Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google is biased to the right.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 12:21 AM
Original message is biased to the right.

This shows the difference between the way the media treated the SwiftBoatVeterans ads
and NARAL's ads against John Roberts.

A different standard

Contrary to its willingness to pass judgment on NARALs ad, Fact-Check cautiously avoided venturing any opinion about the Swift Boat ads. In its analysis of the August 4, 2004 ad (8/6/04), FactCheck cited a great deal of evidence that contradicted the ads claimsincluding the official Naval records and testimony from sailors who actually served on Kerrys boat, as well as conflicting previous testimony from some Swift Boat Vets themselves. After noting these contradictions, FactChecks conclusion was nevertheless explicitly ambivalent: At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.

When discussing the Swift Boat ads on NPR (8/9/04), FactChecks Jackson cautiously called the Swift Boat Vets and the Kerry versions of the medals two different views of reality, rebuking a caller who termed the allegations lies by saying, We cant call these lies. Of course, if Jackson believed that one couldnt call one side of this debate a lie, then he should have labeled as false the Swift Boat ads claim (repeated four times) that Kerrys view was a liesomething he refused to do.

On CNN, after the groups second ad aired, Soledad OBrien (8/25/04) asked Jackson if the ad was based on the facts over the topand Jacksons response, once again, was equivocal: Different people are going to come to different opinions on that when they look at the full recordwhich you cant do in four minutes, obviously.

Jackson could, of course, have said the same thing about NARALs adsubstituting 30 seconds for four minutes. Taking that position would have meant holding an attack on a Republican Supreme Court nominee to the same standard as an attack on a Democratic presidential candidatesomething which, for whatever reason, FactCheck seemed disinclined to do. The group that media analysts pointed to as the North Star of accuracy turned out to be a spinning weather vane. And in the absence of a left-wing media echo chamber to take up its cause, the NARAL adand its criticisms of Robertsbecame a striking casualty of an unbalanced media playing field.

...and again, this is why we need our own media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Remember Cheney cited them in his debate in 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. That's what I call "pulling a cheney."

And every time someone uses ".com" for a site that isn't a ".com" I kid them about pulling a Cheney.

Although the OP may be right, the bias is less than most places, and by the time people got to the real site rather than the snaked host, factcheck had an anti-cheney article up.

Ah yes, fun times those were, back when we though America had enough democracy left in it to cut this administration short.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 23rd 2017, 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC