelligence officerís goal is severely limited merely to defeating the enemy.”

Should be:

“An intelligence officerís goal is severely limited to defeating the enemy.”

Dec 31, 2004 - 3:40 pm 16. chuck:

David,

If they want to sell me papers, they have to provide me with something I’m willing to pay for. If everyone was as demanding, the quality of the paper would go up.

Dec 31, 2004 - 3:50 pm 17. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

chuck

Consider the New York Times. It is a “national” paper that defines to the MSM what stories are important. It is the highest authority to many in America’s elite.

But the people that buy it are mostly liberal, because it is also a local paper in a very liberal area. Newspapers, even nationally prominent, derive their revenue largely from local advertising.

So this paper has much of its cash flow from people who love its utterly reprehensible function as the strongly biased, untrustworthy voice of the left, but it affects the fate of the whole world.

It’s power is improperly matched to its revenue sources.

Dec 31, 2004 - 4:39 pm 18. Manco_Dollars:

What Matt Welech doesn’t get is that the blogosphere is tearing down the blind reverence towards MSM and hopefully replacing it with respect for honest reporting from any media outlet, whether TV, print or blog. THAT is the goal.

Dec 31, 2004 - 5:01 pm 19. Manco_Dollars:

addendum:

Matt Welch reverse the MSM, the blogosphere tears down the MSM, so naturally Welch will write articles attacking the blogosphere to try and preserve his MSM.

Dec 31, 2004 - 5:04 pm 20. Manco_Dollars:

John Moore:

I disagree. I think the people providing revenue to the NY Times are very glad about the power the NYT exercises in the world. It’s only an abuse of power according to us.

Dec 31, 2004 - 5:08 pm 21. David Thomson:

ìIt is the highest authority to many in America’s elite.î

Nick Coleman of the Minneapolis StarTribune is most assuredly a quintessential example of this influence. He is obviously lazy and hasnít had an original thought in decades. Such a ìprofessionalî journalist will merely glance at the headlines provided by the New York Times and a few other liberal news services, and proceed to follow the leaders of the pack. Fortunately, an increasing number of readers are realizing that the MSM have little to offer. Many papers like the Houston Chronicle have laid off large numbers of employees. The LA Times is rumored to be selling subscriptions for a mere $1.00 a week! The long term future look bleak.

ìI disagree. I think the people providing revenue to the NY Times are very glad about the power the NYT exercises in the world. It’s only an abuse of power according to us.î

Most people are oblivious to the baleful influence of the New York Times. They give far too much credit to the alleged originality of their local newspaper reporters.

Dec 31, 2004 - 5:16 pm 22. WichitaBoy:

chuck,

I came across a fascinating book by Nassim Taleb. I’m happy to add it to the book club recommended list. He makes the important point that the function of the news media is not to inform but to generate excitement. Without excitement we don’t want to read. If we don’t want to read we don’t want to buy. If we don’t want to buy they go out of business.

We got a personal taste of this this very week. One of my son’s friends died in the tsunami. She was then written up in the Salt Lake fishwrap but, according to my son, the writeup was almost completely wrong. It was way too melodramatic and mostly factually incorrect. Quite fascinating really: instead of being the truth it seemed to parallel the truth. But there you have it, it’s now the official record.

Yes, it is possible to compile factual and unbiased information–it’s called a dictionary. It’s useful, indispensible even, but it’s boring.

Taleb is fascinated by the distinction between signal and noise in life. It’s certainly a fascinating subject. He rightly points out that much that is viewed as signal is actually noise. He eschews the news media entirely because he views it as comprised almost wholly of noise. I believe this is the proper attitude and wish to recommend it to many of you who are often troubled by things you notice in the MSM. I haven’t watched tv at all since I saw the World Trade Center topple live. I get almost all my news through the blogs nowadays. I didn’t know that there was a tsunami until I read about it on this blog.

There’s far too much noise in the world to investigate everything. It’s important to have other people filter things first. That’s a lower energy state solution to the problem of seeking information. That’s how all herd-animals behave and most of the time it’s the right way to behave. In theory newspapers like the NYT could do this for me. In practice they filter to their own liking and benefit, not mine. The problem in my opinion isn’t so much the existence of a bias one way or another as it is media concentration. There are five companies which control almost all media distribution of every sort in the western world and the people running them pretty much all live together in the same place. In effect, in a Republic containing hundreds of millions which leads other democracies totalling at least a billion souls, almost all of our news is the product of a handful of consciousnesses living in New York. It’s a little lopsided, whatever your political beliefs.

