Proof Positive

I have a few friends who think that liberal media bias is a conservative myth. They obstinately cling to the explanation that biased people see bias in the news when they're offended by the target of the story. I'm willing to concede that their argument has merit, but it doesn't invalidate the claim that the collective American press is slanted to the left.

When I present them with countless examples of skewed reporting, they always retreat to debunking the ridiculous idea of there being a secret journalistic society that coordinates hit pieces and represses news benefitting Republicans. I repeatedly describe how bias is in the mind of the reporter - not in an editorial guideline. I explain that it lurks in the realms of unnecessary and selective labels like arch-conservative, right wing ideologue and staunch traditionalist. These labels give the impression that the Republicans represent something out of the ordinary, and thus bear the burden of proof for their beliefs.

I explain that most journalists put a negative spin on non-liberal ideals and accentuate the negative regarding events and ideas that come under the Republicans' sphere of influence.

They always argue that no journalists are out to get the Republicans; "They're just reporting the news, which happens to always be bad when a Republican is President."

Well my friends, you don't have to listen to me anymore. Here are the word's from the horse's mouth:

Hugh Hewitt wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard describing his 5/18/05 interview with ABC News' Chief White House Correspondent, Terry Moran.

In the piece, Hugh wrote:

"The White House press corps often calls on the president to comment on--and criticize--everything under the sun, from Enron to the Saudis to the Israelis to you name it. But Moran's demand for immunity from White House cajoling, and the undeniable air of superiority Moran and most White House press types project is damning evidence that the elite media have gone from purveyors of news to Guardians of Truth.

Moran really thinks that the press ought not to be criticized by the president or his spokesmen. In making his demand for a special status above that of every American, Moran at least gave honest voice to the elite media's view of itself: above every citizen, above every elected official, above, well, everything.....Media arrogance now demands media immunity from presidential reproach. For a while now, media lawyers have been arguing for special status in courts. Soon--very soon, I suspect--they will view all third party criticism as illegitimate, an extension of the blogger rabble's invective.

Old media is acting a lot like old royalty."

Hugh hit the nail right on the head. But this was only one of many verdicts that any reasonable person could walk away with after hearing or reading the transcript of the interview.

I'd like to highlight a few of Terry Moran's more amazing admissions:

Terry on why the American military dislikes American journalists:

"It comes from, I think, a huge gulf of misunderstanding, for which I lay plenty of blame on the media itself. There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous."

Terry on what Newsweek should do to correct the Koran-flushing flap, and on the media's tendency to accentuate the negative:

"I think Newsweek has an obligation to go beyond it's retraction, which it tried to retract. And Newsweek has an obligation to really do some work here, and to get out into the region and the Arab networks and the Arab media, and explain what happened. And I would like to see Newsweek...I was in Iraq, and I'll never forget the Major who told me, look. You guys, I can build a million dollar sewer system and I won't get on television if I paid for it. But if one guy sets off an I.E.D. somewhere and hurts one of my kids, you know, it's going to lead the news."

Terry on whether the White House Press Corps is more hostile to Bush than it was to Clinton:

"I think it's a different kind of hostile. I think that under Clinton, partly because he gave...there may have been plenty of ammunition that he handed out, but there was just a relentless hunt for scandal to the distraction of the real policy and security concerns of the United States. I think the country got off track in its press coverage of the presidency in the Clinton administration.....I think that there's...I think there's an attitude...how do I take a pound of flesh out of the president today in any White House. In any White House."

Terry on why ABC News has not followed up on John Kerry's failed promise to release his military records:

"There is, in general, a lot less interest in what the loser has done, or is about, or you know, John Kerry is deluding himself, it seems, that he has a continued political life, and perhaps you share that. But I think that when it's the president of the United States, and I agree with you. It [the demand for President Bush to release his National Guard records] was something of a frenzy."

Terry on what percentage of the White House Press Corps actually hates President Bush:

"Uh, small, I would say, but some big fish."

Terry on what percentage of the White House Press Corps voted for Kerry:

"Oh, very high. Very, very high.....I would certainly say, you know, it's hard for me, but I'd guess it's in...upwards of 70, maybe higher. You know, it's hard for me to say, but I would say very, very high."

Terry on whether he thinks the CBS memos were fakes, and why CBS didn't admit it:

"Absolutely.....I have no idea. I have no idea. It seemed...I couldn't believe it from the first day, as soon as this stuff hit the blogs, it was pretty clear what was going on. I mean, you know, you wanted to wait for it to get nailed down, but I think that's a big problem. I came up at Court T.V. under a guy named Steve Brill, who used to say once you admitted a mistake, and come fully clean, you improve your credibility. And that's...I think some of the big establishment news organizations, like the one I work for now, have bigger problems doing that, because of the way that they once dominated the media market."

