NY Times, USA Today repeated Bush attack on Dems without noting bipartisan criticism of Gonzales

[NNN0LHI]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708100008?f=h_latest

Summary: The New York Times and USA Today uncritically reported President Bush's attacks on Democrats over congressional investigations of Alberto Gonzales, but neither newspaper noted that criticism of Gonzales has been bipartisan: numerous Republicans have called for Gonzales' resignation, several have criticized the administration's lack of cooperation with congressional investigations, and senior Republican Judiciary Committee members have joined Democrats in voting to authorize subpoenas of Bush administration officials as part of investigations involving Gonzales.

In August 10 articles about President Bush's press conference the day before, The New York Times and USA Today uncritically reported Bush's attacks on Democrats over congressional investigations of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales without noting that congressional criticism of Gonzales has been bipartisan: numerous Republicans have called for Gonzales' resignation, several have criticized the administration's lack of cooperation with congressional investigations, and senior Republican Judiciary Committee members have joined Democrats in voting to authorize subpoenas of Bush administration officials as part of investigations involving Gonzales.

By contrast, the Associated Press reported on August 9: "Members of Congress from both parties have called Gonzales' credibility and leadership of the Justice Department into question after congressional testimony on a number of issues." Similarly, an August 9 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that Bush has "resisted bipartisan demands for Gonzales' resignation in the wake of the scandal involving fired U.S attorneys and allegations of politicization at the Justice Department."

[MannyGoldstein]

1. The NY Times Is Very Careful About Keeping News And Editorial Separate

They report the news straight, and don't bring non-news information in. So if Bush says that Democrats suck for going after Torquemada Gonzales, and no Republican happens to say something against Gonzales that day, you're just going to read about what Bush says - unless the Times also does an editorial or an obviously non-news piece.

They've noted the bipartisan hatred of Gonzales in news items and editorials, and have called for his removal from office by firing or impeachment.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Yes, but don't you just wonder if the NYT is holding back any more stories at the WH request?

They have before.

And that alone implies that they don't report the news very straight either.

Don

[MannyGoldstein]

3. If You're Referring To Warrantless Wiretapping - They Should Not Have Held It Up, But...

they did release it, despite Bush personally calling in the publisher and managing editor to the Oval Office and asking them not to. Defying that kind of request is not a trivial thing to do.

They're not perfect by any means - hell, I'm not either - but they have been far better behaved than the vast bulk of the media, and they publicly air (and apologize for) their dirty laundry.

[NNN0LHI]

4. They held back the story until after the last election was over with

By then it was too late to make a difference and we got bubble boy for 4 more years.

I agree they're not perfect by any means by any stretch of the imagination.

Don