And now I wish a sincere HAPPY NEW YEAR to Roger, Sheryl, and all of you Roger’s Commenters and hope that this year brings yet more power to all bloggers and may this be the year that the MSM is dealt a knockout blow.

Dec 31, 2004 - 5:23 pm 23. chuck:

WichitaBoy,

As always, beautifully written. Happy New Year!

Dec 31, 2004 - 6:44 pm 24. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Manco,

You miss my point. Whether the buyer’s are glad that it has so much power is not important. What counts is that the power is not checked by those who are affected by it. In other words, the “I won’t buy it if I don’t like it” doesn’t work for those of us affected by it’s special status.

This is only true of a few papers. Others are purely local and have to pay more attention to the people affected by their reporting.

WichitaBoy

The application of signal theory to news is, I suppose, one way to look at it. I do, however, watch TV news. Some of that is for entertainment. But much is for other reasons – see how a commentator looks, or in this case of the tsunami, to see the many videos of the event which has changed my understanding of tsunami events.

It is amazing how often the news gets things wrong. It is rare for the reported details of any event that I am present at to be even close to reality. It makes you wonder if reporters go to school to learn how to get things wrong.

Dec 31, 2004 - 6:59 pm 25. thibaud:

yes, the blogosphere correctgs within minutes. But that requires the readers to check in, to confirm, to question, in short to think.

Which is quite different from what they’ve historically done as willing lappers of MSM swill.

Dec 31, 2004 - 8:21 pm 26. thibaud:

The blogosphere is reinforcing the fact that arriving at truth is difficult, is often a result of a dialectic pursued wilfully by a seeker of truth, is not for the faint-hearted.

Then again, you could always get truth served to you in a hermetic container via the NYT.

Dec 31, 2004 - 8:24 pm 27. thibaud:

MSM – McDonalds.

Blogosphere/decentralized media = Restaruant Row, squared. And soon to be globalized (= CUBED)

Dec 31, 2004 - 8:25 pm 28. thibaud:

I’m not party to the views of either Hugh “Intelligent Design” Hewitt or Matt Welch. But I side with Hugh Hewitt on this because I would much rather have a level playing field consisting of bloggers whose biases are hung out for all to see than defer to the superior wisdom of ViacomCBSDisneyCapitalCitiesABCGeneralElectricNBCTimeWarnerCNNMicrosoftSlateWaPoNewYorkTimes.

Screw them. Give us facts, period. If you want to analyze or spin or elide or tailor those facts, then give us a hundred different analysts/spinners/eliders/tailors to choose from. I will choose which spin/analysis is most persuasive, thank you. Because I’m too f***ing intelligent to be bamboozled by Dan Rather or Matt Welch or anyone else.

Dec 31, 2004 - 9:41 pm 29. Matt Welch:

What Matt Welech doesn’t get is that the blogosphere is tearing down the blind reverence towards MSM and hopefully replacing it with respect for honest reporting from any media outlet. [...]

Matt Welch reverse the MSM, the blogosphere tears down the MSM, so naturally Welch will write articles attacking the blogosphere to try and preserve his MSM.

Oh yeah, totally.

Jan 1, 2005 - 2:25 am 30. Cynic:

ÔøΩThe problem isn’t bias, the problem is that…”

they distort, facts, withhold facts and mislead the reading public.

A case in point was the recent brouhaha over CWN’s “translation” of a report by LÔøΩOsservatore Romano

http://www.yourish.com/archives/2004/dec26-31_2004.html#2004123101

which but for the blogs would most probably not have had a response and almost immediate correction.

For all the bias that the media might have, do they have the right to deceive the public?

Do they have the right to influence foreign policy by deceiving the voters? Then let them join the party of their choice as the party’s mouthpiece.

If by attempting to rid themselves of Bush they hoodwink the public with regards to the economy and so tough luck on those Americans trying to get some intel with respect to their investments for retirement?

WichitaBoy

“Without excitement we don’t want to read. If we don’t want to read we don’t want to buy. If we don’t want to buy they go out of business.”

Does being exciting have to be fiction, false, fraudulent?

If their “journalists” cannot put some umph into their news columns by sticking to the facts and the context then they should start worrying about the blogs because that is where lots of people are starting to find redress for the “inconsistencies that appear in the MSM (usually denied by editorial staff).

Jan 1, 2005 - 4:37 am 31. Bostonian:

I think Morgan’s wallpaper analogy about sums it up. Most people are just habituated to the MSM, and that includes the advertisers.

This is why I intend to spend 2005 asking people why the Oil for Food scandal has received so little coverage.

