Is Media Coverage of Clark "Fair and Balanced"?

[Tom Rinaldo]

And I think it is a fair question to generalize that question further, is media coverage of the Democratic Party Candidates fair and Balenced? I start this thread now because to me the answer is an obvious No, both specific to Clark and in general about the Democrats. One might ask, if the answer is so obvious, why start the thread? My reason is I like to think that the particiapnts of DU are a much more sophisticated readership relative to media distortions against Democrats, than is the general public. I would like to think that we would not fall in line behind orchestrated attempts to manipulate our emotions, and that we would call them for what they are when they do occurr. I would hope we would discuss instead how we as activists can compensate for misinformation campaigns rather than further them. I would hope we would not prove eagerly responsive to divide and conquor journalism. My current case in point is the new "Clark attacks Dean" flurry of reporting, but other examples involving other candidates can also be brought up. Here's a current story lead in being carried by the AP:

"Clark Attacks Dean on Avoiding Draft
Clark Assails Dean Over Using Back Condition to Avoid Being Drafted During Vietnam War

The Associated Press

MANCHESTER, N.H. Nov. 27 — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who is running for president on his four-star military credentials, assailed Democratic front-runner Howard Dean for spending time on the ski slopes after getting a medical deferment for a back condition to avoid being drafting during the Vietnam War.
"I didn't have as much practice skiing as the governor did. He was out there skiing when I was recovering from my wounds in Vietnam," Clark, a former supreme allied commander in Europe, told WNTK radio on Wednesday..."

Now here is what I consider to be reasonably fair reporting of that Clark statement (also by AP by the way(http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031126_1422.html}:

"Clark also took a slap at Dean when a radio interviewer jokingly asked if he'd be interested in a ski competition between candidates.

"I didn't have as much practice skiing as the governor did. He was out there skiing when I was recovering from my wounds in Vietnam," Clark said on WNTK radio."

That was contained as part of this article under the headline: "Clark: Carving Is for Turkeys, Not Rivals
Clark Says Carving Is for Turkeys, Not Presidential Candidates; Edwards Leads in S.C. Poll

The Associated Press

MANCHESTER, N.H. Nov. 26 — Taking a swipe at Democratic rivals bent on "carving each other up," Wesley Clark said he'd limit his slicing to his Thanksgiving turkey.
But he took a couple of cuts at his foes just the same...



The difference between the two is in the context and framing of "the event". Am I the only one who thinks the first subheader:
"Clark Assails Dean Over Using Back Condition to Avoid Being Drafted" was way over the top, creating news rather than reporting it? Notice the reference to "avoiding the draft", that was the headline writers insertion, nowhere was that concept asserted in Clark's brief remark. And does anyone else here believe that Clark was "assailing" Dean by deftly workding in a reference to remind voters that Clark was a war vet and Dean wasn't? Is Dean "assailing Clark" when he points out that Clark has no experience in public office?

[w4rma]

1. Big media is trying to instigate division within the Democratic Party

by playing up attacks between Dems, IMHO.

[rucky]

2. "Fair and Balanced" Per Fox's Definition

Never saw a headline read: "Candidate X takes a swipe at Bush"

The media is biased against Democrats: This includes NPR.

The way you'd hear it from them, the only opposition in this country is from a few fringe wackos against the Republicans & the Democrats against other Democrats.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Nicely put

After all, the President is our "commander in Chief", and the country is at war, ya gota be wacko or a terrorist to attack the President. The Democrats however are fair game. W really have to be on guard about being incited into intra mural bloodshed. What the Republicans are counting on is that many of the backers of losing Democratic candiates will be so angry at partisans of other candidates by the time the nomination is secured, that they will sit on their hands during the General Election. Maybe cast their vote and not much else.

[MoonRiver]

4. Of course that only applies if the pResident is a Repuke.

When we were at war in Bosnia and Kosovo Clinton was fair game.
:mad:

[Donna Zen]

7. NPR!!! ROTFLMAO

I wrote to those turkeys about a hack job they did re: Clark. I sent them links and plenty of quotes refuting their story. BTW, I was as polite as one can be.

NPR sent me an email in answer to my letter advising me to 1) not listen to them anymore and 2) stop sending them donations.

[Scott Lee]

18. That's because NPR gets a big chunk of its money from government

And they understand all too well which party is running government these days.

Whores.

[gulliver]

5. Not at all. But that's the situation.

We need to get organized in our relationship with the media like the Republicans. If a reporter makes a cutting or tendentious remark about Bush, that reporter can count on being roasted with mail and counter-editorials. Not so of Dems.

This remark by Clark strikes me as a bit too personal and a bit too immodest. Both of those things are just asking for the media to go nuts. But what do I know? Maybe Clark wants someone in the media to bring it up in an interview. Maybe Clark wants a little bit of a fight to stir things up and change the flow of battle.

[Mz Pip]

6. Hyperbole

Clark didn't "attack" Dean for avoiding the draft. He never said a thing about avoiding the draft.

My take on this is that Faux News is using this to get at Dean and if they can smear Clark at the same time all the better.

Mostly the media seems to either ignore Clark or minimize his candidacy.

MzPip
:dem:

[John_H]

8. How obvious doesit have to be?

They know that chimp has one issue, and clark takes it away.

Now I understand if you reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally love another candidate, but it's a no brainer that they're scared of clark. Why? He's a sure winner over bush.

[arewethereyet]

9. I say yes

the guy loves to say and do self destructive things. but they keep talking about him and as often in fawning terms as scathing. much like the others. well the others that they speak of at all. its worth his life for Edwards to get the press to say anything at all about him. It occurs to me that the possible reason for this is that there is naught but good to say and we all know that negative sells.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I agree with you about Edwards

The only time they give Edwards any press time or space is when they have to acknowledge that Dean could have trouble in Southern States. They sometimes then promote Edwards as the "long shot" candidate who can appeal to Southern voters, while absolutely ignoring Clark as someone who brings the same strength to the race. Rest assured, if Edwards starts rising in the polls they will stop mentioning him completely. Then we will only hear about how Gephardt or Lieberman can run well in Southern States.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I agree as well...Edwards at least is likeable & is from the south

But because Dean is who they want no matter what! no Foreign policy experience....yea, they want him alright!

and the "smart" Dems who want Bush out no matter what, so they say, can see a con game when there is one.

It's outrageous....we are such losers!

[PSU84]

10. Are you kidding?

The mainstream press - AP, NY Times, Washington Post etc. - is reasonably fair, but the talking heads on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are talking him simply because he is the only Dem who can beat Bush.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I'll include the press in this game however....

here's the perfect example:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2003-11-26.htm titled, Who Can Beat George W. Bush? They are saying it's Dean or Gephardt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editors,
In reading Jack Beatty's article, Who can Beat George W. Bush? I could not help but giggle like a young schoolgirl all the way through. To see that Wesley Clark's name had been substituted with Dick Gephardt's name throughout most of the article was ironic to me. Since General Clark does better than all of the other candidates in a match-up against President Bush in every national poll there has been since he's entered the race, I was quite prepared see his name in this article.

The only thing that this piece points out is that either the "pundits" are living in a parallel universe where Gephardt is Clark and Clark is Gephardt. The only other explanation is that there is a deliberate implied attempt at promoting those that are certain to lose against President Bush. Since I don't want to impugn the sanity of persons that I don't know, I am going to venture that it must be the latter reason.

I can only guess why Mr. Beatty and other misinformed or misleading pundits want to obscure the candidacy of Wes Clark as much as they obviously do. Could it be that Clark could actually beat Bush and none of the other eight candidates truly can?

Just wanted to provide food for thought on this Thanksgiving weekend. I see that you already have your "turkey". Happy fixings!

