[CLUE-Talk] [Fwd: MRC Alert Special: ABC's War News Touts Doubt and Dissent]

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 21:00, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

> MRC doesn't deliver news. They are only acting as watchdogs. 

Watchdogs? That's about the most laughable thing I've heard all day,
thanks. What they're doing is nitpicking the news for anything that
doesn't agree with the conservative viewpoint. 

Note that they're not pointing out factual errors -- they're just taking
digs at anyone that dares to go counter to the conservative viewpoint.

Here's an interesting snippet: 

Previewing new protests, he insisted that anti-war activists represented
more than the tiny fraction of the country that shares their views: 

"Tiny fraction?" Last I checked, polls were indicating at least 30
percent of the population thinks we're doing the wrong thing - that's a
"tiny fraction?" I pity anyone taking guidance from people who don't
recognize 30 percent of the population as a significant portion. 

> I cannot think
> of a time when they were wrong, can you? 

Try harder. The whole premise of the site is the so-called liberal
bias... which is a crock to begin with. 

Here's an example of the so-called "bias" that MRC drummed up from ABC's
war coverage:

"Jennings spent much of Friday night’s coverage doing his part to make
sure the anti-war side was heard, including an eight-minute interview
with two far-left leaders of anti-war groups in which Jennings tossed
softball questions such as, “Why do you feel so strongly about this
war?”

(http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2003/fax20030324.asp)

Yes, God forbid that the anti-war viewpoint be heard!

I could probably spend the better part of a week picking apart the
so-called "watchdog" commentary from the MRC, which basically boils down
to this: We're going to whine about any media coverage that doesn't
strictly agree with our viewpoint. 

> If all they are doing is
> highlighting when liberal talking heads choose to do some editorializing
> when they should be reporting, what's the problem? 

Problem? There's no problem unless you take them seriously. Kind of like
Rush Limbaugh, it might make good entertainment -- but if you're using
that as a source of news or facts, you're in deep trouble. 

Unlike the right-wingers, I don't have a problem with people exercising
free speech -- even when they like to twist the facts as much as these
folks. I won't call them traitors or cast aspersions on their patriotism
even though they're doing their level best to silence dissent that is
constitutionally protected. But, I'm just as free to call them on their
bias as they are to spew it. So...you can pretty much expect me to play
"watchdog" whenever Kevin feels the need to pollute the CLUE-talk list
with trash from MRC. 

> Of course they are biased
> (I'm sure they only discuss *liberal* editorializing - I doubt they say much
> about Fox putting some conservative spin on reports, but there are similar
> groups for that for the flip side: FAIR comes to mind.), but so is the
> mainstream media. 

As far as the war goes, I'd say that the media is displaying a strong
bias to the right -- not the left -- or they'd be a great deal more
critical about the war with Iraq.

As far as social issues go, the media can skew to the left -- issues
like abortion, for example. As far as economic issues, the media skews
strongly to the right - and little wonder, given the fact that most
media outlets are owned by large corporations. 

Here's an example of real media bias at work: Clear Channel sponsoring
pro-war demonstrations: 

Area war boosters honk, holler for flag
http://www.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,208~12588~1263106,00.html

The event's sponsor, Clear Channel, gave away 200 T-shirts with the
words, "I Support President Bush,' printed on the back.

Clear Channel sponsored pro-war demonstrations in several cities.
Incidently, the company happens to own 1,233 radio stations across the
U.S. Gee, I wonder if their listeners are getting the full scoop on the
war? Somehow, I doubt that coverage that might be considered skeptical
of the Bush administration is being encouraged. 

Now...why isn't MRC pointing out the obvious conflict of interest in a
media company sponsoring pro-war rallies? They're obviously pleased as
long as the bias is strictly pro-conservative. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net