Jan 1, 2005 - 7:37 am 32. rod:

The MSM is what it is. We may have resentments a plenty over their reporting–I do, and I am a reporter–but changes are a good 5-10 years off. I honestly think Patterico and those guys have the best approach to things–acting as online ombudsmen constantly in contact with the LAT in some fashion.

Blogs, especially center right blogs, are merely a refreshing analytical corrective, as well as de facto proof that educated news hungry readers by the thousands care no longer for many papers. Eventually, a publisher somewhere will get hip to this and get his-her board to appoint an ME who will not tolerate recherche liberal copy being moved.

as to Matt Welch’s argument, he is right, up to a very rapidly arrived at point. If your ideology is finding ideologic bias in others, well, you’ll find it. And that itself is a bias that overwhelms things, like the truth. I think he’s off base in “warning” about bloggers getting checked for bias and factual accuracy–they already are. KOS, Atrios, DU will try and tear apart anything from Fox News, WoT and an RoC blogger.

I think he gets an important fact wrong himself. The NYT correction policy has long been an open joke among NYC based reporters. The NYT will not run a correction unless it is has absolutely nowhere to run or hide. Its laughable.

ANd he largely ignores, however, just how sustained and terrible much of the national press’s reporting has been with regards to tilting left. It simply cannot be dismissed. MW seeks to do an iconoclastic piece on the sins of the left and right. He fails because he does not acknowledge just how utterly skewed the staring points are.

Jan 1, 2005 - 7:38 am 33. Old Dad:

I agree with Roger. To argue over the relative bias of the blogosphere vs. the MSM is “banal,” and silly to boot, although I’d make the argument in a different way.

To hold a “bias” requires intent. We tend to make the MSM bias case slightly backwards. The MSM produces so many obviously biased reports that we induce that the reporters who made them are biased. Moreover, we further reason that there must be something structurally biased about the MSM in that it seems to foster this bias. That is, the bias is institutional.

True or not, and I think that it is, the same argument can’t be made of the blogosphere, and probably never can be. First, there are many biased blogs–both left and right. In fact, I’d say that most blogs are inherently biased in that they succeed or fail based on the ability of the blogger to argue his opinion.

No doubt, many blogs venture into reportage and often this reportage is colored by the blogger’s opinions, but so what? The self correcting feature of the blogosphere tends to make this point moot. Factually challenged partisan hacks are ruthlessly exposed, often within minutes. Hence, those bloggers who prosper (both right and left) tend to get the facts right and naturally use the facts to support their opinions. It’s called argument.

On any given day, I can find multiple sides to most arguments made in the blogoshphere. This is bias? Nope. it’s the free market. I suppose it might be argued that more of the “most popular” blogs tend middle right. And Fox News is also growing in popularity, so what?

Finally, there is no institutional structure in the blogosphere from which to support an institutional bias. Who gives Roger his marching orders? What network exec hired him? And what’s to prevent Josh Marshall from attracting his readers? Only talent.

That’s the key. As was pointed out at the Belmont Club recently, the entry threshhold for blogging is monetarily low, and ultimate success is largely determined by talent–a true meritocracy. Bloggers might foist their personal biases until the cows come home, but there is no structure to protect them or to help them maintain readership. Compare and contrast poor Nick Coleman. The insititutional inertia of the old Star Tribune guarantees him an audience, however shrinking. Bloggers are just one click away from oblivion.

Bias, pshaw!

Jan 1, 2005 - 9:32 am 34. Rick Z:

Anyone who’s had the nauseating experience of reading a grotesquely inaccurate journalistic piece about an event one has participated in, or a topic one has professional or personal interest or knowledge of, recognizes the central problem with journalism as a craft.

A journalist must, of necessity, be a generalist, with no in-depth knowledge of any particular subject. There are specialists to be sure, covering such topics as business or science or religion; but even these are, for the most part, the products of J-schools rather than life experience or quality graduate school educations in the topics they cover.

This is where blogs have it all over the MSM, and why the later must adapt or die.

Jan 1, 2005 - 10:07 am 35. Steve J.:

“And in the area of factual inaccuracies that count, ones that last for longer than a few minutes, I think he is… well… inaccurate. Bloggers–at least those with sizable audiences–are subject to more editing and fact-checking than virtually any mainstream media journalist. ”

This I think is the real promise of blogging. It’s something like the idea behind the Open Source movement in software development: the more eyes, the better.

Of course, to be really effective, this has to be an open two-way street, as this blog is, unlike PowerLine or Talking Points Memo which have no Comment options.

