# Posted 11:42 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHY CAN'T THE PRESS BE FAIR TO HILLARY? I may like what they're saying, but I still know the difference between facts and spin. Here are the most flagrant parts of a front-page story about Mrs. Clinton from Wednesday's WaPo:

In the 6 1/2 years since she was elected to the Senate, Clinton has paid close attention to the constituent services and pork-barrel politics that earned one of her predecessors, Republican Alfonse M. D'Amato, the nickname "Senator Pothole."...

[Clinton's] emphasis on small-scale initiatives rather than ambitious ones was famously championed by Mark Penn, her campaign pollster and chief strategist, when he worked for President Bill Clinton nearly a decade ago...

Over time, she has evolved into a hybrid legislator, a figure of outsize influence but limited scope, offering no big initiatives...

Her tenure speaks more to her work habits than to the ambitious vision many voters tend to look for in a presidential hopeful...

Clinton has carved out an unusual niche in her six years on Capitol Hill: Senator Pothole with a celebrity twist. Too new to sit on the Appropriations Committee, the traditional pipeline to pork, Clinton compensates by taking advantage of her high profile and a deep Rolodex to dole out favors like a ward boss -- even as she launches a White House campaign.

Maybe some of you are still expecting a punchline like "Haha. Those are actually quotes from a nasty editorial in the National Review." But no, they're not.

Naturally, all of this raises the question of whether the media has a liberal bias or is really just an equal-opportunity pol basher. Of course, it isn't that simple. Yes, journalists are negative by training. But that negativism appears in many interesting and unpredictable ways.

The most interesting contrast right now is in the red-carpet coverage being given to Obama and the cynical interpretations of absolutely everything done by Hillary. Personally, I think it comes down to perceptions of authenticity. He creates them, she doesn't.

Labels: Hillary, Media

(7) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:15 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

BAD PRESS FOR McCAIN: Here's the opening sentence of a front-page article about McCain from Thursday's WaPo:

In the seven years since John McCain and his "Straight Talk Express" nearly derailed George W. Bush's White House ambitions, the blunt-spoken senator from Arizona has become the very picture of the highly managed presidential candidate he once scorned.

I'm sorry, was that an editorial that accidentally got printed on the front page? (For the record, no it wasn't.)

But let's put aside the usual OxBlog gripe about media partisanship. The more interesting question may be whether anti-McCain sentiment is gaining momentum in the media. A couple of weeks ago, I laid out my working hypothesis that journalists will take shots at McCain precisely because of his sterling reputation, but that those shots won't add up to a coherent anti-McCain narrative. But I could be wrong.

The headline of Thursday's front-pager in the Post was "McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid". The press corps may run with that. Personally, I think it's BS. McCain has made nice to his old enemies, principally Bush and Falwell, but he hasn't changed his beliefs to accommodate anyone.

The problem is, much of McCain's positive coverage before may have reflected the press corps' embrace of all those, especially Republicans, who openly antagonize the Right. Thus, even if McCain's values and policy positions remain the same, it may not matter to the opinion-makers.

Finally, there is the proverbial elephant in the room: the war in Iraq. McCain's uncompromising commitment to an unpopular war means he isn't the kind of maverick journalists were hoping for. But perhaps the press corps will recognize that it is precisely the same "maverick spirit of 2000" that has led McCain to stand firm on the most controversial issue of today.

Labels: John McCain, Media

(18) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:09 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

JOURNALISTS LAUGH AT ROMNEY: Mitt Romney should be grateful that NBC includes nothing but words in its transcripts for Meet the Press. On MTP transcripts, there are no parenthetical remarks about relevant sounds such as (Applause) or (Laughter). Consider the following exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: Byron York, the one thing that Governor Romney has done, however, is talked about his positions on abortion, on gay rights, on stem cell research, and his positions have evolved on all of those.

MS. GOODWIN: “Evolved” is a nice word.

MR. RUSSERT: Doesn’t that complicate his problem? You heard Senator Kennedy talking about divorce and birth control.

MR. YORK: Right.

Pretty normal stuff. But if MTP transcripts included more than just words, here's how the exchange would've gone:

MR. RUSSERT: Byron York, the one thing that Governor Romney has done, however, is talked about his positions on abortion, on gay rights, on stem cell research, and his positions have evolved on all of those.

