MSM strategy for last weeks according to ABCNews political director

"If I were a conservative, I understand why I would feel suspicious that I was not going to get a fair break at the end of an election."

"The mindset at ABC, where you and I used to be colleagues at, at the other big news organizations, it's just too focused on being more favorable to Nancy Pelosi, say, than Newt Gingrich, being more down on the Republicans' chances than perhaps is warranted..."

- ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin speaking to Bill O'Reilly

Check out Halperin's predictions for MSM "fair and balanced" coverage in the weeks before the election:

The Note: Pending: Six Days of November Surprises

Here is the full exchange between Halperin and O'Reilly:

Bill O'Reilly: "'Factor Followup' segment: Tonight a somewhat surprising ABC News Internet posting. It's entitled 'How the Liberal Old Media Plans to Cover the Last Two Weeks of the Election.' Article was written by Mark Halperin, the political director of ABC News, and also the co-author of a brand new book called The Way to win: Taking the White House in 2008. Mr. Halperin joins us now from New York. This is a very tough piece of analysis that you wrote. I'm surprised; I'm not stunned because you are a gutsy guy. You have done this before. But let's walk through it. Who is the liberal old media?"

Mark Halperin: "Well, Bill, as you know, in this country, we've got these old news organizations, the major networks, ABC, where you used to work, the New York Times, the Washington Post. These organizations have been around a long time, and for 40 years conservatives have looked with suspicion at them. I think we've got a chance in these last two weeks to prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances, we're going to try to do better, but these organizations still have incredible sway, and conservatives are certain that we're going to be out to get them. We've got to fix that."

O'Reilly: "All right, so you're actually admitting, you, the political director of ABC News, that CBS News, maybe your own network, tilts left?"

Halperin: "We write in The Way to Win, John Harris and I, that over the years there are a lot of examples, what CBS News did in the 2004 election with the President's National Guard record, lot's of examples. If I were a conservative, I understand why I would feel suspicious that I was not going to get a fair break at the end of an election. We've got to make sure we do better so conservatives don't have to be concerned about that. It's just, it's not fair."

O'Reilly: "So you're the fairness police at ABC News? You're the fair police now?"

Halperin: "No, we should be impartial. We should use this last two weeks as an opportunity to help rebuild our reputation with half the country so conservatives can-"

O'Reilly: "Okay, I'm liking it. Now, what is the strategy of the old liberal networks, and you've defined them as CBS, maybe ABC, NBC, CNN, the major urban newspapers. What's the strategy?"

Halperin: "You know how this works, one of the things we wrote in 'The Note' is there are no strategy calls. We're not on the phone with Howard Dean and George Soros in the morning getting our marching orders, but the mindset at ABC, where you and I used to be colleagues at, at the other big news organizations, it's just too focused on being more favorable to Nancy Pelosi, say, than Newt Gingrich, being more down on the Republicans' chances than perhaps is warranted, singling out, you're seeing here a 60 Minutes piece about Nancy Pelosi. I don't remember Newt Gingrich getting a piece that favorable in 1994."

O'Reilly: "Do you think CBS is in the tank for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats?"

Halperin: "I think everybody in the old media better be watching pieces like that, reading profiles of Nancy Pelosi, and saying, 'Are we being fair to everybody involved in the American political process?' Even if you don't believe the argument, Bill, that we make, in The Way to Win, that there are some examples over the years that are pretty significant, of showing why conservatives are aggrieved, even if you're a liberal and you don't believe that, believe that half the country feels that way. And as an economic model, if you want to thrive like Fox News Channel, you want to have a future, you better make sure conservatives find your product appealing if you're going to do the right thing. You got to do it."

O'Reilly: "I think you're absolutely correct. I mean, all I want is fairness in the media. Now, your book is fascinating because it basically lays out a road map for success to whoever wants to be President. Give me the headline of the book."

Halperin: "The headline of the book is we interviewed Bill Clinton and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. But Clinton and Rove, the chief strategists in American politics, what do they know about the way to win? They have a lot of theories in common. They admire each other and their skills, but they look at things differently in terms of policy. We also say, 'What does Hillary Clinton know? Why is she such a strong candidate?' Dick Cheney said today people better believe she can win. We explain what Hillary Clinton's political operation is like. It's more like Bush and Rove than it is like her husband's."

O'Reilly: "Yeah, I mean, she's more fluid and she's got tons of money."

Halperin: "It's more than that, Bill."

O'Reilly: "Yeah, what else?"

Halperin: "She just knows that Karl Rove and George Bush had five years of success by being organized, by coming to the new media, by giving the stiff arm to the old media, to some extent, and also by having a disciplined staff that works to try to improve her chances rather than fighting with each other. She's more Bush and Rove in many ways than she is Clinton. That's what makes her formidable."

Go to the Media Research Center for this and more analysis of bias in the TV media.

Bias at the Seattle Times - Another example?

I don't normally read the Seattle Times, but when SoundPolitics highlighted a PI story in the post, "Dotzauer (Cantwell) divorce file to remained sealed until after the election", I wondered if that same AP story had appeared in the Times, and if it had, did the Times print it in its entirety as the PI did, or did the Times cut anything out that might be perceived to hurt Democrat Maria Cantwell. The article in the PI was titled, "Ex-wife: Lobbyist trying to hide 'possible illegal actions'".

Well, the story was in the Seattle Times, "Cantwell adviser fights to keep divorce documents sealed", and yes, the paper appears to again have taken the scissors to an especially critical paragraph about our Democrat senator up for reelection. This time it's Maria Cantwell and her relationship with a lobbiest, and the possible conflicts of interests that are involved in her sending millions in taxpayer dollars to a man she's had a personal relationship with and made a personal loan to.

The Times printed almost the antire AP story attributed to Gene Johnson, so it is hard to imagine that the very few cuts they made were for space. But look at what the Times decided to cut out of the article, and you decide whether you think this was bias, or just a necessary cut for space?

"The money, which had not been repaid as of Cantwell's most recent filing, was the subject of an Associated Press article noting that Cantwell, a first-term Democrat who is up for reelection, had helped direct $11 million in federal contracts to clients of Dotzauer's firm. There is no evidence that Cantwell's efforts to obtain the funding for projects in her state were based on her connection to Dotzauer, but ethics rules generally require senators to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest."

I think this paragraph was the most damning paragraph in the story, and I believe the Times cut it because they are struggling to help Democrats like Cantwell and they hoped no one would notice.

I think we need a whole lot of people to start dismantling these decisions at the Times that are quietly removing critical and important points out of stories. It sure stinks of bias to me, but I don't suffer from a 4-year degree in journalism.

There are many forms of bias, including the slanting of the story outright, to filtering the information provided to the reader and even total omission of stories. If the Times is cutting AP stories regularly to soften criticism of Democrats, how big a difference can that make in the long-term? If all newspapers do it, how big an impact would that have on the public perception?

At some point these little snips here and there add up. Combine them with the full-blown omissions and stories totally slanted to favor Democrats, and we have a very serious problem.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE

I just received this explanation from Richard Wagoner, Politics editor, The Seattle Times.

"Mr. Costello,

Mike Fancher asked me to respond to your concern about the editing of an AP story about Ron Dotzauer's efforts to keep his divorce records sealed.

I asked that the paragraph in question be cut out last night because the information is incorrect. The AP has reported several times that Maria Cantwell directed $11 million in federal contracts to clients of Dotzauer's firm. Alex Fryer, the reporter covering the race for us, has spoken with all the parties involved in this, including the water districts who were Dotzauer's clients, and reviewed the records. The dollar amount, as near as we can tell, isn't anywhere near $11 million. It's closer to $3 million. The $11 million figure includes money for projects that weren't requested by Dotzauer's clients. Also, Cantwell was not the only lawmaker involved in this appropriation. Rep. Dave Reichert and former Rep. Jennifer Dunn, both Republicans, also advocated for the money.

By way of background, we investigated the relationship between Dotzauer and Cantwell and wrote the lengthy story about it on Sept. 4. We didn't use the water district example in that story, because we found one that we thought was better at showing how their relationship could raise questions when she votes on issues affecting his clients. In that instance, Cantwell changed her vote on a controversial tort reform bill that Dotzauer's firm worked on.

After that story ran, the AP followed up and reported on the water district appropriations. We then decided to do our own story about the appropriations and wrote this on Sept. 9 about the matter: "Much of the money, about $3 million, was directed to the Army Corps of Engineers to build a new barrier dam to help salmon near Lake Tapps. The Cascade Water Alliance, a group of eight Eastside cities and water districts, sought the funding along with Puget Sound Energy, which owns dikes and other infrastructure along the lake. The Cascade Water Alliance hired Dotzauer's firm in 2002 to lobby Congress on water issues."

Should we have rewritten the paragraph in Tuesday's AP story rather than simply cut it? Perhaps. But this change was made last night over the phone and I was concerned that we might get the details wrong. So I chose to take it out.

Thanks for reading The Seattle Times and your e-mail. I appreciate it when readers care enough to ask what happened with a particular story.

Sincerely,

Richard Wagoner
Politics editor
The Seattle Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think the Times expends this much effort to discredit the AP when they make allegations that hurt Republicans? I wonder why the Times didn't just change the "11" in $11 million to a "3" for $3 million? I don't think it would have made any difference in the point being made. Do you?

I think the paragraph could have been left in the article by simply changing it to read, "Cantwell, a first-term Democrat who is up for reelection, had helped direct millions in federal contracts to clients of Dotzauer's firm." "Millions" instead of "$11 million". Seems like the most responsible edit to me, and it would have taken about 5 seconds to make. But then the questioning of Cantwell's ethics and the perceived conflict of interest would have had to stay too.

Hillary Clinton - who cares if she's had plastic surgery?

What matters is whether she's still a social liberal pretending to be moderate. Does she still support nationalized health care? Did she look the other way at allegations of sexual assault by her husband? Does she really place the security of Americans above her rise to power, or are her regular attacks on the Bush administration just another example of her selfish desire to sit in the White House someday?

Has she accomplished anything in her 6 years in the United States Senate except provide the MSM with false-gravitas that it will use to justify her candidacy for president in 2008?

But does it matter that, like her positions on virtually any issue, that she has crafted a physical image as well as a facade on those policies?

I believe that what Hillary would offer America is ugly and a fraud. I believe that she is working every day to create a facade to cover the real ugliness in her personality and the real direction she'd take America. As for physical apperance, I suppose my understanding of her history and actions during her husband's administration has left me seeing her ugliness regardless of how she may or may not manage her physical appearance.

Remember those days when Bill would dye his hair to be attractive to an audience versus another? You know what I mean. Like the day his hair was white when he appeared on Phil Donahue, or brown with gray over the ears when speaking at a college.

People should remember that some of the most wonderful people in the world are very unattractive in appearance, while some of history's biggest losers were physically beautiful. Too bad so many let appearance get in the way of rational thought and critical analysis before they cast that vote, huh? I suppose if so many weren't swayed by a pleasant smile, a politician's fake sincerity, or general attractiveness, we could have avoided the Clinton years where sex was redefined, a real presidential liar was impeached, and Americans learned first-hand that there are consequences to ignoring the terrorist threats against America.

Consider the source - Do you trust Clinton & Kerry supporters to tell you the truth about Bush?

"They honestly believe what they are saying. And that's the biggest problem of all. They don't see their own bias."

If you've ever dealt with anyone in the media who just refuses to acknowledge their bias, then the quote above is nothing new. The series recently reprinted in the Investor's Business Daily linked below is a great article citing tons of examples and evidence to back up the claim that the national media is biased.

Take the national media bias and bias it even further towards extremist liberals and Democrats, then I think you're getting close to the Seattle Times and Seattle PI.

It's worth reading and saving for future reference.

