AP writer Beth Fouhy issued the following report today that makes me smile.
For years those of us with an “R” before our name have endured the liberal media soft balls to Democrats while digging for dirt or hitting our policy ideas with hard balls. Finally, the table are turned. Not exactly. This time it’s between two Democrats each seeking the brass ring as they seek to be their party standard bearer in the General election. Following is part of her report. When you finish reading this except please let Juice readers know if the following complaint by Walter Shorenstein is valid. If so why is the media biased and constantly hammering Republicans while giving Democrats a pass. The Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC to name a few.
DALLAS (AP) – The founder of a prestigious institute on media and politics added his voice Saturday to the chorus of complaint over perceived press bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama. Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party “superdelegates” and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.
Shorenstein is the founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. His memo came days before Tuesday’s key primaries in Ohio and Texas, which Clinton must win to save her waning candidacy.
The former first lady and her advisers have lashed out at the press in recent days, suggesting unfair coverage of the campaign has in part led to Obama’s victories in the last 11 voting contests. They’ve encouraged supporters and voters to watch a “Saturday Night Live” skit that aired last weekend, depicting a group of journalists fawning over Obama.
In his memo, Shorenstein concurred with the Clinton campaign’s assessment.
“I am absolutely outraged with the media coverage of the presidential campaign,” Shorenstein wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press. “This is the most important election in my long lifetime, and to quote one of my favorite movies, ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!'”
Gilbert comment. Now we see a high profile Democrat lashing out at the same media that they thanked in prior elections. Be fair to us, but not Republicans, seems to be his request. Should the print and broadcast media be taken to the woodshed or are they free to practice their First amendment Rights?
PUHLEEEZ, the Clintons[ and Gore and Kerry etc.] have never gotten a
“free ride” from the press, unlike the WAR CRIMINAL that now lives in the White House. Right-wing media personalities cry and moan about the “liberal media” because they know if you repeat a lie often enough, rubes like you will believe it. A quick check of the facts [an anathema to conservatives ] would disabuse you of this notion. May I suggest Media Matters.
email response:
Dear OJBlog
I don’t see where the first amendment is anything but the medias weapon of choice. As I read the first amendment it has nothing to do with the press taking sides in an election, other than allow criticism of the sitting government without fear of reprisal. (Likewise the government isn’t to abridge free religious speech. The supreme court however makes abridgmements possible by supporting what it thinks is the most progressive positions.) I think the media is free to be as biased as it wants to be, but I think it can suffer some pretty severe consequences (from which it will of course want protection.)
Henry
anon 4:33 p.m.
What are you smoking?
Progressive info center Media Matters was only created in May of 2004 years after the Clinton’s left the White Huose.
If you wish to find an established news media watchdog firm I am surprised that you overlooked Accuracy in Media http://www.aim.org
a firm that has been in existence years before Media Matters.
Following is an example of their reports.
Accuracy in Media Declares Victory Over CBS and Dan Rather
Press Release | November 23, 2004
Washington – Calling it the vindication of Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine, who started a “Can Dan” campaign 16 years ago, AIM today hailed the “retirement” or “resignation” of Dan Rather from the CBS Evening News. However, AIM said that he has still not been held accountable for his vicious September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes broadcast that was designed to sabotage President Bush’s re-election. “This was a brazen attempt to deceive the American people and subvert a presidential election,” said AIM editor Cliff Kincaid. “It was a conspiracy to deceive and defraud.”
Tell me the last time a reporter on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or MSNBC said anything positive about Republicans? The same applies to the Washington Post or NY Times.
Good evening Henry.
An area to watch is the print media where beat reporters should only report the news and not add their own personal preferences in their stories. Those comments are to be found on the editorial pages, the appropriate place for the paper to express it’s opinions.
Media matters points out conservative bias in the press [by the heinous practice of transcription]. I never implied that they were around during the Clinton administration. The Dan Rather story is a perfect example of conservative bias, as Dan Rather became the focus of the story and not the little chickenhawk in the White House. This is from a Salon.com article by Sydney Blumenthal ” The underlying facts of the story were not discredited; nor was the authenticity of the documents resolved.” From the media coverage one would conclude that those documents had been proven forgeries, but that is NOT the case at all. It may be hard to remember with all the hoopla surrounding the documents, but no credible source has REFUTED the essential facts of the story. Obviously Accuracy in Media gives the truth short shrift.
anon 11:26 pm
Obviously each side has it’s champion with regard to media oversight. You can stick to yours while I will take Accuracy in Media every time. Furthermore, I have met some of their representatives and was at some of the same events that they covered.
When choosing a media watchdog site it might be prudent to choose one that actually IS accurate. The afore mentioned quote “…a brazen attempt to deceive the American people…” is a BRAZEN lie. What do conservatives have AGAINST the facts? Oh yeah, they prove them WRONG!
anon 2:41 pm
Rather than continue the debate here is a list of media watchdog groups that you can check out.
PS: I did watch one FOX report thoday where the guest admitted that the meida was harder on Hillary than Obama. That’s afirs tfor me. To see the liberal media beating up on a Democrat.
Accuracy in Media – Conservative watchdog group for fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting.
Adbusters – Foundation with goal of changing the way society and the mass media interact.
Alternative Media Watch – Media group showcasing underreported news stories and issues.
American Journalism Review – National magazine covering all aspects of print, television, radio and online media.
Center for Media and Democracy – A wiki-based investigative journalism collaborative focused on the public relations industry and whistle-blowing manipulative or misleading practices.
Contribute to a quarterly investigative journal, the Weekly Spin listserv, donate or draw on newsfeeds.
Center for Media and Public Affairs – Nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Washington, D.C., conducting scientific studies of the news and entertainment media.
Columbia Journalism Review – Publication serving as a watchdog of the press in all its forms.
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) – National media watchdog group advocating independence and criticism in journalism.
Global Media Monitoring Project – A twice-a-decade study of the media’s news coverage to be undertaken worldwide with the aim of documenting the participation and portrayal of men and women in the world’s news media.
Independent Press Councils (IPC) – Containing details of press councils who have successfully adapted the idea of self-regulation to their own cultural and political context, to facilitate the exchange of views and information, and to promote and support self-regulation.
Media Matters for America – A non-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Founded by David Brock, a conservative media insider.
Media Monitors Network – Grass roots watchdog of media coverage which seeks to uncover journalistic and media bias and provide contrary information and opinions.
Media Research Center – Conservative group founded to bring political balance to the news media and responsibility to the entertainment media.
Media Transparency – Watchdog organization tracing funding sources of many media and political organizations.
Media Watch – Organization focusing on media literacy and the challenging of stereotypes commonly found in the media.
Media Watch (ABC TV) – A leading forum for Australian media analysis. Summary, news, bungled stories and viewable episodes of the weekly program, plus archive of previous coverage.
MediaChannel.org – Nonprofit site dedicated to the political, social, and cultural impacts of the media.
Morality in Media – Established in 1962 by Father Morton A. Hill, S.J. (1917-1985), to combat obscenity and to uphold decency standards in the media. MIM maintains the National Obscenity Law Center, a clearinghouse of legal materials on obscenity law.
National Institute on Media and the Family – Providing research and education on the media’s effect on families and children.
NewsTrust – Online social network that aims to help people identify quality journalism. Sign-in to rate news and opinions.
On the Media – Site representing weekly, one-hour National Public Radio program devoted to media criticism and analysis.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press – Independent opinion research group studying attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues.
PR Watch – Investigative reporting on the practices of public-relations and public affairs industry, from the Center for Media and Democracy.
Press Complaints Commission – Independent organisation monitoring British newspapers and magazines to ensure they adhere to ethical guidelines. Deals with issues such as inaccuracy, privacy, misrepresentation and harassment.
Project Censored – Locating stories about significant issues of which the public should be aware, but is not, for one reason or another.
Social Legislation – Discuss U.S. bills aimed at regulating social media. Explains the Deleting Online Predators Act, the Social Networking Website Prohibition Act and the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act.
Stats – Weblog and articles highlight abuses of science and statistics regarding policy issues.
Tyndall Report – Monitoring the American television networks’ weekday nightly newscasts.
Sorry for the above typo’s. Larry
Actually, Jon Stewart’s ” The Daily Show ” does a fine job of cutting through media b***s**t.
Speaking of media bias, why hasn’t anyone on Orange Juice said anything about Carlos Eduardo Tello, a 53 year old Guatamalan immigrant who was convicted of continuous child molestation and jumped off of the Santa Ana Courthouse building to his death? That seems like a pretty big story. Does OJ have anything to say?
anon 1:08 pm
Although I cannot speak for the other members of the Juice family let me tell you that each of us write for this blog on our own time without compensation. We do our best to keep current on both breaking and ongoing stories that we hope you will read and comment on. We do not engage in media bias other than some of our own personal concerns that we do not hide such as my support for property rights protection.
The good news is that in addition to mainstream TV and radio there are other blogs in Orange County that hopefully cover the example you have illustrated.
For me to comment on this sad story without knowledge would be nothing more than researching what is already in print. Perhaps knowing that he was guilty of the allegations and anticipating a stay in one of our jails felt he would have a difficult time surviving in that setting. No disrespect for the guards intended.
We often read that child molestors do not get a free pass from other inmates.