Well, now it seems to be ABC's turn to explain itself as the myth of "non-partisan" and fair reporting of the news takes another large broadside. Drudge reports (http://drudgereport.com/mh.htm) today that Mark Halperin, the Political Director for ABC News sent the following memo out to the reporting staff:
Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave
I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
This is what the ABC Web page says about Halperin:
Mark Halperin has been the Political Director of ABC News since October of 1997. As Political Director, Halperin is responsible for the planning and editorial content of all political news on the network.
Now it is notable that Halperin admits that while Kerry, "distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes [sic] all the time," this is really not "central to his effort to win." Distortions, lack of context and constant mistakes, are apparently viewed by Halperin as some sort of lesser strategic effort that really isn't part and parcel to who Kerry is. However, Bush is reallly a bad guy in this regard (according to Halperin) and the ABC reporting and interviewing staff is directed by Halperin (who again, according to the ABC web page, "is responsible for the planning and editorial content of all political news on the network.") not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
So what are we to make of this? If an ABC reporter discovers Kerry has distorted, taken out of context, or made some mistake (or would it be easier to say lying?) he may just let that go, since it is not really "central to his [Kerry's] effort." But of course in the same circumstance Bush should really be pinned to the wall. When would the facts warrant, I wonder, confronting Kerry? Would the perported facts that he himself actuallly wrote the after action reported that earned him his Navy Silver Star and lauched his political career, warrant questions or more serious inquiries? Apparently not.
So, perhaps now we have a better idea why the "Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth" and the book "Unfit for Command," and former Admirals of the United States Navy, never seemed to make the mainstream news, book reviews and interview circuit, whereas every nut case running around claiming that President Bush shirked his duties in the Texas Air National Guard is primetime news. This is because both sides should not be held "equally accountable" in terms of scrutiny.
The hegemony that the mainstream media news has enjoyed for five decades is probably de facto broken in the eyes of most Americans. That's good considering the quality of the idealogues currently running most of those outlets. However, as one who thought he might go into journalism at one point in life, it's bad because a free, independent and non-partisan press is still foundational in many ways to a free society. I don't even really mind a partisan press (those have been around forever) as long as they are honest enough to tell everyone. The myth of "Non-Partisan" News is being exposed and maybe the legacy of this election will be the rise of blogs and the internet and people doing the type of investigation that the mainstream media used to do. That is, before they found out how nice, cozy and comfortable it was to be in the mainstream.
Posted by Narnia3 at October 8, 2004 8:14 PM | TrackBackYou make excellent points. I was just contemplating this week how important our freedom of the press (media) is to our nation. However, when the freedom was granted it was assumed it would be used with reasonable truthfulness and based on certain foundational truths held by those writing. Nowadays so many in media and the press seem to think they are objective but they are actually highly partisan but don't reveal that to the unsuspecting casual viewer/reader. That gives them greater power to affect public opinion than is warranted.
Posted by: Barb at October 8, 2004 9:42 PM