Jan 1, 2005 - 6:43 pm 36. Steve J.:

Liberal Media Bias == another self-serving myth from the Right.

“Some of it is frustration, no doubt about it,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Rich Bond, “But there is some strategy to it,” he went on. “I’m a coach of kids’ basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is `work the refs’ ” – meaning the media. “Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one.”

Media to the Left! Media to the Right! The GOP, Shooting The Messengers; [FINAL Edition]

Lloyd Grove. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Aug 20, 1992. pg. c.01

“There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don?t think we had anything to complain about.” James Baker, quoted in Mark Hertsgaard, On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency, NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1988, page 4.

“The truth is, I’ve gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive,” Buchanan said. “I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage–all we could have asked.” Buchanan says his rhetoric is not meant to stir hostilities toward the media. “For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on Earth does that.”

WASHINGTON INSIGHT / Campaign ‘96; [Home Edition]

Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 14, 1996. pg. 5

“We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.” Matt Labash, 32, is a senior writer with The Weekly Standard, http://journalismjobs.com/matt_labash.cfm, Interview with Matt Labash, The Weekly Standard — May 2003

Jan 1, 2005 - 6:52 pm 37. Bostonian:

Steve J.,

Let’s start with the media bias issue. Please give me links to MSM stories on Kerry’s excellent adventure in Cambodia. Or failing that, to the MSM’s coverage of Kerry’s Winter Soldier testimony. Give me links to MSM stories on the SBVT that accurately present the SBVT’s side of the story. Give me links to MSM stories about CBS’s “memo.” Give me links (other than the WSJ) to coverage of the UN’s Oil for Food scandal, including the angles that look bad for the French, Russian, and Chinese governments. I want names. Give me a link to an MSM story on Oil for Food that mentions Pasqua and Galloway, not just Marc Rich.

In all cases, please provide the earlier possible links and compare that to the actual date of the event, demonstrating that the press was covering these stories with the same zeal and interest they showed for Abu Ghraib, TANG, and al Qa Qaa.

This is what your list of links will look like:

Jan 1, 2005 - 7:08 pm 38. Bostonian:

I don’t expect I’ll get a response on the other issue, but I’ll continue with your point about blogs: comment sections.

You’re misunderstanding the nature of the blogosphere (hate that word). Nobody reads just one blog. Sure, if I read just one blog and it had no comments section, I would be hearing just one point of view (kinda like when I read the Boston Globe). But that’s not how the internet works.

Let’s consider Glenn Reynolds, who has no comments section. Suppose he says something stupid or wrong. Instantly about 500 bloggers comment on that, in addition to who-know-hiow-many chat boards, so there is PLENTY of healthy (highly visible) conversation about whether he was right or wrong. Many bloggers (like Glenn) also read & respond to email, often posting that exchange as well.

On the internet, there is no hiding.

***

I had a cricket chirping at the end of my last message, but I put it inside those brackets, and so of course it vanished. It’s almost better this way.

Jan 1, 2005 - 7:16 pm 39. Bostonian:

On the internet, there is no hiding.

Important corrolary: Everything is on the internet, even if it doesn’t want to be.

Jan 1, 2005 - 7:17 pm 40. Steve J.:

BOSTONIAN:

“Please give me links to MSM stories on Kerry’s excellent adventure in Cambodia”

Ok, here’s a few I found (I only searched newspapers):

The war’s over, but not for these brazen snipers; Unfit for Command Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry John E. O’Neill and Jerome R. Corsi Regnery: 216 pp., $27.95; [HOME EDITION]

Michael Parks. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 31, 2004. pg. R.4

Tangling On The Web

Jonathan Miller. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Dec 5, 2004. p. 14NJ.1

The Vietnamization of John Kerry; [FINAL Edition]

Charles Krauthammer. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Oct 1, 2004. p. A.29

Swift Boat Shootout; [FINAL Edition]

Michael Getler. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Aug 29, 2004. p. B.06

Kerry’s Cambodia Whopper; [FINAL Edition]

Joshua Muravchik. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Aug 24, 2004. p. A.17

Jan 2, 2005 - 12:18 pm 41. Bostonian:

Steve: I’m not impressed. Do these articles satisfy *you* that the MSM has pursued Kerry’s Cambodia lie with just as much fervor as they pursued the TANG non-story?

Notice how even what you have managed to find is buried deep in these papers.

By contrast, the TANG stories ran on the front page, often. CBS ran a segment or two (remember that memo?!), as I recall.

***

I think you’ve proved my point.

Jan 3, 2005 - 8:08 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: