MoveOn.Times
Now that a semblance of normalcy has returned to upper Broadway, I thought it worthwhile to call attention to what some may have missed: the Public Editor’s column in last Sunday’s Times.
It begins:
For nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a
political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the
American commander in Iraq.
But I think the ad violated
The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the
advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.
It continues:
By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both
MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times.
It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change
the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a
respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a
Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a
cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the
“liberal media.”
And, in a manner reminiscent of some episcopal non-statements, this:
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its
parent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whether
disciplinary action would be taken.
Bravo to Clark Hoyt for temporarily breaching the bastions.
Everything I’ve read about this leads me to believe this is much ado about not very much. The Times reportedly gave MoveOn a discounted rate not because of any shared editorial position, but because the group agreed to have the ad run whenever there was space. Now a Times spokeswoman says that a salesperson made a mistake and gave MoveOn the impression that the ad would run on a given date. Apparently the Times has given Rudy the same rate. (Rudy G., who suggested at his NRA appearance that MoveOn ought to be legally punished for the ad.) The notion that the ad was somehow editorially approved beforehand, as many in the GOP talking-heads machine have claimed, is rather difficult to swallow.
What’s more: why should the salesperson be named? So he or she can be dragged through the mud by Bill O’Reilly and his minions? Or by Matt Drudge? I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring to, Robert, with “certain episcopal non-statements,” but if it has anything to do with not naming people who commit crimes by failing to report sexual-abuse allegations, the comparison is inapt.
Frankly, there’s something wrong when the public editor writes a column almost exclusively from the perspective of protecting the paper he works for.
I’m with Grant on this one. My complaint with the Times is that they did not report Admiral Fallon’s remark about General Petraeus, namely that he is an “ass kissing little chickenshit.” For that matter, MoveOn should have simply quoted Fallon and let O’Reilly et al. rant about Fallon.
Grant,
Do I detect an apologetic tone in your defense of the Gray Lady? Some might compare it with the posture of those who feel the need to safeguard every missive from the Vatican.
You know the Times does not enjoy the charism of infallibility despite what much of the Upper West Side believes.
I say this all with tongue firmly rooted in cheek an in the spirit of good-natured fun.
Fondly,
Anthony
Personally, I don’t see what the NYT has to apologize about. Petraeus is betraying us: like the Colin Powell who helped cover up the My Lai massacre, he’s a mealy-mouthed careerist who tells his chickenhawk bosses what they want to hear.
What’s happened at the Times, anyway? This is the paper that proudly and courageously published the Pentagon Papers. Now they’re succumbing to the wails and lamentations of the punditocracy and Senatorial mediocrities?
I think one must applaud the Times for having an ombudsman. This wasn’t a temporary breach of bastions, but the result of a public advocate placed there specifically to whisper, or rather shout, into the ears that all glory is indeed fleeting, and don’t get too caught up with yourselves.
Of course, the NYT made this move only under duress and after scandals. Not every institution–not naming names, of course–will take such a move, even under great duress.
That said, I thought the reaction to the ad was a bit overheated–I mean, Petraeus is no saint, by any stretch. We are just infatuated with medals and the miitary. The ad was stupid though, in that it did the exact opposite of what MoveOn.org wanted–sort of like Bush’s War on Iraq.
Contrary to Gallicho’s assertion that “The Times reportedly gave MoveOn a discounted rate … because the group agreed to have the ad run whenever there was space” Hoyt’s article points out that MoveOn’s executive director “Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate.”
Also noteworthy is the other Times’ standard that seems to have been violated: “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.”
I found Lauritzen’s comment, even though it apparently doesn’t violate any Commonweal standards, to be beneath contempt.
Why is it that any political attack, no matter how personal, is considered fair, but to criticize the man with the big gun is somehow out of bounds? This is the glorification of the military, more suited to the pagan Roman empire than a Christian nation. Should we give Petraeus a triumph, as he brings cheap oil back from occupied lands?
