Just over a week ago, my Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, made a claim that Karl Rove was behind the fake documents scandal at CBS News.

Since then, I've been highly critical of the media, particularly with newspapers in Hinchey's 22nd District in their coverage of this on-going story. While watching the papers first ignore story, and then write about it in both news stories and editorials, I've come to the realization of just how damaging political bias can be to a news organization.

Even under this best-case scenario, liberal bias inherent in these organizations is so strong that it affects both news stories and editorials to the point that they severely misrepresent the actual series of events. A simple look at one local news story and one local editorial underscores my point.

Michael Kruse of the Times Herald-Record wrote a story that appeared exactly one week after Hinchey's Rovian conspiracy theory was first recorded. The story, "Hinchey loves the limelight" (free reg. required), slanted his article, by intent or by inherent bias, to the point of eclipsing the real story. Kruse does not once touch upon the key essential element that makes this story newsworthy; that Hinchey has accused Karl Rove of being behind the fake documents scandal with absolutely no solid evidence to support his claim.

Instead, Kruse presents a fawning piece that shows bloggers as faceless aggressors attacking a noble man of the people who is taking his lumps in his fight for the truth. Kruse seeks to turn Hinchey into a sawn-off Erin Brockovich.

Kruse is more than willing to play straightman to Hinchey, and plays along with Hinchey's "the administration is out to get me" fantasy. Doubt my characterization? Read the article. Hinchey's own staff couldn't have written it better.

And Kruse is not alone. In fact, when the story makes the editorial pages, it goes from bad to worse. David Rossie is the associate editor of the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin. His editorial, "Rep. Hinchey has no proof... so let's invade Rove's office" is tinfoil hat league.

Rossie firmly supports the "false, but accurate" claim about the fake documents (while conveniently offering no supporting evidence), and proves more than willing to pass along other dubious claims as proof of a pattern of behavior, even though he fails to provide factual basis for these claims, either. His pure spite and obvious hatred for all things conservative is almost Klannish in intensity as he mockingly refers to Bush as "God's instrument in the White House," and refers to "far right prattlers," in an apparent reference to anyone commenting on this issue who is not as liberal as himself.

Rossie, while cartoonish, is so rabidly anti-conservative that one has to wonder if any article of a political nature could pass through his desk without hopelessly compromising the objectivity of the story. He is not just an opinion writer, he is the associate editor, and his position and biases affirm that the Press & Sun-Bulletin is perhaps incapable of objective reporting. It is one thing to draw your own conclusions based upon your own personal biases, it is something far worse when you aren't provided a true accounting to base your personal opinion on.

I give each man the benefit of the doubt that they were honestly trying to write their stories with what they felt was objectivity, but in each case, their bias is apparent and overwhelming. In the Kruse article, he conveniently misses the main point of outrage of the entire issue. In the Rossie editorial, the issue is not only obfuscated, but the faulty premise is agreed to and furthered.

We all have our biases, but when one is a member of the media, he has a duty to attempt objectivity. Unfortunately, as these two examples show, when bias goes unchecked, it can slant a story far enough that it becomes a lie in its own right.

Update: "Talk on the Street," a section in the Times Herald-Record, shows another example of reporters selectively choosing minor parts of a story while completely missing the two major issues that made up the "meat" of Hinchey's appearance on Hannity's show. "Talk on the Street" said:

"Never one to shy from a fight, Hinchey got Hannity to admit the host made his own mistake recently by allowing someone who turned out to be a fake journalist onto the show. In return, Hannity kept cutting off Hinchey's mike and making fun of him."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 885 words, total size 7 kb.

Ra^therGate refuses to die (hat tip: RatherBiased).

The three CBS staffers asked to resign after the airing of the fake Bush Air National Guard story have refused to go. What's more, they have retained counsel and may sue CBS News, alleging that upper management and the investigators did not run a real investigation, but one designed from the outset to protect the CBS News corporate brass, not to ferret out the truth.

Because of this, Josh Howard, the executive producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday" during the Ra^therGate episode, is threatening CBS News with a wrongful termination lawsuit that would require testimony under oath and could subpoena internal documents and email that may not have not appeared as evidence in the official 224-page Thornburgh Report (PDF). The two other CBS News Executives asked to resign, Mary Murphy and Betsy West, have also refused to step down and seem willing to fight CBS brass for what they consider the truth.

CBS News claims that Howard's accusations have "no basis in fact." That seems to be a common complaint around CBS News these days.

So what do we have here?

The last time I heard of such infighting at a news organization was when Howell Raines was forced out at the New York Times over the Jayson Blair scandal. If Howard, Murphy and West are playing it straight, then it seems entirely plausible that Leslie Moonves and Andrew Heyward might be far more interested in protecting their own positions than preserving what remains of the tattered credibility of CBS News.

CBS News cannot handle another scandal.

The brand is severely hobbled at ths point, and if Howard, Murphy, and West can establish any sort of merit with a public already distrustful of CBS, and get the easily ascribed "covering our own asses" defense tarred to Heyward and Moonves, then its effectively "Game Over" for CBS News, regardless of what a judge or jury later determine.

Their effectiveness as executives most likely will be fatally compromised, regardless of any eventual vindication in a court of law. What's more, if Howard does pursue his case and presents evidence damning the structure of the investigation, it could potentially also turn on the two "independent" investigators, former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press head Louis Boccardi.

Many already have their doubts about the so-called "Thornburgh Report," and if it appears that the report was compromised by design, Thornburgh and Boccardi could end up with their reputations in hot water along with the CBS News brass.

This one is a long way from over, but I don't see how Heyward or Moonves can have much of a future remaining at CBS News.

Home

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 4 kb.

The caller on the other end of the phone Saturday afternoon was Ashley, and she wanted to know if I wanted to subscribe to the Record, our local bird-cage liner. No, I said. She asked why, and I told her: it didn't offer anything I was interested in reading.

I still pick it up from time to time on weekends. For finding yard sales and coupon clipping it can't be beat, but as a source of news and commentary, it simply isn't worthwhile.

Like every newspaper, locals suffer an immediacy gap. They cannot compete with the immediacy of television or radio, which can (and often does) report events as they happen. For any major news story they rely on major news organizations. They parrot, but they don't add anything beyond formatting.

What local papers can do is report (obviously) local events. Badly.

The fact of the matter is that local newspapers do not spend top dollar for their stable of reporters, and those that do have talent tend to move on to better opportunities rather quickly. The same goes for the editorial board.

What do most local papers offer?

National news you found out about twelve hours ago on television or radio or the Internet. Classified ads and sales flyers. Local news stories poorly written, and pompous sophomoric editorials. Oh, and sports, which thankfully offers the only local reporting worth reading on a daily basis.

So what do local newspapers have to offer that is not better served by another news medium, better, faster, and cheaper?

I don't know the answer. I don't need to know. But someone in the local news business better figure it out before their advertisers do.

Home

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.