Media Bias

I contend that FOXNews is about equally biased as its competition, just in a different direction. Brit Hume presents both sides but anyone watching can tell what he believes.

FOX is in the headlines after the Clinton-Wallace contretemps. I think Wallace is great and I have squirmed many Sundays as I thought he was being too hard on my favorite Secretary of State or other administration official.

How can you measure bias? I have a thought which you good folks might refine. Last night's Special Report with Brit Hume basically portrayed the declassification of the April NIE report as exonerating the Administration and as a black mark against the New York Times.

Today the WaPo weighs in orthogonally. In another front page bylined story titled "Sobering Conclusions On Why Jihad Has Spread" they claim the exact opposite conclusion.

The overall estimate is bleak, with minor notes of optimism. It depicts a movement that is likely to grow more quickly than the West's ability to counter it over the next five years, as the Iraq war continues to breed "deep resentment" throughout the Muslim world, shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and cultivating new supporters for their ideology.

In describing Iraq as "the 'cause celebre' for jihadists," the document judges that real and perceived insurgent successes there will "inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere," while losses would have the opposite effect. It predicts that the elimination of al-Qaeda leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed after the estimate was completed in April, would probably leave that organization splintered into disparate groups that "for at least a time, pose a less serious threat to U.S. interests" than the current al-Qaeda structure.

As I posted, the WaPo ran with the leaked version last Sunday. This story even claims that the President agreed with the assessment. I saw several clips of the President (on that wicked FOX of course) and he was angry about the leak and stern in denying its assessment.

Get 10 people to read the report and grade each news feature? There seems a rare chance for a clear metric here, it has awakened some deep inner researcher in me. Ideas?

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt comes out on the exoneration side. He recounts a heated discussion with Jonathan Alter about the document before it came out. Alter said that no one had disputed the Times's account.

I hope lefties like Jonathan take the time to let the New York Times' "reporters" know that they don't appreciate being sent out to be embarrassed defending cut-and-paste stories that distort the facts and which, upon revelation of the true facts, support the foreign policy judgments and political positions of the Bush Administration.

The democratic Party and its agenda journalist allies are campaigning for retreat from Iraq, a retreat that would be a decisive victory for the jihadists. Thus any vote for any Congressional Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.

And that is the conclusion supported by the NIE, touted just 48 hours ago by the left as the key document of this political season.

Media and Blogging Posted by jk at September 27, 2006 10:51 AM