Washington Post: Backlash on the Left

[BigBearJohn]

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; 8:15 AM

It's official: The Democrats are fed up with the press.

From the day George W. Bush won the Florida recount, resentment toward the MSM has been building on the left, to the point where it may well match the intensity on the right. Liberal bias? Ha! These journalists roll over for conservatives and beg to have their tummies scratched .


Nation Editor Katrina van den Heuvel told me that the failure to adequately cover the Downing Street memo "epitomizes the timidity, the cowardice of a media that has been manipulated, intimidated, bullied by an administration that has taken it to a high level." Frank Rich says the episode lays bare the problems of the "lapdog news media."

Hillary Clinton, who wasn't terribly happy with the way she and her husband were covered in the last administration, joined the press-bashers last week: "I mean, it's shocking when you see how easily they fold in the media today. They don't stand their ground. You know, if they are criticized by the White House, they just fall apart. I mean, come on, toughen up, guys. It's only our Constitution and our country at stake. Let's get some spine going here."

Rep. John Conyers has held a hearing on the media's shortcomings in covering the administration and has been on a tear about the Downing Street Memo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/06/15/BL2005061500535.html?nav=rss_business

[AlGore-08.com]

1. (Serious quote) Is Kurtz really news, or his he opinion?

If he is opinion, this thread should not be in LBN.

[McCamy Taylor]

5. It's opinion. The guy is also sweating. Can sense it in his words.

He knows he needs to re-invent himself fast or become obsolete. "Gore is a liar" is not going to cut it when the shit hits the fan about the Bush lies in the months to come.

[Hand]

24. Neither.

He's a scammer who knows how to cut and paste everybody else's material and call it a "column". Nice work if you can get it... :grr:

[gratuitous]

2. Yeah, all those specific allegations and examples

Totally baseless backlash, right Howie?

[central scrutinizer]

3. The MSM will use this as evidence

that they are indeed "balanced". "See, we have critics on both the left and the right so we must be doing a good job of presenting both sides."

[thereismore]

4. * won Florida recount? huh?

That's all I needed. There was no recount, hallo?! I am not reading any further. Read something else.

[Tigress DEM]

26. There is a time limit on the ability to request an official recount

Gore did not request the type of recount (full) that would have shown his numbers were greater. After the electoral votes were cast - the numbers of the popular vote are no longer a factor. The electoral college cast their votes on good faith of who they believe is the winner and can in fact cast against the popular vote if they so choose in some states.

In the final official tally of all the votes in Florida it showed that Gore won the popular vote, but by focusing on the disputed areas only (where the chads were involved) it showed a different result than the eventual full tally of the popular vote.

[Skittles]

34. Gore should not have had to request a recount

the state should have ordered it in the interests of the people but with that thieving bastard bush's brother at the helm that just was not gonna happen

[leQ]

6. kurtz is a klutz, and has trouble balancing his words

[aintitfunny]

7. He does not even bother to get it right

The fact is the so-called "Liberal Backlash" really did rise up to smack the wimpy press across the head, until they, the entire Main Stream Media, chose to fully back the illegal war in Iraq. It was more imported to be embedded than to concern themselves with ethics or anything silly like doing right by the American people.

That is when they all truly went over to the dark side, where morons like Howie Kurtz pretend to be insightful.

[girl gone mad]

32. Embedded journalists..

I wondered why the media was so gung-ho for the war. The minute I heard about "embedded journalists", it was apparent that they saw the war as little more than an opportunity to score big ratings. That's worse than having no ethics. It's criminal behavior, if you ask me.

[Pirate Smile]

8. What a dumbass. Look at this part - he need some educating from

the Pipa study and current polling.

"The bottom line is this: There's still a huge amount of post-Iraq anger out there toward Bush, and liberals are frustrated that the red part of the country doesn't share their view. So the press must be doing a lousy job, right?"

[spooky3]

12. No, Howie, there is plenty of empirical evidence that has nothing

to do with "post-Iraq anger" that suggests that "the press is doing a lousy job." A visit to MediaMatters.org would be a good start.