Petraeus is a partisan hack. He doctors statistics, and changes his answers to help his political masters. He gives exclusive interviews to Fox News. He should be castigated severely for not staying above the political fray, but instead he is lauded…
Of course, this respect for the military is uneven. It’s perfectly fine to make fun of verterans if it serves a political purpose– remember the purple band-aids mocking John Kerry at the last Republican convention?
The Times is a great newspaper, but there’s no denying they blundered here. But the blunder was charging the wrong advertising rate and then claiming it was not a mistake. I don’t believe anybody at the Times said, “We like what this ad is saying, so let’s give MoveOn a big discount.”
The public editor disapproved of the ad saying “General Betray Us,” but the Times did not exactly apologize for printing the ad. (Sulzberger: “If we’re going to err, it’s better to err on the side of more political dialogue. … Perhaps we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice to people.”)
Of course, the whole thing is basically trivial, or at least would be trivial if Bush, Giuliani, and others were not using it to divert attention from the real issue–the disaster in Iraq.
In the very same issue of the Time’s Week in Review as the public editor’s navel gaze, there appeared this about MoveOn.org’s chuckle all the way to the bank as a result of the General Betray Us ad:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/weekinreview/23mbai.html?ref=weekinreview
MoveOn and the Democratic Party, certainly the prez candidates, are not as one and the above-cited article reminds us how amusing it always is to have at least one naughty kid in the classroom.
Most shameful was the condemnation by the Senate of the Move On.org ad. Give credit to Hillary and Dodd on this one.
This will rate right up there with the condemnation by the Senate of Ingrid Bergman for divorcing her first husband.
The Senate vote against MoveOn was pretty much nuking a gnat. Truly appalling is the fact that this seems to be the only issue they’ve gotten a super-majority vote since they got back from their vacations in Iraq!
And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the “liberal media.”
Yes your honor . . . . and when I was caught stealing that wallet it gave fresh ammunition to my enemies who like to label me a “thief.”
Um, Sean, how do you explain that the “liberal” Times and its coverage was party to the cheer-leading for the war?
And to Patrick Molloy, I think it’s important for the record that Paul Lauritzen’s remark was not his own–he was quoting an admiral.
Isn’t the underlying issue here–or at least one of them–that lacking a respectable representative of the war now being fought in Iraq, a lot of people, especially perhaps congressionals, wanted to respect Petraeus. Whether or not, Adm. Fallon is accurate in his judgement (after all, he may be the lead warrior on Iran), the MoveOn ad appearing on the Monday when Petraeus was appearing on the H of R show may have come as quite a shocker. Lacking consensus on all else, what better move than to attack the messenger of many people’s misgivings about the whole war, and now Petraeus’s assessment. Even if he is sincere, he could be really wrong.
David,
Is that the litmus test? Hillary Clinton and John Kerry supported the war until it became politically unpopular. Are they conservative?
When I see the words “liberal media” in quotes like that . . . as if we were talking about the “Easter Bunny” or something, it is almost laughable. Granted, there are those out there – many involved with moveon.org – that think anyone right of Fidel Castro is not a liberal, but for most Americans, the press holds and expresses views that are comparatively liberal.
Time and time again, in headlines, news stories, and most definitely on the editorial page the Times shows its stripes, but they refuse to be labled a zebra. Why? So what. They are liberal. What’s annoying is not that they are biased, but they pretend that they aren’t.
Maybe it’s like being a fish, when your in the water you can’t tell your wet.
To David Gibson,
Of course, I understand that Lauritzen was quoting what he claimed were Fallon’s sentiments. But he was unmistakably endorsing them. If he meant to distance himself from those sentiments he didn’t do a very good job.
For another view of the accuracy of the Fallon quote and its dubious sourcing see:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/8040ca8d-2b1e-4aba-a942-62f45a5749ea
Paul,
What was your source for the quote from Admiral Fallon that you blame the Times for not reporting?
And what is your reaction to the link that Patrick Molloy provides?
Tom Ricks, the author of the book “Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq,” was recently on Terri Gross’ show on NPR. Ricks said he was “appalled” (his words) at the MoveOn.org ad. He defended General Petraeus’ character and said that attacks on the general’s character were “not where the debate needs to be right now.” You can click on the link below to download the interview.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14345112
I think that MoveOn.org made a serious error in judgment and they are paying the price for it. It’s also true, however, that supporters of the war are trying to milk this for much more than it is actually worth.
Sean,
If we’re talking about editorial pages, then as far as I am concerned, there’s nothing to argue about. The Times is liberal. The Wall Street Journal is conservative. But editorials and new coverage are two different things.
Can anyone cite a really good study–one that objectively evaluates the content of news columns–to support the “liberal media” allegations? I found an interesting summary of a study claiming the news coverage in the Times was the second most liberal, but the most liberal was the Wall Street Journal. The study found Fox news to be conservative, but it found NPR to be centrist, and The Drudge Report to be left of center.
The link to that summary can be found here
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
There are so many news sources available today that it seems to me concern about “liberal bias” is just a little silly. And even if you can show some kind of statistical bias toward liberalism in the “mass media,” what is the effect? Way too many Republicans still get elected.
While I read the Times almost daily, I unlike some others don’t feel the need to act as its apologist. The Times most definitely has a political agenda that it supports and which animates much of it. Can we admit that?
Last week the City Section of the paper profiled over 25 high school seniors in NYC in public and private schools. yet despite the fact that there are over 50 Catholic high schools in the city, not one of these students were profiled. (nor kids from yeshivas or other religious schools). Is that subtle editorial policy? I think so.
Hey–I thought the apologist line was a joke! I’ll take this up with you at Ascension later, kind sir, but in the meantime: Is it really fair to interpret comments from those of us who think this is much ado about not very much as a wholesale apology for the Times?
Sean said: “When I see the words “liberal media” in quotes like that . . . as if we were talking about the “Easter Bunny” or something, it is almost laughable.”
So quotation marks DO mean something! In the recent discussion of the CDF’s answers to questions about tube feeding and hydration, I pointed out that in all the documents from the CDF, every mention of “vegetative state” was in quotation marks. I am still trying to figure that out.
David,
We are in violent agreement that, because of so many alternatives, the paper’s ideological bent is less important. The problem I have is that outlets like the Times and the Washington Post have taken on the mantle and promote the idea that they are somehow above partisanship and worthy of great deference because of their neutrality.
As far as studies, how do you measure this? If you are with Media Matters, you find all the papers are too conservative, and if you are from the Media Research Center they will be liberal. In short, there is no objective test because the whole idea of liberal vs. conservative is a relative one.
I know there are polls out there that show that a majortity of people perceive the media as biased. I know people will respond to this by saying its the result of conservative harangues. But how much sense does this make? You have to accept that the media itself can’t influence things the other way – that, or people really do perceive them as liberal. This is important, I think, because the whole argument makes sense only in a in a relative sense. For example, you say the Wall Street Journal is conservative. I don’t agree. They are certainly more conservative than the NYT, but I think of them as pro-business and maybe just a little right of center – and I think a most people outside the rarified air of NYC, academia, and the urban east and west coasts would agree.
Moreover, most of what we see as bias is pretty subtle, but for kicks to show an example, I ran a couple of search terms for 1990 to the present in the NYT, and found something interesting. The term “liberal senator” hits in 91 pieces, while the term “conservative senator” hits more than twice as much – 189 times. The same ratio holds true for liberal and conservative congressman – 15 vs. 36. This is one of the most common examples I find. Newt Gingrich was always “conservative” House Speaker – but Nancy Pelosi is rarely “liberal” House Speaker.
Grant, you really do need to sort Anthony out…I would have thought those liberal Jesuits he works for would have properly indoctrinated him into the Gospel of Sulzberger by now. (Insert your favorite emoticon here.)
I would say that knee-jerk critics of the Times are much more common (here and elsewhere) than apologists. I criticized the Times in this thread, for example. Yes, I think the Times is a great paper, but one with great faults. They are sort of the Catholic Church of newspapers.
Sean, your argument doesn’t hold. If the Times is liberal as you say, it would have been against the war from the start, no?
Would you Times critics please cite a “reputable” daily? The WSJ is out, since it is easily as liberal as the Times, if not moreso. I’d like to see what you all actually do read.
