Media Matters CNN's skewed coverage

[Clinton Crusader]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170009


CNN's skewed coverage, Part One: Only 5 PERCENT of reporting in Inside Politics' Tuesday and Wednesday packages about "Bush's National Guard Service" actually discussed the allegations or
evidence against Bush

The Inside Politics segments on the Bush Guard controversy on September 14 and September 15 totaled roughly 2,500 words. Below is every single statement contained in those two reports that could even conceivably be considered criticism of Bush, explanation of the allegations against him, or details of the evidence against him:

JUDY WOODRUFF (Inside Politics host): Today, some Bush opponents are pressing their charge that the president has misled Americans about denies. The Democratic National Committee unveiled a two-minute video challenging the president to answer questions about whether he received special treatment and fulfilled his obligations. <9/14>

WOODRUFF: The so-called Texans For Truth are offering a $50,000 reward to anyone who can prove that George W. Bush fulfilled his service requirements in the Alabama Guard. <9/14>

JEANNE MESERVE (CNN correspondent): But she says they do accurately reflect Killian's attitudes at the time <9/15>

JOE JOHNS (CNN congressional correspondent): Democrats, of course, are saying this is not the great issue Republicans think it is. They say it's keeping the Bush Guard story alive, and keeping the media focused on his National Guard service. <9/15>

received special treatment?* <9/15>

* taken directly from transcript available on CNN.com; the speaker and full quote are not available on the transcript.

That's it: 127 words out of 2,500 - just 5 percent - actually described or discussed what the allegations against Bush are in any way, or mentioned the evidence supporting them, or suggested the story is bad for Bush.
<more>
:kick:

[DrFunkenstein]

1. Judy Woodruff Is Fair And Balanced

[PeaceProgProsp]

2. "Discussing the allegations against him"

This is an extremely important measure of media bias.

Pay close attention. This happens all the time. Rather than talk about the allegations, the media will often do stories about how the criticized person is coping with the criticizm without explaining what exactly they're being criticized for.

That's a real table-turner, because not only are you not giving the audience enough information to make an informed judgement, you're humanizing the "victim" (or the legitimate object of derision). All the while, you can pretend that you're reporting.

I'm sure there's a propaganda text book somewhere and there's a whole chapter on this technique.

[cyr330]

3. unless it's Bill Clinton

They sure couldn't get enough of his blow job, could they?

[PeaceProgProsp]

4. Excellent example.

If they don't like you, it's all allegations all the time (whether they're substantiated or not) and anything that happens inadvertently that might be construed as even remotely humanizing the victim is quickly turned around to hurt the victim.

When the Clintons went down to St Thomas and were caught being friendly on the beach the immediate response was that the event was staged.

Staged or not, if they had been Republicans, nobody would utter the slightest skepticism about the pictures, and the entire story would be about how much this family is hurting and how much they're struggling to get through it together.