[MountainLaurel]

13. We're post-Iraq?

Somebody forget to tell the troops?

[Tigress DEM]

31. WoW! They can come home now! Howie said it!

I think he means after *ush stepped his foot into the whole Iraq thing and you know things will never be the same kind of deal. Before and after Christ, pre and post Vietnam... I guess this is the Iraq era versus post.... but still it shows how even the right would like to be done with this war.

[calimary]

25. The answer to that question, Howie dear, is YES. THE MEDIA HAS

INDEED BEEN DOING A LOUSY JOB. Particularly when "the media" is also made up of talk radio - which is wall-to-wall conservative, and as such, serves a hugely-lopsided chunk of "Jesusland" that Air America as yet does not reach.

WHEN YOU ONLY HEAR ONE SIDE, WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE ON WHICH TO BASE YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS?????????

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Poor Howie

He better start deleting all those files and propaganda reports off his hard drive before the war crimes trials.

[Cha]

10. That makes me happy

with Hillary.

It's the media, stupid~!

[TahitiNut]

11. "The Republicans had the same problem in '93 and '94."

Howie shows his diseased innards yet again. He again fails to acknowledge corporate oppression in the presstitution glory holes -- and an editorial staff (and management) trained in the low arts of public relations and marketing: lies for sale.

[rocktivity]

14. Get thy own house in order, Howard

The bottom line is this: There's still a huge amount of post-Iraq anger out there toward Bush, and liberals are frustrated that the red part of the country doesn't share their view. So the press must be doing a lousy job, right?

The press performance in covering this tightly disciplined administration has been far from perfect, especially on Iraq. But it's worth remembering that during the Clinton years, it was conservatives who saw the media as being embarrassingly soft on the White House.

The difference is, Clinton didn't conspire to cause 1700 Americans to lose their lives based on a lie to enrich his campaign-contributing friends. More important, by realizing but not complaining that the White House is tightly disciplined, You ARE biased in their favor!

:headbang:
rocknation

[gratuitous]

15. And Howie might have a leg to stand on if . . .

There was a left wing or progressive analog to, for example, Elisabeth Bumiller's weekly valentine to George W. Bush published by the New York Times. This hagiographic bit of soft-focus fluff has been in the Times every Monday morning for years.

There was a left wing or progressive analog to Meet the Press or Face the Nation, where serious matters were discussed with an all Democratic panel or an all progressive panel. As it is, when Democrats are invited on at all, they're usually outnumbered 2-1 or even 3-1, and you NEVER hear from anyone opposed to the illegal invasion of Iraq who's been on that point since before it was launched. The price of admission to the respectable talk shows is that you must have been in favor of invasion, but have now reluctantly turned against it.


There was a left wing or progressive analog to the CNN and Fox shouters and screamers. Even a total nutjob like Zell Miller received a respectful hearing from Chris Matthews, even as Miller was challenging him to a duel. But if a true progressive somehow got on Hardball, the respect level vanishes as Matthews defends the elitist values of the perfumed class of pundits.

As it is, Howie's whining about liberal backlash is just the usual response of a crybaby when someone infers that he's not quite entitled to the high level of regard that he thinks he's supposed to get.

[Roland99]

16. "Let's get some spine going here."

:applause:

[Supersedeas]

17. Its official -- is he announcing that HE is just now coming to that

conclusion?

[Orion The Hunter]

18. Well you can take a look at...

...this letter I just sent to him. Think of it as a rather large Clue Phone for Mr. Kurtz:

Dear Mr. Kurtz:

In reading your piece, entitled "Backlash on the Left", it became evident fairly quickly that you did not bother try to understand where this anger and frustration truly comes from, as your article only portrayed a simplistic view of why many Americans are simply dumbfounded by the frankly poor coverage major news stories seem to get these days by the main stream media. What many on the Left (and quite a few centrists and on the Right as well) find to be vexing is how the media has seemingly acquiesced its duty of pursuing the truth, as opposed to the mere ire aimed at Red states as you report (and I am using that term loosely). When an event happens, and it could have real impact, the media (or at least so I was led to believe) has a responsibility to both report it and to pursue this story to its logical and truthful end. In many cases, such as the Downing Street Memo, that has not happened. Instead, several other things have which has drawn the indignation of many, leading to this rather low opinion of the media. Allow me to highlight but a few that you seemed to have missed:

1) Did you know that Associated Press (AP) came out and admitted that it dropped the ball on carrying the Downing Street Memo story? And let me tell you why this fact is important: Because many other newspapers and other media resources do not have the resources to follow larger, international stories. As such, these smaller news outlets rely on wire services and news providers like the AP and Knight-Ridder. But the problem is, when news services stop being motivated on their own to seek the truth in any story, and instead defer this responsibility to someone else (like the AP), important stories can get dropped. For example, Jim Cox, USA Today's senior assignment editor for foreign news, told Salon that when the story first broke last month, "we looked to wires for guidance" but for days didn't see anything. It was a month before the paper reported on the memo; Cox took the blame for that omission. Conversely, it should be pointed out, that those media outlets that used Knight-Ridder actually were on this story at the very beginning of May, as Knight-Ridder did a much better job in funneling details to its subscribers. This aforementioned example highlights a larger problem: The fact that many news outlets have stopped bothering to rely on their own common sense, and instead the rely on the judgment of a third party, in determining what news to follow. When comparing the AP to Knight-Ridder, one has to ask, "Why exactly are wire services and other news gathering hubs opting out of certain news stories, particularly when the larger wire services have the means to cover them and there is a real appetite for such news by the news consumers?!" That is a story right there in and of itself!

2) And now let me take dead aim at the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the other larger periodicals that had the resources to follow the Downing Street Memo, and other such stories, but yet did not. Do NOT even for one minute let your, and other comparable papers off the hook by stating they "bobbled the ball" on this one. Bobbling the ball entails there was some actual coverage on this story, instead of merely a faint and, frankly, token effort. In the case of the Post, the Times and others, "bobbling" is far too kind a description; flat out dropping the ball is more accurate. When your subscribers depend on you, these larger media outlets, for news, it is incumbent upon you to provide details on any and all stories that have impact on the lives of your readers. And more importantly, not opt out of stories that you feel may have "access-backlash" or which some may feel to be politically unpopular to report on. I mean, where would those two intrepid Post investigators have been if they had taken a similar attitude towards a potential big story, in the form of Deep Throat coming to them, as the Post has towards the Downing Street Memo? The media's job is not to act as a filter for the news that they feel is important; the media's job is to report the news as it occurs and let the readers decide what they want to read.

3) The incessant herd mentality of the media has really reached an all time high; this problem in and of itself would not be so bad if the media was actually reporting on real news. But instead, for those seeking informative news options, you are instead blasted with an annoying drone of “news” about runaway brides; or another missing female who just happens to be white, with blonde hair and blue eyes (even when scores of kids go missing daily and never once even receive one iota of news coverage); or movie stars or pop stars or pro athletes and their legal problems, etc. And these stories are almost identical as you flip between one news outlet to another. This fact begs the question: When exactly did the media get lazy and decide to stop looking and reporting on real news, rather than the sensationalistic fluff that seems to be entirely pervasive?

4) Lastly, and this is more true with television / radio news than with print news, why is the coverage so absolutely and unashamedly uneven, insofar as the types of questions asked of, or even general attitude towards, our government and corporate officials? For example, Howard Dean came right out and referred to Fox News as a Republican Propaganda outlet, and there are not many who would disagree with this assessment. What exactly happened to the times when television and other journalists actually tried to report on the news, instead of skewing it through their own particular point of view as the news is delivered to the public? What many find even more unpalatable than this blatant bias is that it is not only tolerated, but instead fostered in the name of almighty ratings.