Can You Trust The National Media? - Part 1
Can You Trust The National Media? - Part 2
Can You Trust The National Media? - Part 3
Can You Trust The National Media? - Part 4
Can You Trust The National Media? - Part 5

Bias at the Seattle Times - Even worse than first thought

When I first challenged Seattle Times editor David Birdwell over the coverage of Gerry Studds' (Democrat-Ill) death and the omission of Studds' party affiliation, even I believed that the Times had simply reprinted an Associated Press story that had made the omission. I took issue with both the Times' decision to not insert Studds' party affiliation into the obituary, as well as Birdwell's decision not to highlight Studds' party affiliation in the headline, as he had done in July when disgraced Republican Spokane Mayor Jim West died. Birdwell's double-standard was glaring after changing the headline as reported on July 22 so that the Sunday addition of the obituary would highlight the corrupt homosexual West, who had been kicked out of office for offering jobs for sex, as a Republican.

I felt that Birdwell was displaying a blatant example of bias and application of a double standard aimed at associating one homosexual engaging in sleazy acts with the Republican Party, while shielding the Democrat Party from the hypocrisy surrounding one of their own gay child molesters, Gerry Studds.

Former Spokane Mayor Jim West dies
Jim West, Republican politician, dead at 55

First openly gay congressman dies at age 69

But now it appears that the Times did more than simply reprint a poorly written AP story that neglected to identify Studds' party. In fact, it appears that Birdwell or someone at the Times changed the AP story to remove parts of the original story that would have been damaging to the Democrats. I'm sure Birdwell would argue that they were cut to reduce the size of the obituary, but you decide on the impact of the changes.

Here is what appears to be the full story as written by Jay Lindsay of the Associated Press reported:

Obituary: Gerry Studds / First openly gay person in Congress, re-elected six times

So what did Birdwell and the Seattle Times not want their readers to see from the original AP story? Here is some of what the Times cut:

"... said Mr. Hara, who married Mr. Studds shortly after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004.

...Mr. Studds called the relationship with the teenage page, which included a trip to Europe, "a very serious error in judgment." But he did not apologize and defended the relationship as a consensual relationship with a young adult.

...Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy for savaging Mr. Foley while saying little about Mr. Studds at that time.

... Mr. Studds was never ashamed of the relationship with the page."

So the Seattle Times didn't just reprint a biased story, but they made the story even more slanted by removing the comparisons between Foley and Studds, and removing the charge of Democrat hypocrisy that would have made Studds' party affiliation obvious.

And apparently David Birdwell didn't have any problem keeping this editing job a secret from me in our half-dozen email exchanges. Obviously he assumed that the Times edits to further slant a slanted story would be their little secret.

Birdwell challenged the fact that I don't regularly read the Times. But if you can't trust a newspaper to report the whole story, then why bother?

I told Birdwell that I don't read the Times or the PI, but that doesn't mean I don't read newspapers. I simply choose to read papers that haven't lost their credibility.

Oh, and while I'm no expert on Copyright laws, I find it interesting that the Times can take a copyrighted story from the Associated Press, cut some stuff out of it, and then copyright it to the Seattle Times. In school they'd call that plagiarism, wouldn't they?

More Bias at the Seattle Times

UPDATE FOLLOWS AT THE END
---

Last July when disgraced Spokane Mayor Jim West died, the Seattle Times felt compelled to take the obituary they reported on a Saturday and change the headline to identify West as a Republican.

Former Spokane Mayor Jim West diesJim West, Republican politician, dead at 55

The obituary article itself, used both days under both headlines, also identified West as a Republican twice. And while I'm certaianly not arguing that it shouldn't, the move by the Times to identify West in the headline appeared to me to be a little too much, considering another article at the time that I used to challenge the Times with bias. In that article, the Times had neglected to identify the party affiliation of another mayor, this time in San Jose, California who was booked on fraud, bribery and conspiracy charges.

I wrote Seattle Times editor David Birdwell and I called him on the West headline. His response was:

Please understand that we don't sit at our desks and try to think of ways to make Democrats look good and Republicans look bad. I know what went into that headline because I was the editor who handled page one this morning. West was a former majority leader at the state level. His party affiliation was important to note.

I've already written Birdwell again for a comment on the following story, but I'm not holding my breath for an admission of bias in this story: Like our last exchange, I expect the same lame excuse and then he'll be too busy to back it up. Oh well, I'll let you all decide for yourself.