Combine these admissions with those of Evan Thomas, Newsweek's Assistant Managing Editor, and you get proof positive of the media's liberal, anti-Republican bias:

Evan Thomas on the mainstream media's favorable protrayal of the Kerry/Edwards campaign versus the Bush/Cheney campaign on PBS' Inside Washington:

"Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards...I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."

But if my friends still don't want to take my word for it, here's Jeff Jacoby, columnist for the Boston Globe, describing fellow journalists' written reactions from the Democratic National Convention:

Some of Kerry's biggest fans are in the press

Not much doubt who the media wants to win

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | August 24, 2004

With the exception of the Fox News Channel, the liberal tilt of the mainstream media - the major newspapers, the networks, National Public Radio, the news magazines - has long been a fact of American life. No one observing the coverage of this year's presidential campaign with both eyes open can have much doubt that the media establishment is pulling heavily for the Democratic ticket.

That explains why, for example, the intense media interest in George W. Bush's National Guard records last February wasn't matched by an equally intense interest in John Kerry's Navy history in May, when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first went public with their criticisms. Far from leaping on the charges that Kerry's Vietnam heroism had been greatly exaggerated, the mainstream media's initial reaction was to largely ignore them. And while the press saw no reason to question the credibility of Bush's accusers or to demand that Kerry repudiate them, their attitude toward the Swift Boat vets has been much more hostile.

None of this should come as a surprise. The nation's newsrooms are Democratic strongholds, and that cannot help but affect their coverage of the news. Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of Newsweek, put it plainly last month.

"Let's talk a little media bias here," he said on the PBS program "Inside Washington" on July 11. "The media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards . . . as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." Just how lopsided is the pro-Kerry bias? When New York Times reporter John Tierney surveyed reporters covering the Democratic National Convention last month, the results were striking.

"We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington,'' he wrote on Aug. 1. "When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic." Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and for tasting liberal bias in journalism, no one tops the Media Research Center. Founded by conservative activist Brent Bozell in 1987, the MRC has become an indispensable resource for anyone interested in how political attitudes shape news coverage. Its most illuminating technique is the simplest: It monitors journalists' words and quotes them. What it has found time and time again is a skew to the left: a tendency to celebrate, echo, or defend Democrats, liberals, and left-of-center ideas.

Consider the reporting at the Democratic convention. In its latest "Notable Quotables," the MRC serves up more than two dozen fawning quotes from journalists about the brilliance, wonder, and allure of the Democratic team. You can find the complete litany (plus detailed daily reports on the convention coverage) at www.MediaResearch.org, but these examples will give you a flavor of the whole:

"I was standing next to the young speechwriter who worked with Kerry on this speech. . . . The look on his face: rhapsody throughout. I don't know how this was perceived at home. But here in the Massachusetts delegation, where I was standing, it was perceived very well." - ABC's Dan Harris, following John Kerry's speech to the Democratic convention.

"People who served with him in Vietnam said, You can't believe what he's like in battle. He just changes. He gets this look over him. And when I saw him walking down the aisle tonight on the way into the speech, I said, `Oh yeah, there's that look.' And I just knew at that point that he's going to nail this, and he did. I have never seen the man speak so well." - Time magazine's Joe Klein on CNN.

"John Kerry working himself literally into a sweat. Or as my high school English teacher would prefer, into a high state of perspiration. An almost literal thunder inside the hall, shaking the Fleet Center in a way that it seldom shakes, if ever, even during a Celtics basketball playoff game or a Bruins hockey playoff game. These Democrats, as the speech built, having what amounted to maybe a three-thousand-gallon attack about every three minutes, united in a way the Democratic Party has not been for about half a century." - CBS anchor Dan Rather.

"For those who doubted John Kerry could pull off a stirring speech, doubts dispelled. For those who doubted John Kerry could unite a traditionally fractious party, doubts dispelled." - ABC's Charles Gibson on Good Morning America.

"The personality that Edwards exudes when he comes to these events is something that's pretty infectious with these delegates. And I talked to one delegate yesterday who says, `You know, I'm coming to like John Kerry, but I haven't yet fallen in love with him. But I will tell you this, I have fallen in love with John Edwards.' It's obvious the charisma out there gets to everybody here in the Fleet Center." - CBS's John Roberts, after John Edwards finished his convention speech.

"People talk about John Edwards being the sexiest politician in America. I think Teresa Heinz may be the sexiest spouse of a national candidate in my memory. She comes across pretty strong, soulful, tender even, in a way. So I think she had an effective performance." - Wall Street Journal reporter John Harwood on CNN.

Don't expect next week's Republican convention in New York to inspire similarly starry-eyed adulation. As Newsweek's editor concedes, the media want Kerry to win. To be sure, most journalists are professionals who take seriously their obligation to be accurate and fair. But what is true for most people is true for journalists, too: When you want something badly enough, it shows."