At bottom, using the Times as a whipping boy–or the media in general–does not reflect even the remotest notion of reality or how the media works.
Oh, and citing Hugh Hewitt as a source! Um, that is not exactly journalism by even the most rock-bottom standards. The Times did not use the Fallon quote because it didn’t was journalistically unjustifiable. So does that make them conservative?
As said before, the Petraeus ad was a mistake for MoveOn.org and the NYT, except that the NYT got paid for a full-page ad and MoveOn.org raised lots of money. That is what it’s about. Rule No. 1: “Follow the money…”
Sean wrote: Newt Gingrich was always “conservative” House Speaker – but Nancy Pelosi is rarely “liberal” House Speaker.
Jean says: Sean, your findings were most interesting, but I’m not sure how this really proves anything.
Wouldn’t Newt WANT to be called conservative? Seems to me that maybe Nancy Pelosi is the one who has the real beef here.
The only really serious gaffe I can see here is that what was allowed to slip through the advertising gate could give the impression that the Times gave moveon.org preferential treatment because it agrees with its agenda.
What you believe seems largely directed by what you already think of the Times.
Just as whether you believe Gen. Petraeus or not is largely directed by how honest you feel the Bush administration has been about the situation in Iraq from the beginning.
I find the harrumphing from politicians about bashing a military man with nine rows of medals on his chest somewhat ludicrous.
Conservatives didn’t have a problem bashing medal-of-honor recipient John Kerry.
And it’s not as if nobody’s every seen a military official stretch the truth.
Ollie North, anyone?
Alright, alright. David and Grant. We are on the same side. I am not someone who sees the Times as evil incarnate, but can I just raise the point that at times there are some who seem to bend over backwards to excuse the Times?
Anthony wrote: “… some who seem to bend over backwards to excuse the Times.”
What can you mean? Why there was a lapse of almost 30 minutes from the time of my post to Grant’s response.
My one curiosity was who would get there first: Grant or David?
But I guess Grant is the earlier riser!
Pace e bene a tutti: apologists and critics alike.
Okay, Anthony. I’ll give you that. If only because you owe me a beer, if I remember correctly…
The whole religion and media issue is fraught, and one that naturally drives me to distraction. Again, it’s another thread for another time; but I think the problem is that so few places–liberal or conservative or whatever–do religion coverageas well as they could, not so much out of loathing as out of fear.
I think that the ad itself is inappropriate and continues to keep the USA political culture in the ‘politics of personal destruction’ mode.\
If the Times wants to run it for revenue – I have no quibble with that. The issue is with moveon.org
Focus on the substance of the issues. Keep the vitriole down!!!! It prevents good people from entering public life.
Uh, Bob, right after you posted you sent me an e-mail asking me to fix a problem with your post. Did you think I wouldn’t read it? I have to say, the notion that I’m an apologist for the Times has got to be one of the more hilarious things I’ve read all month. I guess it doesn’t take much in your book(s?). Thanks for the laugh, guys.
Jean,
I don’t think that Newt cares if he is identified as a conservative, but the NYT doesn’t identify him as such for his benefit. The point is that when a conservative does or proposes something it is identified as conservative, but when a liberal does, instead of being a “liberal” idea or act, it is more likely protrayed as just and idea or an act. That is, they portray liberal ideas as the norm.
Again, I don’t think you can “prove” bias though any kind of study. All you can rely on is impressions and anecdotal evidence, but incidents like the moveon ad remind me of the Wizard of OZ.
“Pay not attention to the liberal man behind the curtain! We are the Great and Objective Times!”
The curtain keeps getting pulled back, and we are told – “Ah, that’s nothin’, pay no attention. We can explain that – its all a misunderstanding.” Unfortunately, the guys with the levers just keep exposing themselves.
David – If for the supporting the war in 2002-03, then all the following are not liberal
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
John Edwards
Harry Ried
Charles Schumer
Dianne Feinstein
Tom Daschle
Joe Biden
Christopher Dodd
Marty Meehan
Ike Skelton
among many others
If that’s your position, then we obviously disagree about what an American liberal is.