First openly gay congressman dies at age 69

This story is about the death Saturday of another disgraced politician. This time Democrat Gerry Studds. Studds' name has resurfaced recently in calls of hypocrisy made against Democrats by Republicans because he had his own sexual relationship with a teenage page in 1983. But unlike the rabid attacks by Democrats and the MSM in the Foley matter, Studds was welcomed back to Congress after his censureship by his Democrat colleagues with standing ovations. Back then Democrats clearly didn't have too much a problem with molestation of a "child" by a homosexual congressman, but suddenly it's a big problem for the party of Studds and Mel Reynolds, who in 1994 was indicted and later convicted of sex with minors himself. In 1994, unlike the Foley scandal, the MSM could hardly get excited about Reynolds indictement and conviction, with only a couple evening news reports on ABC, NBC and CBS.

Note the headline of this story? See any sign of Studd's party affiliation? I guess Birdwell and the Times didn't think it "important". Certainly not as important as a former state legislator who became mayor of spokane, huh?

Don't even bother reading the story, because despite this being an obituary with Studd's life described, the Associated Press didn't feel the need to identify his party, nor did the Times editors in reusing this article to report the death in the fair and balanced Seattle Times.

I wonder if Birdwell understands that when an editor feels it is important to identify the party of a Republican pervert, but then doesn't feel it is important to identify the party of a Democrat pervert, that he is displaying personal bias? Personal bias then becomes media bias when it impacts what and how a story is reported, or whether it is reported at all. Biased reporters and editors can make all the excuses they want, but every once in a while two very similar and equitable situations come along that make all their excuses empty and laughable.

Bias at the Times? They can deny it until hell freezes over, but unequal treatment in the media is here, it's obvious, and the Foley coverage during this pre-election pahse is just the icing on any allegation of MSM bias.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATES

I heard back from Birdwell. Here are some of his comments:

The cutline identified him as a Democrat. That's more visible than the story. If I wanted to hide it, I wouldn't have published a story in the SUNDAY newspaper, by far our biggest of the week.

One other thing: I might put more credibility in your claims of bias if you weren't the ONLY one among our 450,000 readers to make such a claim.

I'm tired of people on the extremes of the political spectrum claiming that people don't read newspapers because of some alleged bias. More people than ever are reading newspapers. You have no idea how many read our Web site, and the number increases significantly every single month. If newspapers are hurting, it's because too many people are too cheap to buy newspapers. They don't have to, so they don't. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, newspapers are the medium most inclined to make an effort to present both sides. And don't link the editorial pages or letters to the editor to me. I have nothing to do with those. Excuse me for not giving your opinion more credence. I'm tired of being criticized by people who are BIASED against newspapers. Have a nice day.

Comforting to know that we have such open-minded progressives deciding what is important and what isn't in the print media, huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No bias in the Media? Yeah, right. And George W. Bush forced Clinton to give North Korea a nuke

Here's a letter I sent to my local papers yesterday, including the Seattle Times and PI.

---

Media bias – how to impact an election

In 1994, United States Representative Mel Reynolds (D) was indicted for having sex with a young girl starting when she was 16. When the victim allegedly arranged for a 3-way with another 15-year-old, Reynolds was recorded as stating, “Did I win the Lotto?”

So how was the 1994 indictment of Reynolds covered by the TV networks? ABC didn’t cover it at all. CBS and NBC each gave it one evening report, while CBS threw in one morning story.

When Reynolds was convicted a year later, there were 16 total stories. ABC did just a single story on the entire scandal. CBS did five, with only one evening news story, and NBC did 10 stories, but again, just one evening report. A total of 19 reports covered the indictment and conviction of a Democrat child rapist.

Now we’re on the verge of an election and the media has lost all semblance of neutrality with the Foley scandal. This media-proclaimed “Republican” scandal has exploded, despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that anyone in Republican leadership knew about Foley’s explicit messages. But how have the networks covered this story compared to the Reynolds outrages of a decade ago?

ABC, CBS and NBC have covered this scandal with no less than 55 evening news reports, with another 97 morning news reports. No bias in the media? A Democrat child rapist gets 19 news stories, while a Republican author of sexually explicit messages gets 152+. Is this journalism or Democrat
campaigning?

Source: Media Research Center, http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20061011.asp