Media Watch: 2004-10-12

As the Scotsman noted in the wake of Ra^thergate:

"Bloggers cannot replace newspapers and the television networks since they rely on the established media to do most of a story’s original reporting. But they can answer the question "who watches the watchers?" The answer is that the pyjama-wearers do."

TOP TOPICS

• CNS News is putting copies of the Iraqi documents re: Saddam's WMDs and support for terrorism online, for examination by all and sundry.

• An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff nnot to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable during campaign coverage." Needless to say, he has triggered quite the controversy. INDC Journal has done some interesting digging re: some of Halperin's previous statements.

Other Topics Include: Poynter Ethics lament; Reporters not above the law; The Draft memo scam; NYT's differential rumour policies; More AP bias from Loven & Laidlaw; Mapes still covering Bush NG story!; FOX's Cameron in conflict?; FOX's post-debate "quotes"; NYT Unfit to Review; Spinning the polls; Lousy ombudsmen; More ABC News memo; Spain vs. Australia coverage; Oil-for-palaces scam differences; NBC silent about its source; Reuters' bias reports.

General

• Kelly McBride of the Poynter Ethics Journal asks: Why not apply the same level of scrutiny to media companies that journalists have applied to recent scandals in American corporations and the Catholic Church? (Hat Tip: Instapundit)

• Beldar Blog targets NYT reporter Judith Miller, and points out that journalists are not above the law. Apparently, this comes as news to some journalists.

• In the Rocky Mountain News, Dave Kopel notes that local papers did a better job of dealing with the bogus draft memos than "national" outlets like CBS. He also has the grace to credit Beldar and INDC for their work.

U.S. 2004 Elections Coverage

• The ABC memo seems to echo a theme being promoted by Soros' Media Matters, which employs left-wing blggers Atrios and Oliver Willis. The remainder of the piece also includes some complaints they have concerning post debate coverage.

• Ace of Spades HQ notes the speed with which the NYT covers unsubstatiated rumours about W. having a radio recorder in the debate. As WSJ OpinionJournal notes: "Earlier, "rumors racing across the Internet" had it that John Kerry brought cheat sheets to the first debate, but the Times, quite properly, did not see fit to report this. (Apparently Kerry was actually removing a pen from his jacket pocket...) It seems "rumors racing across the Internet" are sufficient basis for a "news" story in the Times--just so long as the rumors are anti-Bush."

• Jennifer Loven of AP is married to one of Kerry's influential donors, but this doesn't seem to sto her from reporting on the campaign. Powerline noted her bias and conflicts earlier (and see here). Now note her indignant piece about the GOP's description of John Kerry as a liberal. Ms. Loven may have a future as an opinion columnist, but it beggars belief that she's covering a Presidential campaign for a "news service" whose articles are picked up by newspapers across the country.

• But why should the AP discipline Ms. Loven when it sees fit to retain Scott Laidlaw, whose biases have been openly declared, as a reporter? This seems to have survived even his demonstrably frauduelent claims re: a GOP crowd booing good wishes for Clinton's health?

• AP didn't exactly cover themselves in glory with their lousy coverage of Hailey's bogus "analysis" of the Rather memos, either. Rathergate also links to real expert Joseph Newcomer's demolition of Hailey, which is worth reading all by itself.

• My Lord, Mary Mapes is still covering the Bush National Guard story for CBS News? This is why I call Rathergate a tactical defeat for CBS' biased crew, but a strategic victory. If you want to complain, Rathergate has a project they could use help with - plus some other options.

• What about FOX's political correspondent Paul Cameron? Did his wife campaign with one of W.'s relatives? This Observer article discusses the issue pretty fairly, I think, covering the potential conflict and also noting Cameron's role in exposing W.'s DUI convictions et. al. (Hat Tip: VT)

• FOX published a post-debate spoof with pretty obviously made-up quotes from Kerry. Following complaints, they had the good grace to withdraw it and to note that the person responsible had been reprimanded. (Hat Tip: VT)

• Steve Sherman and Bud Barnes shred a New York Times book review of "Unfit for Command." Their characterization of the review as "incompetent" strikes me as fair - it's possible not to like the book without displaying this level of bias and lack of basic research. Sloppiness, or partisanship?

• The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group (coverage area here) will air a film that deals with Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War on Nov. 2. Gotta say, it does look kind of like the L.A. Times last minute shot at Ah-nold. Here's SBG's statement on the matter. (Hat Tip: JC)

• Patterico notes that for the L.A. Times, a 16-point lead for Bush in Arizona means the state is "in play" for Kerry, while a 15-point lead for Kerry in California means the state is "all but locked down" for Kerry.

• Kerry supporter Mickey Kaus has been savaging the bias in the New Tork Times' poll coverage during these 2004 elections. His 4:26pm post on Sept. 10 (get permalinks, Mickey!) savages the NYT Ombudsman's defense of that coverage. Does Mr. Okrent, he asks, understand what an Ombudsman is supposed to be?

• Geez, even Atrios is going after this guy.

• But nobody - nobody - has a better response to the New York Times' "ombudsman" than Beldar Blog's Memo to Mr. Okrent.... Don't mess with lawyers in pajamas.

• Of course, it's possible to be a worse Ombudsman...

International Coverage

• Stefan Sharkansky notes the vast difference in the coverage of the Spanish and Australian elections in the Washington Post.

• As A.L. notes, the "media cocoon" seems to exist in Australia, too.

• Swimming Through the Spin notes some differences in coverage of American recipients in the U.N.'s oil-for-palaces scam. The Houston Chronicle digs into an American businessman with a history of questionable dealings and political contributions. The NYT focuses instead on the Bush administration's postwar stewardship of Iraq's oil money.

• NBC News invites Joseph Cirincione from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to "discuss" the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq and Iran. They title him as a "Nuclear Weapons Expert", without mentioning his organization's lib-left tilt or the thousands he has personally given to John Kerry and the Democratic Party. Typical. Folks - if your "expert" gives money to a political party, any political party, we ought to know that.

• Of course, for deep and entrenched bias, it's hard to outdo Reuters This article explains how deep it runs, and why it matters.

• Stories like this one (see "The world's smallest violin") help to explain why Reuters should be regarded with suspicion.

• By the way, a recent kerfuffle here in Canada led to an enlightening explanation from Reuters. Ever wonder why Reuters refuses to refer to Islamist savages as "terrorists"?