Respectfully,

[Donna Zen]

12. new project

I'm working a small, stupid, little project. I've been counting how many days Judy Woodruff can do "Inside Politics" without saying Wesley Clark's name. So far the count is at 6.

I'm sure it is much higher but I only started 6 days (excluding weekend) ago.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Here is some more bias!........

Is the media biased?....this is the NYT....the debate coverage...Wes Clark coverage starts on paragraph 17 and goes something like this. This is all that is said about Clark's perfomance.
Now the coverage was incorrect, and after a few letters the author entered a correction the following day - see correction as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/politics/campaigns/25DEBA.html

Rivals Attack Dean at Debate, Focusing on Medicare

At the MSNBC debate, Gen. Wesley K. Clark sought again to clarify confusion over his stand on the Congressional resolution that authorized President Bush to invade Iraq, saying he had misspoken in an interview on the first day of his campaign when he said he would "probably" have voted for the resolution.

General Clark also advised a member of Congress to support the resolution, though he made no mention of that when the moderator, Tom Brokaw, asked why he had "so much trouble in the opening days of your campaign trying to decide whether you would have voted for or against the resolution in Iraq."
General Clark responded: "Well, I'm glad you asked, Tom. With respect to the opening of my campaign, I want to tell you, I bobbled the question on the first day of the campaign in the back of an airplane."
"I think this party's making a great mistake by trying to make a litmus test on who would have or did or didn't vote for that resolution last October," he said at another point, nearly shouting the position from his spot on the stage. "The real issue in front of us is that this president misled the American people and the Congress into war. It's wrong."

Correction: Nov. 26, 2003, Wednesday
An article yesterday about the Democratic presidential debate in Des Moines referred incorrectly to advice once given by Gen. Wesley K. Clark in favor of the congressional resolution authorizing the war in Iraq, an incident he did not mention during the debate while trying to clarify his stand. The advice was given not to a member of Congress but to a New Hampshire candidate for Congress, Katrina Swett.

[Ksec]

14. what media coverage?

I wasnt aware that media covered any Democrat, other than to find faults once in a while. They say nobody even knows who these guys are...well guess why??? Because the freakin media is ignoring us! Its THEIR fault noone knows who they are!

[FrenchieCat]

16. You haven't heard?

DEAN, DEAN,DEAN, DEAN, DEAN, DEAN, DEAN, DEAN, DEAN,DEAN.....

ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON....

THE GUY CAN'T DO NO WRONG.......

EVEN WHEN HE DOES!

Problem is this will not last....only thru the Democratic nomination process...

Then we'll be caught with our finger in our nose.....

But since Beat Bush at all cost has been replaced by Dean should win the nomination at all cost......by both the 20% of dems that support Dean and the MEDIA WHORES who support Bush....

I don't know if we have the power to stop them....... Hopefully some will wake up before it's too late...although, I am not holding my breath at this point.

If the politically savy can't see what's happening, why should anyone else?

We are just a great big DUH....and we are close to being totally F*cked!

[Scott Lee]

19. You act shocked, like this is news to you suddenly.

News Alert: The mediawhores will spare no one in their intention to use their offices to hand the White House to Bush

Yes, they want to minimize Clark because he is a serious threat to AWOL. Yes, they want to hype and twist Dean's statements and his "anger" because he is another serious threat to AWOL. They want to giggle at Gep and Kerry because they realize that neither one of them is a serious threat to AWOL. They pat Dennis Kuncinich on the head and smirk because they realize he is definitely not a threat to AWOL.

Did I leave anyone out? Oh yeah. Joe Lieberman is largely dealt with in political cartoons because (well, you know the rest).

[IndianaGreen]

20. The 24/7 media sneers at all the Democratic candidates

Just watch those idiots on CNN and MSNBC (I won't mention the F-word network) and how they openly sneer whenever there is a story involving a Democratic candidate. It is utterly disgusting!