Right-Wing Media Coverage of the Bush TexANG Scandal

One of the things that I find most striking about the Texas Air National Guard Scandal and the allegedly forged documents is the way in which the right-wing media has reacted to it. Actually, it's really not striking at all, since they reacted hysterically, and made a bunch of outrageous and unsubstantiated claims, which is what they usually do. But nevertheless, it's worth reminding you about.

Not only was there an attempt by sources official ("It's not surprising that you see a coordinated effort by Democrats to attack the President when Senator Kerry is falling behind in the polls") and un- to say that the Kerry campaign and/or the DNC was directly involved (without any evidence -- remember how mad they were when Kerry accused the Bush campaign of collusion with the Swifties? and the Kerry campaign actually had evidence), but there was an attempt to directly implicate CBS in the story. Here's Rush Limbaugh:

If these documents are forgeries, if CBS has been duped, I don't care by who, they were willing -- I don't know if they're willing accomplices, but they wanted the story to be true. They're not victims here. They have been in the tank for Kerry, CBS has been the network, all those 60 Minutes shows, all those books in conjunction with their parent company, all of the lack of attention of the swift boat vets, CBS hasn't given one shred of notice to these people, or very little, and now this. It's going to be hard for them to come out and throw up their hands, "We've tried to do our job!" Now, you wanted this story to be true, CBS did.

Let's take this accusation seriously for a moment. I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes.

I did some Lexis Nexis searching. The CBS Evening News, the program which Dan Rather hosts, had stories about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad on August 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30. Of course, this is not to mention CBS news in general, which has had stories about the Swiftie Liars since Aug. 5. Somehow, I don't think that makes Rush's statement that "CBS hasn't given one shred of notice to these people, or very little," oh, what's the phrase... "factually accurate," or maybe "in accordance with reality," or perhaps "has some basis in what is actually the case, as opposed to what is not," or possibly "even vaguely credible if you're a person with a brain and who cares about facts being actual facts instead of lies, which is what that stupid idiot usually tells."

But Rush makes a more serious charge: "They have been in the tank for Kerry." Now, I admit, I can't read Dan Rather's mind, and I don't know who he's going to vote for. But I don't think that Rush Limbaugh knows that stuff either. But Rush could offer some evidence, maybe to support his assertion that CBS news is "in the tank" for the Democrat. Does he? His evidence seems to be the factually inaccurate claim that Dan hasn't given the Swifties their due. Not looking good for Rush, is it?

By the way, is their any doubt in anyone's mind who Rush Limbaugh is in the tank for? Seriously, I'm curious if there's a single fuckwit out there somewhere that has any doubts.

Rush ends his bizarre and fact-free rant with this:

You know, the same media that constantly demands that Bush admit mistakes or apologize isn't demanding the same of CBS, and they won't. In fact, CBS continues to stand by its story. Rather is out there on the streets of New York asking anybody who will listen to believe him that the story was true, despite the fact that everybody knows that this thing is bogus. So you look at what's happened to the liberal media in the last few months and years, Jayson Blair, the New York Times, lying about circulation at Newsday and all these other newspapers, CBS running with bogus documents. The list is expanding. The old media is losing credibility and audience by refusing to acknowledge that and clean up its act. They have all become what they hated, and it's precisely because they are consumed with seething rage and hatred that they have become what they hated.

One can't avoid the conclusion that Rush must think his listeners are very stupid. If any one remembers the Jayson Blair scandal, they would remember how much the New York Times reported on the fabrications of their own reporter, and how many people were fired over it. But with statement like this: "You know, the same media that constantly demands that Bush admit mistakes or apologize isn't demanding the same of CBS, and they won't. In fact, CBS continues to stand by its story," one really can't help but think that Rush has lost his marbles. Does anyone remember that is was the so-called liberal media that reported the possible forgeries of the Bush documents in the first place? The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, all ran stories. No one except for Rush has demanded that CBS apologize, because so far they have nothing to apologize for! Nothing's been conclusively proven, and only a person that is not interested in the facts would think anything has.

I don't know why I'm doing this to myself, but let's turn to Joe Scarborough. Joe's show, Scarborough Country on MSNBC, had a big piece on the National Guard Records story on Friday. Who is the guest Joe has on to discuss the matter? Bernie Goldberg, a former CBS employee, who has written a book called Arrogance, which is about how much he hates CBS and how biased he thinks they are. Does he have someone from the other side? I'll let you guess. Here's an excerpt from the eminently fair and journalistic discussion that they had:

GOLDBERG: And this particular piece had a point of view that Bush was a liar, George Bush was a liar, and that he was a slacker. Now, you're supposed to reach that point of view based on reporting. But it's come out in the last few hours that the CBS News producer, who I'm sure is an absolutely honest person -- but she had the opportunity to put other people into her story, because she spoke to people, including the son of the fellow who was running the National Guard, the lieutenant colonel who was. She spoke to his wife.

And the son directed her to other people who would tell her that this story didn't appear to be true. She made a conscious decision not to put those people in. And let me tell you why. When you have stories with points of view, everything that supports that point of view makes it into the story. Anything that doesn't support that point of view and makes it, now it's a gray area -- now it's a he said/she said, and they hate those -- those things don't make it into the story.

That's not good reporting, but that's how it works in this particular case, I think.

SCARBOROUGH: And, of course, if a conservative like John Stossel at ABC News had done this thing, he would have been fired in a minute.

Now, tonight, Dan Rather said that political operatives were behind the charges of forgery. And CBS News released this statement -- quote -- "The documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts, but by sources familiar with their content." And, again, they stand by their experts and added they would report any errors if they discovered them.

Is this just a case about crying wolf about bias because the stakes are so high or is this a case of circling the wagons? When is CBS going to step forward and admit that they made a horrible mistake there? Can they do that? Will they do that?

Now, it's hard to know which "particular piece" Goldberg is referring to, but I imagine it's the segment on CBS's 60 minutes II, in which Dan Rather confronted White House communications director Dan Bartlett about the documents (because we know that a CBS person spoke to Killian's wife for that story, and that was the one Dan Rather was involved in personally). Let me say that again: the piece being referred to, as far as I can tell, is a piece in which Dan Rather talked to the White House communications director -- in which Rather asked Bartlett to explain the documents. It wasn't a piece in which a reporter says "these documents prove that W lied." It's a piece in which Rather, professionally, in my opinion, asks for a response from the side that the documents seem to implicate.

Let's remember what Goldberg said next: "Anything that doesn't support that point of view and makes it, now it's a gray area -- now it's a he said/she said, and they hate those -- those things don't make it into the story." Gosh, it's really hard to make any sense out of that statement, given that the person being interviewed is the person in charge of communications for the White House. What some people call the White House communications director. But no, you don't like gray areas, do ya Bernie?

And then Scarborough falls back on the old liberal media argument: "And, of course, if a conservative like John Stossel at ABC News had done this thing, he would have been fired in a minute."

Let's think about that for a second. John Stossel is a successful, albeit stupid, journalist. He's an overt conservative. He has a book called "Give Me a Break : How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media..." I imagine his reporting has been quite conservative. Just a guess. Has he been fired? Does anyone know how long he's been working at ABC news? Those are just some questions to think about before you decide you agree with Scarborough's statement.

My point is this. If the National Guard documents are forged, then they're forged, and that's the end of the story. If they're not, they're not. It might take a while to develop a consensus, but we're all reasonable people [sic], and we can figure this stuff out. Surely though, the kind of media hysteria the Limbaugh and Scarborough exhibit is not warranted by a person that's interested in facts.

What I find most hypocritical and most shameful is this: that Rather's piece on the documents on CBS was an interview with a person whose side was implicated in the documents. Rather never evinces a point of view, but merely asks tough questions like a journalist should. Limbaugh and Scarborough, though, both complain about the "liberal media," while being members of the media themselves; whatever media they're members of can hardly be described as liberal.

And their journalistic standards are much lower. Dan Rather at least had the grace to have someone on the show to challenge the documents. Scarborough had someone on his show who fundamentally agreed with his point of view, and Limbaugh had no one at all. Neither offer any actual evidence that Rather is liberal, that his journalism is biased, and the statements they do make are factually incorrect.

That's not journalism. It's an infomercial.

Does anyone remember why this National Guard scandal is in the news again anyway? It's only because the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ran the most disgusting slander campaign since the Willie Horton ads. But Republicans just can't take it, can they?

-- Michael

Comments

[d meyers]

I love you refeence to Willie Horton. That is like the left continuing to mention Florida 2000 and how Bush stole the election.

Question,

What politician first brought up Willie Horton??

Answer

Al Gore, in the 1988 Dem primaries

[d meyers]

I am surprised that you do not see the titanic shift happening in the Media today

"Does anyone remember that is was the so-called liberal media that reported the possible forgeries of the Bush documents in the first place? The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, all ran stories. "

In the first place??? WHAT ARE YOU IN A CAVE OR SOMETHING. Did anyone of these Big Media break the forgery story? Of course not. The blogosphere was able to do in a day what CBS should have done over 6 weeks. Many, many in the blogosphere did the legwork and raised enough questions that the authenticity of the documents became seriously questioned. At this point the Big Media stepped in. SO now, the Big Media responded, they DID NOT REPORT ON IT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW THAT FOR A FACT.

Well in todays world I think the blogosphere is driving the news because, as I heard a blogger call it, of "open soruce" reporting. Meaning, many, many blogs contribute bits of information into the total story. Facts are checked, proven true/false, etc, etc and the story builds. The story is not attributed to one person but of thousands of people on the web making contributions.

After all this leg work has been done the big media steps in and reports on it... Well of course they have to report on it because the blogosphere is doing what true investigative journalist do.

The difference is the speed at which all this happens. The Big Media has not adjusted to the speed as of yet.

Let me explain to you the root of the right's claim of Bias in the media.

The people you cited, Rush, Scarborough, and any others you want to through out (Hannity, etc) will readily admint they have a point of view that comes from a conservative standpoint. They are "opinion" people, so of course their views come from the right and THEY WILL ADMIT IT. What we have a problem with is the big media claiming that they are objective and do not let their views into their broadcasts.

It is this claim of impartiality that makes us laugh...

You say, if they are forged they are forged.

Here is a question for you, given the way CBS handled this story, if they are forged, do you see any negative implications?

[d meyer]

I won't claim who is right or wrong with regards to the documents because I have been like a sponge trying to do my best to read as much as I can regarding what the blogosphere is saying about it.

I would like you to suggest some blogs that contain some interesting info regarding the documents. I have found that www.hughhewitt.com does a decent job of linking to many bloggers who put their 2 cents in with regards to documents.

Again, all we can do is read as much as we can and draw our own conclussions on who is putting forth the best case

[here's what's left]

look, i love the bloggers, and i'm one of them myself. i tend to think that the advent of blogs has reinvigorated political debate in this country.

but bloggers have a downside, which is that they're not journalists, and they can say whatever the hell they want. which is great that so many want to say stuff. but when it comes to actually gathering a coherent set of facts, bloggers aren't very expert. neither you not i know really anything about 1970s typewriters, and neither do any other bloggers. and it's great to try to learn this stuff, but you can't become an expert in a week.

"Did anyone of these Big Media break the forgery story? Of course not." Are you sure about that? I'm not.

But like always, you miss the point. The point, and this was really the point of the post, is that Limbaugh and Scarborough both chose to distort CBS's reporting and to distort the mainstream media.

Limbaugh said that Rather had ignored the Swifties, which is not true. And then he blamed the media in general: "The old media is losing credibility and audience by refusing to acknowledge that and clean up its act." Why would the old media be refusing to clean up its act when they report on the forgery story the very next day? I don't get it. It's not like they're trying to hide something.

You personally, and your side (Limbaugh and Scarborough) generally, fall into the same trap over and over: you claim that the mainstream media is liberal without any evidence. And you make these factually incorrect charges, like the ones I mentioned above.

It seems to me that your line now seems to be that the mainstream media is liberal somehow because they didn't report on the forgery story first, which I'm not sure is true, actually. The mainstream media is certainly where I read about it first.

Here is the sequence of events as I remember it: CBS 60 Minutes II does a piece on Ben Barnes, and then a piece in which they interview Dan Bartlett about the new documents. The next day, papers print a story about the documents. That same day, questions are raised about their authenticity. Those questions are on the news that night, and in the papers the next morning. I don't know if some crazy right-wing blog charged that were forgeries immediately or what, but that's not the point, but some crazy right-wingers will say anything.

"It is this claim of impartiality that makes us laugh..."