MS. GOODWIN: “Evolved” is a nice word.

[Spontaneous burst of raucous laughter from usually poker-faced journalists.]

MR. RUSSERT: Doesn’t that complicate his problem? You heard Senator Kennedy talking about divorce and birth control.

MR. YORK: Right.

When you say that something couldn't pass the laugh test, you usually aren't expecting to be taken literally. But Romney's changes of heart are so convenient, it seems hard even for journalists to feign objectivity.

Labels: Flip-flops, Media, Mitt Romney, Tim Russert

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:07 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

ANOTHER POST NOT ABOUT ISRAEL...but still about Meet the Press. Russert finished off the hour with a roundtable featuring David Broder, Gwen Ifill, Howard Kurtz and Roger Simon. (No, not that Roger Simon.)

It's amazing to watch how these veteran journalists talk about Obama and Hillary. They are all acutely aware of how the coverage favors of Obama, yet they can't stop themselves from praising Obama and criticising Hillary. I listen and I think to myself, I'm just about ready to put money on Obama winning the nomination.

First comes Obama's religion:

MR. RUSSERT: David Broder, my ear heard something that I had not heard from Democratic candidates in some time. Up front, Senator Obama began his speech with references to his faith, and then came back to that same issue in the speech. Let’s watch.

(Videotape, Saturday)


SEN. OBAMA: Giving all praise and honor to God for bringing us together here today.
It was in these neighborhoods that I received the best education that I ever had and where I learned the meaning of my Christian faith.

(End of videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: What’s that about?

Well, Tim, if your memory were a bit sharper, you might remember how just after the 2005 election everyone was talking about Tim Kaine broke the Democratic mold by focusing on his personal religion. Joe Lieberman also talks a lot about being a Buddhist or Hindu or whatever he is.

On a related note, Hillary must be quite mad, since she has also tried to advertise the importance of her faith (for example in her autobiography), but never gets any credit for it. For that matter, Russert ought to remember how Bill Clinton constantly invoked God as president.

What's going on here, in part, is that Obama simply comes off as more sincere. I think it's very important that he used the word "Christian". This is mostly a guess, but I think that voters who care about a pol's religion are suspicious of those who subscribe to some vague, unidentified faith that involves a pleasant God everyone can be friends with. Thus, the fact that Lieberman is specifically Jewish made his faith seem more real.

What I'm curious to know is whether Obama will talk the next step and explicitly refer not just to Christianity, but to Jesus.

The next question about Obama is how he can explain away his explicit commitments both after his election to the Senate and then in early 2006 not to run for President in 2008. Here's how Obama explained the change to Russert late last year:

SEN. OBAMA: Well, the—that is how I was thinking at that time, and, and—you know, I, I don’t want to be coy about this—given the responses that I’ve been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility.

MR. RUSSERT: But it’s fair to say you’re thinking about running for president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: It’s fair, yes.

Insisting that he didn't want to be coy was the perfect move. Journalists love self-awareness. Did Obama provide any real explanation of why his solemn commitment to serve the voters of Illinois was no longer valid? No, but he won over Tim Russert anyhow:

MR. RUSSERT: Howard Kurtz, no parsing, no denial, saying in his own words, not being coy, that’s somewhat unusual for many politicians when they clearly change their mind.

And then this:

MR. RUSSERT: Is that how [Obama]’s going to run, as the outsider?

MR. SIMON: Yes. He is not the candidate of Washington. Hillary Clinton is the candidate of Washington. That’s his message.

None of the panelists disagreed. In contrast, here's what they said about Hillary:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Hillary Clinton. She was in New Hampshire yesterday. Her first appearance there in 10 years. And it was quite striking how many times she was asked about her position on the war. Here she is being asked in Berlin, New Hampshire, by a voter, a very serious question. Let’s watch that exchange.

(Videotape)

Unidentified Man: And I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all, without nuance, you can say that that war authorization vote was a mistake. And the reason I want to ask is because a lot of other senators have already done so, including some Republicans and including one of your competitors, Senator Edwards. And the reason I ask personally is because I, and I think a lot of other Democratic primary voters, until we hear you say that, we’re not going to hear all these other great things you’re saying.

