The media is making itself a political issue

Media bias has been an increasingly important topic among progressive activists. The right wing has learned over many years how to manipulate the traditional media outlets into supporting their agenda. By continuously asserting a "liberal" bias and putting major pressure on any pro-Democratic or liberal coverage (real or perceived), the major corporate news networks have been trained to adopt and promote conservative frames while suppressing liberal ones.

Usually this phenomenon exhibits itself subtly. For instance, the Talking Heads continually refer to the estate tax as the much more nefarious-sounding "death tax" or refuse to critique a Republican's pronounced issue stances against their past legislative votes. And of course one can point out the myriad ways in which the corporate media has kowtowed to John McCain.

But every so often, an example of media bias comes along that is so blatant, so egregious and so misleading that it renders the "liberal media" canard utterly indefensible. Yesterday, Olbermann exposed a shockingly obvious whitewashing of a potentially self-damaging McCain quote by CBS.

From their exclusive interview:

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

It just so happens that McCain's depiction of this "matter of history" is flat-out false. The Anbar Awakening happened months before the surge. Here's some clarification by EquationDoc at DailyKos:

The colonel was Colonel Sean McFarland, the head of 1st Brigade, 1st Division. They were redeployed to Iraq in January, 2006, in Nineveh province. In May, 2006 they were transferred south to Ramadi, in Al Anbar province, the site of the "Anbar Awakening." The 1st Brigade, 1st Division was redeployed out of Iraq in mid-February, 2007.

That is, the unit McCain is referring to left Iraq approximately one month after Bush announced the surge on January 10, 2007 (troop surge timeline). A month later, on March 20, troop strength was up from 132,000 (in January) to 152,000. Additional commitments to the surge would eventually bring the total to 168,000, in September, 2007.

The Anbar Awakening, or Anbar Salvation Council, was founded by Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi in September, 2006, again, long before Bush's January 10, 2007 announcement of the surge. And ironically, at the same time troop surge levels peaked and US casualties were in the process of declining, al-Rishawi was killed in September, 2007 by a roadside bomb in Ramadi. It's even more ironic when considered in the context of McSame's claims that we were "able to go out and protect that sheik and others."

In making a statement such as this, either McCain has memory issues or he is simply lying. An editor at CBS likely recognized the inaccuracy of his statement. Thus, CBS chose to scrub out these words and replace them with another, much more on-message answer from earlier in the interview:

Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.

I dare Marlowe and any other McSame apologists out there to give me an explanation for this switcheroo other than that which I contend: pro-McCain and pro-Republican media bias.

We can see here why those in the traditional press are so condescending towards bloggers and the internet in general: We are a direct threat to their ability to control the narrative. I, for one, hope they keep it up. It will only lead us to shine a greater spotlight on their fatal flaws and ultimately expose corporate newsrooms as the largely charlatan operations that they have become. And when the chickens finally come home to roost, it must be acknowledged that this failing industry will have wrought its own demise by shilling for the followers of a failed ideology.

UPDATE:Here is the segment where Keith Olbermann exposes the story:

Why I don't subscribe to the Washington Post

I'll admit it. I don't read the major newspapers all that much. I do read the Express, the free paper they give out at Metro entrances, regularly on the way to work. But I don't have any interest in buying any of the more "serious" daily papers. Today's leading media outlets have utterly failed to provide unvarnished truth and information in an atmosphere of increasing uncertainty; indeed many have willingly participated in the destruction of reality-based public discourse. In terms of failing to live up to its classic image, the Washington Post is the worst of all. Along with the New York Times, it is supposed to be the gold standard of quality reporting, hard-hitting journalism and timely analyses, transcending the partisan muck of Beltway politics. Yet its persistent tendency to obfuscate conflicts of interest, kowtow to a wildly unpopular White House and present opinions as news deeply belies such a reputation. Frankly, at this point I find certain blogs and independent newspapers to be much more reliable news sources than such a compromised tool of the cocktail-party circuit.

Although I don't subscribe to the Washington Post, my roommate Brian [update: apparently not Brian], however, does. A few days ago, I was eating breakfast and caught a glimpse of a headline starting at me from the other side of our kitchen table:

Obama Has the Upper Hand. But McCain Can Still Take Him.
by Dick Morris

I knew Dick Morris was a former Bill Clinton strategist and the kind that urged Democrats to reject liberalism, so I figured this would not be an article telling Obama to remain true to his grassroots-driven message of change. Little was I prepared, however, for the mind-boggling dishonesty, jaw-dropping stupidity and downright wrongness of the literary hairball Morris has coughed up with this column.

The first line of the article should have told me enough to avoid reading on:

John McCain is America's favorite kind of candidate.

Oh, you mean the angry old warmonger with the consistency problem kind? Or the ultra-partisan, lobbyist-loving and economically clueless kind? Please provide more specifics.

With his record of extraordinary patriotism and his distinctive Senate tenure, McCain is a nominee whom voters from both parties -- and independents, too -- could easily support.

Hmmm. The McSame campaign couldn't have said it better themselves. So we would expect an unbiased source to treat the Obama camp in a similar manner, right?

Meanwhile, McCain's likely rival, Barack Obama, has raised such doubts among voters that their concerns momentarily energized even Hillary Rodham Clinton's sagging campaign.

Actually Dick, no, your perceived doubts about Obama didn't energize the Clinton campaign. In the two weeks prior to the publish date of this moonbat screed, 49.5 superdelegates publicly endorsed Obama, as opposed to just 7.5 for Clinton.

Obama

Clinton

Uncom- mitted

Obama Lead

Obama %

5/4

248

269

278

-21

48.0%

5/11

275

270.5

250

4.5

50.4%

5/18

297.5

276.5

222

21

51.8%

As you can see, Obama took the superdelegate lead during this period. Thus Clinton lost a major justification for continuing her campaign, that superdelegates would favor her come convention time. Furthermore, she now has a formidable war chest of around negative $10 million. Clearly, two "energized" weeks for this increasingly quixotic campaign.

That's just a small taste of the incomprehensibly inane offering Mr. Morris lays forth to the unwitting reader. Here are a few more classic lines.

• To sum it up: A candidate who cannot get elected is being nominated by a party that cannot be defeated, while a candidate who is eminently electable is running as the nominee of a party doomed to defeat.

Funny how Mr. Unelectable Scary Black Man is beating Mr. McMaverick in all the recent national polls, and an electoral analysis shows that a blowout victory (around 360-178) is well within reach for Obama. More analysis to come on that in the near future...

• [McCain's] base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers. Wright has become the honorary chairman of McCain's get-out-the-vote efforts. The growing fear of Obama, who remains something of an unknown, will drag every last white Republican male off the golf course to vote for McCain, and he will need no further laying-on of hands from either evangelical Christians or fiscal conservatives. So McCain doesn't have to spend a lot of time wooing his base.

Yup, that's exactly why McCain is pulling only 3/4 of the recent GOP primary vote against Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, even with the latter having emphatically endorsed his former adversary. Also, maybe Dick Morris' friends play golf all the time, but believe it or not there are some white Republican males who think of golf as throughly elitist. Bloviating types tend to call them "Reagan Democrats". Ya know, the ones that Obama can't win. They've been Republicans for the past three decades. So either Mr. Morris either thinks it's 1976, or he is admitting that the only real Republicans are the rich ones.

• If the GOP nominee were [anyone else], independents and Democrats might not vote Republican even if they became convinced that Obama is some kind of sleeper agent sent to charm and conquer our democracy.

Wow, what an ass. On another note of equal journalistic integrity, some people say that Dick Morris is in charge of a secret child pornography ring in Cambodia.

• Earlier in the race, Iraq might have been a deal-breaker. But a kinder, gentler war has emerged. Still, most Americans don't like the war, and McCain must deal with their opposition if he wants to win.

That's right, it's the fault of the damn pinko hippies for not clapping loud enough. If only they were all "disappeared", then the war would be as popular as it should be. Nevermind the fact that our veterans get treated like and torture is now

• Which brings us to George W. Bush, the least popular president of modern times. Unlikely as it sounds, the soon-to-be former president needs to get out of the White House, reenter the political arena (much as it will pain him) and go around the country telling us two things: First, we are winning in Iraq; second, the economy is not as bad as most people think. With the Dow at around 12,800 and unemployment at 5 percent, Bush can make a good case that things aren't really headed for the rocks.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Oh goody, yes, please do George! I'd love nothing more than for you to remind Americans that Republicans are responsible for the Iraq mess and the current state of the economy. Let's not forget to mention our friendly neighborhood oil companies and how well they're doing! Seriously for a second, it takes a special kind of Beltway obliviousness to think either of these issues can work to the advantage of any Republican.

• Forget about the base. It will be there. Obama's liberalism, his pro-tax agenda and his proposed weakening of the USA Patriot Act -- as well as fears that he would appoint to office people such as Rev. Wright and William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground -- will all assure the full mobilization of the right. Immigration reform and McCain's other acts of apostasy will be forgiven for the sake of beating Obama. So McCain needs to go after the swing voters.

Again, the Patriot Act...there's another GOP political winner for ya! I do agree that immigration reform will be forgiven by the base - they don't really care that much about it anyway. How did Tom Tancredo do in the primaries? And honestly, the only reason why people might worry that Obama would appoint Scary Black Men to office is blatant fearmongering like yours, Dick.

• [McCain should] go after the Democrats for their proposals to lower sentences for crack cocaine to make them equal to those for powder cocaine. (Instead, McCain should urge raising penalties for regular cocaine.)

That right, lock even more nonviolent offenders in jail and throw away the key. Inmates generally cost over $20,000 each per year. That's some solid fiscal responsibility right there!

• The collected quotes of Rev. Wright will be a bestseller this summer. Obama once had to prove to us that he was not a Muslim; now he must convince us that he never really went to church much. Just as Sen. John F. Kerry was buffeted by veterans who had less than heroic memories of their service with him in Vietnam, so Obama will have to weather the recollections of his fellow parishioners. Count on several to surface and claim that they sat next to him during some particularly incendiary sermon.

Actually, media bias may become an issue as this plays out. Yes, I do count on something like UCC-Trinity Members for Truth to become a reality during the sweltering summer months. But the traditional media has the responsibility to expose their blatant lies, if they can be easily disproven, as such. It's important to point out that NONE of the Swift Boat Veterans were EVER ON A SWIFT BOAT, and therefore had no business commenting on "their service with him". The corporate media just parroted their talking points without ever stopping to question their validity. They may choose that path again in 2008, but trust me, they won't get anything remotely resembling a free pass if they do. This time, Dems and their base are prepared.

• The American public will not ultimately doubt Obama's patriotism; that is a bridge too far. But we will come to think less of his credibility and strength as he fumbles his way through awkward denials.

So let me get this straight. The Manchurian Candidate garbage won't stick to Obama, but he'll be done in by failure to articulate fully why he isn't indeed a terrorist for the thousandth time?

Color me confused. Maybe I'm just not as intelligent as Dick Morris. I guess I just don't fully appreciate the potent bloviationary capacities unleashed by engaging in transparent cognitive dissonance.

After finishing the article, the scariest thought I had was that I was not that shocked by it. I have come to expect such useless tripe from the Washington Post.


P.S. Dick wants your feedback! I encourage you to tell him how much you loved his opinions at:
dickmorris@dickmorris.com