What's your evidence that they're not impartial? I tend to think that the "liberal media" has become such a catch phrase that conservatives don't even examine their own claims very carefully anymore.

You ask the question: "Here is a question for you, given the way CBS handled this story, if they are forged, do you see any negative implications?" I think the negative implication is that CBS should have done a better job of authenticating the documents. They say they consulted 4 different experts, which seems reasonable to me, but maybe they should have consulted more. I'm not really sure what the standard procedure is for this sort of stuff, and what would really constitute conclusive authentication. But certainly, if they're fake, CBS news should re-examine something because they shouldn't have been dupped.

But again, I've seen criticisms (kerning, proportional spacing, the "th" bit) and I've seen responses to all of them. I don't think CBS has anything to apologize for yet.

[d meyers]

I think I have figured out where we differ in our views:

"but when it comes to actually gathering a coherent set of facts, bloggers aren't very expert. neither you not i know really anything about 1970s typewriters, and neither do any other bloggers. and it's great to try to learn this stuff, but you can't become an expert in a week. "

It appears you give a higher credibility factor to CBS and its journalists than to others. I do not give either group more credibility. What the bloggers did was talk to the experts in this country and reported on what the experts said, CBS did not. CBS has used the term "experts" but they only identified one expert. The bloggers pulled together the recognized experts in document evaluation and CBS did not.

"Rather's lone expert, Marcel Matley, "is primarily a handwriting expert whose expertise in document evaluation has been challenged by the head of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners," reported the New York Post."

So CBS uses a "handwriting" expert as its expert when the documents aren't handwritten. The expert said the handwritten signature looked good but since the documents were not originals the signature is meaningless.

So, 60 Minutes have the documents for 6 weeks and by any standards their effort at authentication is a joke. Major problems:

1. Documents were not originals so signature validation can be done
2. Since docs were not originals the chain of custody could not be determined
3. It appears document experts were not consulted

So my big problem is the assumption that CBS is some how more capable than certain bloggers to report on a story. I don't by it one bit. CBS is not showing any type of journalistic standards so why should we not be skeptical with CBS.

the ball is in CBS's hand and they need to subject themselves to questions and they need to detail why they believe the documents are real.

[d meyers]

a pretty good piece from a "mainstreem" editorialist (william safire)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/opinion/13safire.html

he reports, you decide

[here's what's left]

yeah, i read safire's piece, i thought it was actually pretty fair as far as conservatives have gone in this story. i think CBS probably should examine their verification techniques if this turns out to be a forgery.

you say: "It appears you give a higher credibility factor to CBS and its journalists than to others. I do not give either group more credibility."

well, i think you should. here's why: bloggers of all sorts have an agenda, and it's an overt agenda. i have an agenda, and so does andrew sullivan. so does instapundit, and whatever other conservative bloggers one reads. i consider myself more fair than most bloggers, and heather is more evenhanded than i am even. but i talk about what i feel like talking about. if it's stuff i don't really know anything about, or doesn't particularly interest me, or that i think doesn't necessarily help my side, i probably won't bring it up. the same goes for right-wing bloggers as well.

now, i know that right-wingers tend to think of the mainstream media as liberal for reasons passing understanding, but surely even right-wingers must admit that a large group of people are more fair than any individual or any small group of people.

which is to say this: bloggers can be wrong as or more often than they're right. if you take something like CNSNews.com (though they're not a blogger exactly, they were on the scene early in the forgery story) you see that while they talk about the forgery thing, their president, Brent Bozell, is saying things like that the SBVT were "completely ignored by the media." And that he claimed things like "Ken Lay spent 13 nights ... in Bill Clinton's Lincoln Bedroom" even though Lay never slept there while Clinton was president.

the reason i bring this up is that online blogging, right-wing talk radio, etc., aren't held to the same standards of truth that the mainstream media are. and i do think CBS should be held to a high standard. but just because the right-wing bloggers might (and we still don't know) have been correct in this instance doesn't mean we should trust them all the time.

and i think that the fact the CBS thing is such a big story proves my point, in a way. it's news when a major news organization gets something factually wrong.

it's not news when rush limbaugh makes up something like calling global warming "malarky," or claiming the Clintons were funding SBVT, or compares the abu ghraib thing to frat house hazing, or when he claimed he hadn't smeared george soros, or when he claimed that soros would spend millions of dollars showing bush and rumsfeld how to torture. if Dan Rather said any of these things, we'd be rightfully outraged. but with limbaugh, such character assassination and looseness with the facts is an unfortunate par for the course.

and you wonder why i don't think the mainstream media is on its way out?