Sean, I guess we do disagree. My sense was that you believed the NYTimes hewed to an agenda explicitly contrary to that of the Bush Admin & the GOP, and that made them liberal.
If that’s not the case–as we agree it is not–then what defines a liberal? Or better yet, what makes the Times “liberal” if it does not take a liberal course on issues of the day?
“Transparency” from today’s New York Times:
“In a follow-up interview yesterday, Ms. Mathis declined to comment on how the original mistake occurred or how it came to light.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/26moveon.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Here’s an interesting comment on the article (Warning: some may consider this comment to be unauthorized journalism and hence it may contaminate the thought processes of the more delicate among us):
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/09/no-liberal-bias.html
If only we Times apologists could be as hearty as the Times haters… After my uncontrolled fit of weeping, I was able to make out something like an argument in the linked piece. But it’s not the slam dunk the author thinks it is. But hey, why worry about the debacle in Iraq when you can focus on a proxy candidate like MoveOn and raise money in the process?
http://www.nrsc.org/emails/2007/09/25/moveon.aspx
Seriously David – The Times must have proven itself to take uniformly liberal position on all subjects at all times to be considered liberal?
I am not even talking about particular political positions or agenda of the administration. I think if you look at my posts, I never mentioned Bush or hewing to anyone’s program. For example, the Times has taken a very positive stance on Bush’s immigration policies – hardly a conservative position, but supportive of the administration.
My last word is this. It is practically indisputable that most major media outlets including the Times are staffed by political liberals – there are a number of surveys in which the journalists themselves overwhelmingly identify themselves as such, at rates more than twice the typical American community. Then we are treated to incidents like this one, or the Rather National Guard story or others and are told that they have absolutlely nothing to do with any political bias, to which I simply say – BalderdaSh.
I don’t even say the NYT is a bad paper – just that it’s biased. I think it is informative that this blog has another post comparing the reportage of the Episcopal Church conference from two outlets. Although this doesn’t directly relate to this liberal bias discussion, it shows very clearly how two ways of reporting the exact same event can paint completely different pictures – one emphasizing a great compromise, and another describing a great defeat for one side. The point is that the Times tends to paint the picture with a liberal view.
Well, two major studies show Sean is correct (not only the Grosclose study cited by David Nickol above but another by the Pew Center). But Sean said in one post that he doesn’t believe studies really uncover this, so not sure where this leaves us.
The Groseclose study cites Kathleen Hall Jamieson (which is about as close to citing Moses and all the prophets in my book) as saying that liberal reporters don’t necessarily lead to liberal bias, since many reporters will edit themselves.
Moreover, I think that i’s possible to be a liberal and find the rantings of moveon.org to be somewhat puerile and Dan “What’s the Frequency, Kenneth” Rather something of a prima donna nut case.
A few years ago Dan was on the interview circuit talking about his private interviews with Fidel Castro in which he asked, “Tell me, Fidel, mano a mano, is it prostate trouble?”
I had to wonder what poor Castro, suffering from whatever’s ailing him, made of the swaggering Rather asking him “hand to hand” about the state of of his privates.
Which, I realize is beside the point, but I find myself telling that Castro/Rather story on the slimmest of pretexts because it’s so hilarious.
Editor & Publisher reported earlier this year that op-ed pages are actually more conservative. That makes an interesting counterpoint, if those dirty liberals are reporting and skewing the news, those dirty conservatives are telling everybody not to listen to them.
Maybe it all evens out.
Here are the links:
The Groseclose study at UCLA (2004)
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Pew Center (2004)
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=830
Editor & Publisher (2007)
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003638361
Jean – just to clarify – I don’t think it is impossible to determine if journalists themselves think they are liberal or conservative since you can survey and ask them. What I think is impossible, or at least difficult, is to prove objectively if the content of the paper shows “liberal” or “conservative” bias, since bias is in the eye of the beholder. You can, I think, survey people generally and ask them if they see bias, and almost all the surveys I have seen indicate a majority perceive a liberal bias – a recent Zogby poll indicates about 64% say the media have a liberal bias.
I think the NYT’s of the world are foolish not to recognize this. It is silly to blame it on the “drumbeat” of “talk radio” or “Fox News” because the major media outlets still have greater exposure than their detractors. Until they admit that the reason for people’s perception is not just what others are saying about them, but is at least partially (I think primarily) because of what they say and do, they will continue to be less influential.
Just look at this situation. Even when the the NYT’s Public Editor brings them to task, he still blunts criticism that political bias is involved.
“Sure, we violated our own rules on advocacy ads for the benefit of powerful liberal group, and sure we gave a supposed big stand-by rate discount against our own rules, and then ran the ad on the desired date for a powerful liberal group, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are a powerful liberal group.”
Maybe NY sophisticates will buy this explanation, but in the hinterlands people know what cow patties smell like.
Sean, I appreciate the distinction you’re trying to make.
But I don’t quite buy the notion that bias is in the eye of the beholder. I read things about Dan Quayle in the mainstream press that were clearly designed to make him look like an idiot. And even though I thought Dan Quayle was an idiot, I felt the report reflected poorly on the news outlet.
Living in a land that doesn’t get much hinter-er than it does here in rural Michigan (I’m just five miles downwind of the Cow Prison, aka, intensive dairy operation when the wind’s out fo the north), and I feel I can smell the cow pies when necessary.
And I don’t smell anything like that around this whole advert snafu.
I think the shocking thing here is that no one who criticizes the Times reads any other newspaper.
Why is that? Do liberals control the media so completely that there are actually no other newspapers providing “unbiased” content?
Or is it that the Times provides the unequalled pleasure of making us mad every day and affirming evrything we want to believe so we don’t have to face the real issues–like, say, the war in Iraq?
Again, if anyone would provide just a single example of a newspaper that they approve of, I would go to bed happy.
David,
I thought it reasonably clear from my posts that, besides the Times, I read the Globe and the WSJ most days.
I also try via internet to keep up with Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica. One merit of the Italian newspapers is that their ideological and political leanings are clearly displayed.
I’m addicted to newspapers: if ten came my way, I’d look through them all. How else to sift, to ponder, and, however tentatively, but inevitably, to decide?
I guess the one source that gives me most pleasure is the “Lehrer News Hour.” The professionalism of its reporters, the mostly successful effort to provide differing viewpoints, the often indepth treatment is a model for me. I was delighted when Mark Shields, in many ways a partisan, could dismiss the MoveOn ad as shameful.
I can only attribute the testiness of your third paragraph to tiredness, In which case: sogni d’oro!
P.S. Did Paul ever respond to my query regarding the source for the Fallon quote?
Here’s what bothers me about all the Times denouncing: too often it doesn’t take into account the size of the institution or its various discrete parts. Of course that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve criticism for its coverage of certain subjects (abortion comes to mind). But the idea that l’affaire MoveOn, a tempest in a teapot if ever there was one, proves widespread institutional bias against…what? Petraeus? Bush? The Iraq debacle? Rudy? (Oh, wait. They gave him the same discount.) Unconvincing. The salesman screwed up. The Times bungled their initial response. Now it’s been corrected. It was an advertisement–distasteful and counterproductive? Sure. But worthy of Congressional denouncement? What a joke. Time to move on.
Gallicho’s MoveOn-like disdain for congressional “jokesters” evidently encompasses many honorable figures on the left. To them accusations of betrayal are not a joke, difficult though it may be for Gallicho to understand this.
“Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, a veteran Democrat, recounted how he left the Republican Party during the era of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., and said that lawmakers have an obligation to criticize their allies as well as their enemies when they go too far.
“’I’ve got an obligation to be equally upset when that kind of juvenile debate emanates from the left,’ Obey said.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PETRAEUS_MOVEON?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
What, you didn’t want to go all the way to a Hitler comparison? It’s not disdain for anyone, Molloy. I simply pointed out that Congress has much more important things to worry about. Like our misadventure in Iraq. And Iran.
Here’s the deal, Molloy: figure out how to post here without being rude about it. If you can’t, fine. Just post on another blog.
If that’s your understanding, I don’t think I will be able to post without violating your exquisite sensitivities. Au revoir.
There are many fine contributors to the Commonweal site – I wish them well.
Grant,
First, I don’t see identifying an institutional liberal bias as “denouncing” the NYT. I read it myself once in while. It is a good paper. It is a good liberal paper. Heck, I read the Boston Globe every day, and it’s a not as good, more liberal paper. I don’t care if it changes, I don’t even know if I want it to change. I just think people ought to (and most do) understand its nature.
Second, I certainly am not saying that for all purposes and at all times the NYT takes a liberal position. It doesn’t. I am just saying over time the paper’s reportage tends to show a liberal bias. The moveon incident is simply a discrete instance of the larger institutional bias in play. As for the nature of the bias, it is simply a bias toward a particular political world view – shorthand liberal – rather than for or against any particular person or party.
In that regard, you can’t just blame this on a salesman who “screwed up.” As with any large institution there are bound to have several different layers of review and bureacracy that failed to catch the “screw up,” and one must ask oneself if the ad had been a personal attack on Hillary Clinton if the same “screw up” would have gone undetected. Also, they denied it was a screw-up until the heat was turned up. And by the way, I will keep the “doesn’t take into account the size of the institution or its various discrete parts” standard the next time I see a wholesale criticism of the Church based on a single incident.
As for Rudy’s rate – that came after this incident was disclosed. They couldn’t very well keep up the facade of objectivity if they charged him full freight.
Finally, as to the Congressional condemnation, I agree with you in general principle. I don’t like grandstanding. In this case, however, it is a little easier to understand why it happened. First, despite the criticism that Patreus is being political, it was Congress, and in particular the Democratic leadership, that required him to do this whole dog and pony show in the first place. They don’t look to good leaving him out to dry after they hung him there themselves. Admittedly, the GOP took advantage of this, but that’s politics. Also, despite the protestations to the contrary, the perception of many (probably most) in the military is that many opposed to the war (including in Congress) aren’t just opposed, but actually desire a defeat. Comments by Congressmen that an improvement in the conditions in the field would be “bad” for the Dems didn’t help.
David,
In answer to your question, it is probably hard to find an “unbiased” paper either way. Some are more biased than others – I personally think the Boston Globe and LA Times are more left leaning than the NYT. I don’t read the NY Post because it is a crummy paper. I like the Wash Times as a more conservative paper, but only read it on-line once in a while. The there is the WSJ. I just read the best of what’s out there, regardless of its bias. I just take everything I read with a grain of salt.
Sean,
One can have problems with both the way the Times handled this and the ad itself and still conclude that this is a non-controversy that mainly serves the ends of fundraisers (conservative and liberal alike). Cui bono? I don’t think, however, that the actions of an ad salesman constitute proof that the advertising department is bound up in the pervasive institutional bias of the New York Times–a bias, by the way, that has been rather confusingly defined in this thread. By your most recent definition, the bias sounds so low-level as to be functionally inconsequential. Maybe the advertising department has a different “shorthand liberal” bias than, say, the international desk, which allowed Judith Miller’s now-discredited reports about Saddam’s WMD a wide berth in the march to war.
Apparently the Times does keep up the “facade” of objectivity despite its many critics’ claims that it is biased, so I don’t see why the Rudy rate shouldn’t count in this discussion.
I can’t take seriously those on the far right who claim that critics of the war and the incompetent manner in which it’s been carried out actually desire “defeat” (whatever that means). Is that better than “General Betray Us”?
I don’t care who’s ultimately responsible for bringing Petraeus to the Hill (the notion that the White House’s loss of credibility on Iraq is somehow the Democrats’ fault is rather dubious). In principle and in fact, the Congress had no business wasting its time denouncing the ad.
Jean-
John Kerry was never awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. To my knowledge, the highest military decoration he was awarded was the Silver Star.
Thanks for keeping me honest, MAT.
Probably that dirty NYT with it’s liberal bias just made me think that medal was a better one than it was.
I didn’t look at this thread for a few days. Someone asked for the source of the Fallon quote. It is a piece by Gareth Porter that ran in the Inter Press Service on Sep 12. It can be found here:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235