SEN: HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that, knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it. But I also—and, I mean, obviously you have to weigh everything as you make your decision. I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged.

(End videotape)

If you listen to the MT podcast, you will hear a few tepid applause for Hillary. Being anti-Bush is not enough. The primary voters want an anti-war candidate.

Here's how the roundtable analyzed the situation:

MR. SIMON: It’s dead serious. The questions come because she refuses to make Iraq part of her stump speech. And I think, and many disagree with me, that her current position not to apologize, not to say it was a mistake, is an untenable position for her...

MR. BRODER: A reporter from The Post, Chris Cillizza, who was up there, reported that the man who asked Senator Clinton that question said afterwards, “I’m not satisfied with that answer, and I can’t vote for her until she gives me a better answer.”

MR. RUSSERT: Howie Kurtz:

MR. KURTZ: Tim, it also feeds the image that the many journalists have of Senator Clinton as being a kind of a cold and calculating and triangulating politician.

What has the poor woman done to deserve all this?

Labels: Hillary, Media, Obama, Tim Russert

(3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DOES THE US MEDIA FAVOR ISRAEL? A SYSTEMATIC LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE: No debate about Israel and the Palestinians can go for long without arriving at the subject of media bias.

A very important question that advocates of the Palestinian cause often ask is why American public opinion tends to favor Israel so strongly even though the evidence clearly demonstrates (in their eyes) that Israel is the principal author of violence and suffering in this conflict. The question of American public opinion is so important because it is this pro-Israel sentiment that ensures American support for Israel, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House.

One answer I've come across on several occasions is that the US media pays far greater attention to the suffering of Israelis and the misbehavior of the Palestinians than to Palestinian suffering and Israeli human rights violations. It is often followed by the argument that the US media favors Israel because the Jewish lobby and its allies punish any and every public figure who questions the consensus about Israel.

This answer came up again during a discussion about the conflict that I've been having with a colleague of mine. I registered my disagreement with her answer to the ever present question, but admitted that I was not familiar with any systematic investigations of the evidence. As such, I would do my best to keep an open mind about the subject if my colleague would recommend a study of the subject with which she was familiar. (As OxBlog readers know, I never dismiss out of hand accusations of media bias.)

As a result of my request, I found myself directed to "The Illusion of Balance", a study by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) of how much attention NPR pays to the deaths of Palestinians as opposed to Israelis. The study took a close look at six months worth of transcripts for all of NPR's four main news programs. The six months in question were January through June 2001 -- the first six months of the Bush presidency, three months before 9/11, and the early months of the Al Aqsa (Second) Intifada.

In short, the study delivered a devastating indictment of NPR's coverage:

During the six-month period studied, NPR reported the deaths of 62 Israelis and 51 Palestinians. While on the surface that may not appear to be hugely lopsided, during the same time period 77 Israelis and 148 Palestinians were killed in the conflict. That means there was an 81 percent likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34 percent likelihood that a Palestinian death would be.

Of the 30 Palestinian civilians under the age of 18 that were killed, six were reported on NPR--only 20 percent. By contrast, the network reported on 17 of the 19 Israeli minors who were killed, or 89 percent. While 61 percent of the young people killed in the region during the period studied were Palestinian, only 26 percent of those reported by NPR were. Apparently being a minor makes your death more newsworthy to NPR if you are Israeli, but less newsworthy if you are Palestinian.

An Israeli civilian victim was more likely to have his or her death reported on NPR (84 percent were covered) than a member of the Israeli security forces (69 percent). But Palestinians were far more likely to have their deaths reported if they were security personnel (72 percent) than if they were civilians (22 percent). Of the 112 Palestinian civilians killed in the Occupied Territories during the period studied, just 26 were reported on NPR. Of the 28 Israeli civilians killed in the Territories--mostly settlers--21 were reported on NPR.

To the credit of FAIR, it posted a spreadsheet online that included all of the relevant data. Yet this same data is the study's undoing.

Let's start with the fact that NPR reported the death of 17 out of 19 Israeli minors, but only 6 out of 30 Palestinians. Who were those 17 Israeli minors? 11 of them were killed in a massive suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on June 1, 2001. 2 of them were beaten and stoned to death together in a wadi on May 8. Two more were killed in a suicide bombing on March 28. The final two were infants, one killed by a stone on June 11, one killed by a sniper (!) on March 26.

Who were the 30 Palestinian minors? One was an infant, killed on May 7 by Israeli military gunfire. His death was reported by NPR. Six were between the ages of 9 and 13, all killed in separate incidents, five by Israeli gunfire and one by shelling. Two of their six deaths were reported. The remaining 23 minors were young men between the ages of 14 and 17, all killed by Israeli gunfire in separate incidents. Three of their deaths were reported.

What do we know about these 23 young men? Some of them may have been innocent victims. Yet in guerrilla conflicts across the globe, young men take up arms to fight for causes in which they passionately believe, including many Palestinians. How many of these 23 young men armed and engaged in combat with Israeli soldiers? How many were unarmed but playing a supporting role in a combat situation?

I have no idea. The FAIR study says absolutely nothing about what these young men were doing when they were shot. Nor does it raise the possibility that they were combantants. Yet amazingly, it unequivocally describes these young men as civilians without any evidence to confirm that status.

While we are on the subject of civilians, let us take a look at the assertion that NPR only reported 22% of Palestinians civilian deaths, as opposed to 84% of Israelis. Let's look at the Israeli side first. 61 of the 77 Israelis killed in the first six months of 2001 were civilians. (It is worth noting, however, that 7 of the soldiers killed during that period were victims of a Palestinian man who used a bus to ram a group of soldiers hitching rides by the side of a road. An additional soldier was killed by the same suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed so many teenagers.)

35 of the 61 Israeli civilians were killed in incidents that resulted in the death of more than one Israeli civilian. This distinction is important because there is an old saying in journalism that "If it bleeds, it leads." Gore makes the front page. Ever obedient to that rule, NPR reported the death of all 35 Israeli civilians who died in twos or more. Moreover, at least 33 of those 35 died as victims of suicide bombings or other attacks in which the attackers very purpose was to slaughter civilians. That addendum is essential, because it indicates there was no moral ambiguity, only terrorists and victims.

In the case of the Palestinians, there was considerable ambiguity. As noted above, FAIR has a very unusual approach to determining who is a civilian. Only those Palestinians serving in the official PA security services are listed as non-civilians. 36 of them lost their lives in the first 6 months of 2001. Since a total of 148 Palestinians were killed, that leaves 112 listed by FAIR as civilians. 30 of those were the minors mentioned above, leaving 82 adults.

Although FAIR provides no evidence to support its assertion that these 82 were non-combatants, the age and gender of the fallen tell a very interesting story. Only a handful of the 82 were women. More than 50 were men between the ages of 18 and 30. Another 20 or so were between 30 and 50, along with a handful who were older.

In short, this is the demographic profile of a fighting force. If the Israelis killed indiscriminately, the casualties should not be overwhelming young and male. Again, it bears repeating that I don't know how these men died. Everything I know comes from the spreadsheet provided by FAIR. In fact, it is entirely possible that Israeli soldiers used disproportionate force to dispel rock-throwing crowds or even peaceful protesters and that many of the Palestinian deaths were unnecessary.

But the problem here isn't what I don't know. It is what FAIR argues without the evidence to back it up. In addition to suggesting that NPR discounts the value of young Palestinian lives, FAIR suggests that NPR intentionally balances the number of Israeli and Palestinian deaths it covers so that "NPR can claim it is simply 'reporting both sides'." Finally, FAIR suggests that NPR does so because of its "fear of appearing anti-Israel."

But the data tell a different story. What NPR covered most was terrorism -- the intentional murder of civilians, especially when more than one was killed at a time. One might argue that a focus on terrorism is not the best way to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that is very different from arguing that the US media devalue Palestinian life and fear the retribution of the Jewish lobby.

Now, the exposure of this one study doesn't put to rest the issue of media bias. This is just one sample of the evidence and how it is (mis)intepreted. But it serves as a good illustration of how media criticism may expose the bias of the critic more than that of the media.

Labels: Israel, Media, Palestinians

(14) opinions -- Add your opinion