(and for what it's worth, you miss the point about willie horton -- it's the vaguely racist negative campaigning, not the mention of horton, that's the problem.)

[speck]

Bottom line... During a period of war when men were being drafted Bush was granted the privilage of joining the Air Guard. After the completion of training that cost the public approximately 1 million Bush failed to maintain his flight physical. He was a liability to his squadron and never would've accompanied them to Vietnam had they been activated. The documents are redundant. It amazes me that men like McCain, Clelland, Kerry and others are attacked for their service while people like Bush are given a by. Disgusting.

[d meyers]

HWL,

Here is where we differ:

"well, i think you should. here's why: bloggers of all sorts have an agenda, and it's an overt agenda"

My point is bloggers will admit their "agenda" or which side they come from where my beef is the Big Media will never admit they have an agenda. Their agenda can be more dangerous because it is covert, not overt. Also, the power of the blogosphere is not in the individual blogger, it is in the collective knowledge of all bloggers. As I said before, it is "open source" news reporting. The collective work by all bloggers generally results in a pretty good product.

In my view, the agenda is not conscious, it comes more from group think.

Let me tell you why I believe Fox News is doing so well and what the "fair and balance" really means. What Fox does is actually give conservatives a voice, along with liberals. The derth of conservative viewpoints in the stories of the Media is the bias.

What I think happens in Media is that the reporters start with a left leaning viewpoint and it affects who they seek out for comment. It appears to me that often times they seem to not no there is a substantial group of people that do not view the issue the way they do so these people are not heard.

If a story is being done where someone is giving an opinion, make sure you include people from both sides, that is all I ask.

One last thing that I see is a major distinction. Bloggers, talk radio, etc are OPINION formats, like editorials. They are not NEWS Organizations. Opinion SHOULD REMAIN on the Editorial page or on an Editorial segment on news. Limbaugh, Hannity, etc do report news and of course when they report falsehoods they should be corrected. What the right sees as BIAS is editorial comments being mixed in with News stories. What we want in our news is (as Joe Friday would say) "JUST THE FACTS". It is not to difficult to read any major news story to see it full of "editorial" comments.

I am not a journalist but maybe the J-Schools have lost their way and journalism has become "agenda journalism" and that is what I have a problem with.

[here's what's left]

My point is bloggers will admit their "agenda" or which side they come from where my beef is the Big Media will never admit they have an agenda. Their agenda can be more dangerous because it is covert, not overt.

d, i'm tired of this discussion. you always say this. and you never have any evidence. how do you know they have an agenda? this is something that you and the conservative media (i don't care if they're opinion or news or what) say over and over again. i think it's become such an article of faith among you that you don't examine it any more. you just go on saying that they have an agenda or a bias whenever they report something that you don't like.

Bloggers, talk radio, etc are OPINION formats, like editorials.

sure, but they shouldn't be exempt from getting their facts straight.

[bog]

On blogging and news sources and "open source" news, there is a big flaw in considering the "blogosphere" open source. Open source is not simply a conglomeration of everyone's code and what they would like a program to do. There is a governing body which accepts patches, code fragments, ideas, and more. If the contribution is deemed worthy, once vetted, it is included in the product and available in the source. That is the job of the old style media.

The blogosphere is a sea of opinions, facts, and thoughts. There is no vetting mechanism other than yourself and the writer... and that is a problem. The media exists in democratic societies (and other societies) to inform the reader of facts so that the people can contribute wisely to their society. If the media has no checking mechanism built-in, then the people are left to find facts for themselves which leads to bad and incorrect decisions. For example, if someone got their news from an alien conspiracy blog, then they would make poor decisions in our society as to what is important.

The old media serves a purpose, but it too often has become a sea of opinion rather than fact. Opinion is easier and it sells. But, there is a vetting mechanism, and people often choose which media outlets to believe based on that mechanism.

d, I think you need to separate these mechanisms from agendas, and realize what mechanisms/agendas exist in the blogosphere.