These are but a few of the reasons behind the rather feeble support that the media currently “enjoys” from the public at large. I would strenuously suggest that you try reading more news yourself (and not any you will find in yours or other newspapers or on television) if you want to see what else is out there and why the American people feel like they are being short-changed by the mainstream media.

I would like to thank the good folks at Democratic Underground, Salon, Raw Story, and web loggers in general for not only providing the details upon which I framed my argument here, but also for putting out real news for those of us who have bee hungering for it.

[Fovea]

27. Bobbling the ball?

they werent even running a pass pattern.

[ElectroPrincess]

30. Well done - Kudos! BTW Orion is also The Writer :-) /eom

[bvar22]

19. There was ONLY ONE statewide "recount"

It was conducted by a consortium of News outlets including The Washington Post. The results of this ONE AND ONLY recount was delayed by 9-11 (hmmm?). This recount concluded that Al Gore would have WON ANY statewide recount under ANY recount standard!!!

Is this the "recount" Howie says bush* won?
Maybe someone need to remind him!

The initial official recounts were stopped by the Supreme Court who ruled that bush* would be hurt if they counted ALL THE VOTES!

[xxqqqzme]

20. Pelosi - "...or you get two sentences in a

twenty-five paragraph story which doesn't give weight to the argument that you have....'... "

I'd say that is a fair summary.

[Old and In the Way]

21. Howie, your wife still collecting checks from the RNC?

You are part of the problem. You are not the solution.

[chieftain]

22. Howie is a creature of the RW's incessant bleating about

the non-existent liberal news media. His newspaper column and CNN show were contrived to counterbalance the leftward slant of the WAPO and CNN. Only problem is that if the lean to the port side ever existed, it has been long gone for years. Howie is married to one of the dumber Stepford Spokeswomen that come on to defend the indefensible. He is bought and paid for as well as cuckolded by the right, so for him to even acknowledge that there is an anger on the Left comparable to the Right's,is notable. It is an indication that although it is now a gentle breeze , the winds of change are coming.

[William Seger]

23. This crap is REALLY pissing me off

WaPo's Dana Milbank, Michael Kinsley, Kurtz... Bash away at the "looney lefties" while simultaneously admitting that all the DSM stuff is true and that the MSM has had is collective thumb up its collective ass about it. :wtf:

My guess is they're really PO'ed to find out they aren't the "opinion leaders" they thought they were.

[confludemocrat]

28. Been official for years now Howie: you make me sick

What a weasel. Frank Rich is barely any better, he gave a preview last week on Air America radio with Al Franken of essentially the substance of that recent story in the NYT where they basically dismiss the the DSM as not news.

"...been on a tear"? Snide bastard.

[Tigress DEM]

29. The problem with MSM is this is OLD news....

Yes, we've been fed up with the press for a long time now and we've been moving on letters to the editor and calling CNN on their duality of news coverage that shielded US from full coverage while showing the rest of the world the unadulterated version.

However, news agengies are finally hearing US and doing their bit to slowly balance things out. What he says is true in retrospect and the problem isn't resolved by a long shot, but at this point the real news is the changes we have wrought by keeping the MSM's feet to the flames.

Besides when non-embedded reporters are killed for reporting the truth, who can blame them from shrinking back from an administration that seems to have no qualms about getting rid of anyone who is a problem one way or another? Have any of us acutally faced dying for this cause yet?

Certainly if they all band together and speak the truth, they all can't be murdered, but who is going to be the first to step up and take that chance? I know there are reporters world wide who do this every day, and our reporters could be more courageous than they are, but they are human as well.

What I have heard in the media fair I went to about this issue is it isn't the reporters as much as the high level content editors who are run by the administrations requirements.

Also, it's hard for news agencies to report things quickly or accurately if it isn't coming to them correctly from the AP wire.

How do we get Associated Press to move on its bias? I think the local papers and some of the news outlets that have been put on notice and have seen their ratings slipping are listening to US as consumers, but how do we get AP by the gonads and twist?

[Tommymac]

33. What a load of passive/aggresive BS

Oh gee, everything is okay now...Howie Kurtz is on the job.

:sarcasm: