With a little over a week to go in this election, we can finally all come together in agreement on one issue. Whether you are voting for McCain: the logical vote, or voting for Obama: the emotional vote, or voting third party: the non-viable vote (unfortunately) – one thing has become clear. The mainstream press has given up all pretense of being unbiased in their coverage. They are blatantly shilling. Whether we like the candidate they are whoring for or not, any respect we could have is gone. The fourth estate has lost all legitimacy.
This final nail in the coffin was delivered by CNN earlier this week. By all accounts, CNN has been as neutral as possible during the election. They appear a little left of center by most accounts, yet they have been relatively even in their coverage. What respect they deserved is now gone too. On Tuesday night, Drew Griffin interviewed Governor Sarah Palin. Watch the video at about 1:25 in and listen to the question Mr. Griffin asks of Governor Palin. She is visibly shaken by it:
Now please read the actual paragraph that Mr. Griffin is quoting from the National Review. It was written by Byron York (not a difficult fact to find out Mr. Griffin) :
Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it’s sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or — or, well, all of the above. Palin, the governor of Alaska, has faced more criticism than any vice-presidential candidate since 1988… (full article here)
The first and last lines change the meaning a little don’t you think? To say Mr. Griffin quoted Mr. York to Governor Palin out of context would be an understatement. The National Review article now has an Editor’s Note that reads in part:
Editor’s note: Byron York’s recent article in National Review on Sarah Palin’s time as governor of Alaska became a campaign issue Tuesday when CNN’s Drew Griffin distorted its meaning in a high-profile interview with Palin.
You can, of course, Google all of this and you can read people’s outrage. You can even see the National Review author himself express dismay that his words were so misconstrued. But what you won’t read anywhere (at least at the time this is posted) is a retraction or apology from CNN. Apparently, they are content with their journalistic integrity… and that is the saddest comment of all.
LocalAgent says:
Talking about election bias in the media and calling McCain “the logical vote” deconstructs your argument from the get go. Mind you, I could think of plenty of Socratic syllogisms like:
Republicans screwed up the country
McCain is a republican
McCain screwed up the country
Is that what you mean by the logical vote?
October 23, 2008 — 8:26 pm
Sean Purcell says:
My observation (rather than argument) is that the media is biased and the least biased of the group just declared their resignation from the integrity club.
I never used the term “election bias.” (What, exactly, does that mean? A bias stemming from the act of electing? A bias in regard to whom should be elected? Isn’t that the very act of electing?) I did refer to media bias, in that based on their coverage of the campaings we can infer they are not neutral. Actually, we could infer that years ago. What I lament is the contempt displayed for even the appearance of neutrality.
I made no argument relating media bias with either a logical or emotional basis for voting. To deconstruct an argument that was never made would be quite a feat.
I believe an Obama vote to be based on emotion rather than logic, because Obama’s ideas do not follow stictly logical reasoning, yet his enthusiasm and passion elicit emotion. I believe a McCain vote to be based on logic rather than emotion, because his platform (such as it is), while only slightly more logical in progression than Obama’s, is decidely less enthusiastic and passionate (one might even say he exhibits the emotion of someone not altogether interested in winning). I did not qualify either method as better or worse.
No where did I engage in a syllogism (which, by the way, was defined by Aristotle, not Socrates). Nice word though…
October 23, 2008 — 10:10 pm
Rod Rebello says:
Looks like CNN has already reacted by removing this question from the video on their website. However, no mention that it was edited.
October 23, 2008 — 10:16 pm
Robert Kerr says:
The media.
First, they caused real estate to crash. Then, they caused the stock markets and economy to crash. Now they’re causing McCain to lose.
Why are they doing this to us?!
October 23, 2008 — 10:54 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Leon – Once the election is over the circus may end, but the clowns will stay with us until the public no longer supports them.
Rob – I notice that too. Their excerpt of the interview is very careful to bypass this eggregious act. It’s actually pretty tough to find a clip at all. I finally had to post the entire interview in order to show the 20 seconds of interest.
Robert – Cause vs contribute. Come on, you know better.
October 23, 2008 — 11:11 pm
Teri Lussier says:
The media.
Is clawing and grasping to stay relevant.
Why are we doing this to them?!
October 24, 2008 — 5:00 am
J Boyer Summit NJ says:
I did not see the interview and would rather see the interview than read about it because it is way too easy to draw a different conclusion that what the reality was. In any event, I am still of the opinion that Palin was a huge mistake for McCain and she has proved to not be up to the task of fending the media off. Palin just gives them to much ammunition to use against her, and it is clear she was chosen mainly as an attempt to get some of the disaffected Clinton vote.
I personally do not like Obama, and McCain is not my kind of person ether. Thinking of voting third party, if only to send a message of my displeasure with both parties for putting up such poor candidates.
October 24, 2008 — 6:05 am
Michael Cook says:
Can I take an opposing side for a moment? Media gives people what they want. If most of America is so simple as to believe at face value everything they see on tv, shame on them. Would candidates spend millions of dollars on negative ads if they didnt work? Would the media sensationalize coverage if they didnt get more ratings?
Falling on the Democrat side, I often look at Fox News in horror and wonder who on earth could watch such obviously biased and non-factual news (fair and balanced have never been so misused). Am I so simple as to believe everything CNN says by default. No way. There is too much access to factual information today to blame one of a million sources of news. If we continue to watch passively and do not hold them accountable for their failings, we are not doing our job.
Anyone that blames the media for the housing crisis is flat out wrong. Did they make it worse, sure they did but not by much and only because the average American is simple enough to let them do it. It is surprising to me that so many people here have the republican “get off your lazy ass and do something” spirit, but cop out and blame the media for biased coverage.
News by definition is biased. Reporting bland facts gets boring. Its up to us to push beyond entertainment and get the real facts.
October 24, 2008 — 6:31 am
Dave says:
“Apparently, they are content with their journalistic integrity… and that is the saddest comment of all.”
How true! A continuation of incompetence and malfeaseance that occured with:
-Buying the story put out about Bush being a uniter and capable of running this country
-Buying into the the deregulation garbage that got us into this mess
-Tax cuts for the wealthy generate jobs
-Accepting the reasons for invading Iraq
-allowing Bush to get away with signing statements to ignore the law
-allow electronic evesdropping on US citizens
We lost an independent press when we allowed major conglomerate ownership of media outlets (supposed to generate more profitable and efficient operation)
I guess we can now see the results of unregulated markets and capitalism. Not pretty is it? Still not happy? Guess what, we deserve it for allowing the Rove strategy to divide us with wedge issue politics. We bought into it and now we are going to pay an even greater price than we already have. Especially if Mccain and Palin are elected.
October 24, 2008 — 6:47 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Sean, I have to agree with LocalAgent’s point. Rhetorically, it functions very poorly to begin a piece about media bias with a very biased statement.
October 24, 2008 — 6:52 am
Sean Purcell says:
@ J Boyer – This in not a politcal post. Let’s keep our comments directed at the media’s bias (or lack thereof).
October 24, 2008 — 6:55 am
Arlington homes for sale says:
Imagine if Palin had made the comments Biden did on the a looming attack if Nobama wins the election as he would be tested….
the media would have hacked her to death. What does the insider & male Biden get? A pass.
The media is so pathetic; thank goodness for radio and internet, etc. for more sources of info. Of course the left want to selectively limit your options for media in the marketplace if they take power, but that can be saved for another day.
All the objectivists are asking is for both sides to get treated equally and vetted to the same degree. The irony is that Joe the Plumber received more vetting the past 2 weeks by the media than Obama’s list of shady alliances/friends the past 2 years.
It’s sick and it makes it hard to respect the people who get such a pass.
October 24, 2008 — 7:51 am
Jake Planton says:
Actually, CNN’s Griffin did come out and apologize. He said that he did not mean to say the quotation wrong. He says it aired once. As soon as they found out it was wrong, they edited that part of the interview out. Look it up, the apology is there.
October 24, 2008 — 8:29 am
Sean Purcell says:
Michael,
In general I agree with you. I honestly go back and forth in my opinion of the American pubic. At times I believe the old saw that crowds are dumb but people are intelligent. Then I watch TV commercials and see the average intelligence to which those are directed. Very scary.
If we continue to watch passively and do not hold (the media) accountable for their failings, we are not doing our job.
I think you nailed it on the head. It is not so much that people can be simple of dumb, but rather lazy. They are bombarded by headlines and sound bites and never take the time to delve deeper. If they did, media bias would not make much difference.
October 24, 2008 — 8:44 am
Bob says:
There is clearly network bias here that goes beyond what we have ever witnessed prior. SNL on Thursday nights featuring not much more than a Palin caricature, and last night a spot with Will Ferrel as W saying “A vote for McCain is a vote for me”. While cloaked in humor, it is still blatant network campaigning.
I listened to a democratic columnist from the NY Times last night echoing that Biden got a free pass on that comment, and that if Palin had said that, she would have been lambasted. Biden gets off with a “That’s just Biden being Biden”.
The CNN piece took the cake though.
Also watched CNN’s Larry King with Michael Moore. I actually like listening to Moore’s arguments, as he is far smarter than those who interview him. He sets up the interviewer as opposed to being set up, but sometimes, like last night, it demonstrates the bias of the media in a vacuum of critical thinking.
Moore went off about the bailout of Wall Street and the rich, but given the perfect opportunity, King didn’t bother to ask why Obama didn’t oppose it.
October 24, 2008 — 8:51 am
Stan says:
Always follow the money….who owns the media and what is their agenda? He who has the gold makes the rules.
October 24, 2008 — 8:52 am
Sean Purcell says:
Dave,
The press is duplicitous with both the right and the left. While most of your points reflect a lack of investigation more than a bias, I imagine that laziness is tied direcly to a willingness to go along with the public’s fever at the time and that is just as bad. The press (in my perfect world) would be objective. They would neither have a bias nor allow executive power to run amok because the populace is scared.
I guess we can now see the results of unregulated markets and capitalism
While agreeing with your media conclusion despite the demagoguery, this statement is not supportive. Nor is it accurate by any objective standard. Continually repeating it does not make it so.
October 24, 2008 — 8:56 am
Sean Purcell says:
Teri – LOL
Arlington Home Sales – It’s sick and it makes it hard to respect the people who get such a pass – my respect is lowered (to the degree that is even possible) for the press more so than a candidate campaigning. At least I know the candidate is biased.
October 24, 2008 — 9:01 am
Sean Purcell says:
Eric,
Reread my comment to LocalAgent. This is not a biased statement (although upon reflection it could have been worded better). “A logical vote” does not mean the same thing as “the logical choice.” I am addressing the underlying motivation behind various votes (in my opinion). Neither candidate can follow through on the promises (lies? bribes?) they have made to curry our favor. Within that realm, Obama’s promises are less logical to an objective observer and McCain’s promises hold less passion (interest?) for an office that carries the ultimate in responsibility. Hence, McCain is the choice if logical continuity of promises (or, more accurately, least illogical) is your filter and Obama is the choice if passion for the job is your filter. These are differences of impetus, not quality.
October 24, 2008 — 9:22 am
Thomas Johnson says:
The old media is invested in a democrat sweep so that they get the Fairness Doctrine. In their minds eliminating the new media will restore their elite preeminence and all will be well with the world. The shrillness of their support for the left belies their desperation at remaining relevant.
October 24, 2008 — 9:31 am
Thomas Johnson says:
Sean: You are absolutely correct in the logic of McCain being the logical choice. A former cocaine user (as Obama has admitted in his memoir) would not qualify in the US Armed Forces as the lowliest private on the outer ring of a nuclear weapons site. Obama should not qualify for a Top Secret clearance. The DOD calls it the Personnel Reliability Program. The US Commander in Chief is the only person in the US chain of command who is not subject to two-person control in the release and use of nuclear weapons.
October 24, 2008 — 9:41 am
Thomas Johnson says:
@Jake- They always apologize after the damage is done…Kind of like the collateral damage in war that they so abhor. They have no problem destroying the Republican on the front page and then apologizing later on page 44b.
October 24, 2008 — 9:46 am
Sean Purcell says:
Jake,
I did look it up. I could not find it searching CNN’s site and finally had to Google for it. Reports on the 22nd have CNN not responding to this “misquote” (although it is quite possible they excised that portion from the video right away as they have stated).
The apology is disingenuous to say the least. He refers to this as a “botched” quote. Go back and watch the interview again:
That is a pretty direct line he is drawing, not a “botched” quote. When asked by Governor Palin who wrote the article he is “quoting,” he looks directly at his paperwork but cannot come up with the name. In Mr. Griffin’s on air apology with Wolf Blitzer he says I misquoted York by using the word ‘I’ instead of reading his direct quote, which I had in front of me, which attributes the statement to the media. The article does, in fact, use the word “I” and does not attribute the media. This is a contextual quote and there is no way for Mr. Griffin to miss that. Also, if he “had (the quote) in front of (him)” how does he not also have the author’s name. Would you ever right down a quote you planned on using in an on-air interview but neglect to write down the author? Only if you planned on misconstruing the quote to further a point not contained in the quote.
By the way, in Mr. Griffin’s first on air apology, with Kyra Phillips, she helps give the impression that this is Governor Palin’s fault for interrupting him! Imagine the hubris. Read more here.
October 24, 2008 — 10:33 am
Sean Purcell says:
Bob – the bias of the media in a vacuum of critical thinking – I wish I had said that…
Thomas – their desperation at remaining relevant – Isn’t that the strangest thing? Someone is deperate to remain relevant and so exhibits a bias that ensures their irrelevance.
October 24, 2008 — 10:38 am
Jeff Brown says:
CNN’s interview speaks for itself.
Their subsequent editing of the video after having their pants pulled down, speaks even more loudly.
Griffin’s apology? Can’t decide whether accepting that on face value is naive, or, at this point in media’s slide, just plain stupid. Can we as a nation please get on a learning curve?
Also, Sean is making my day by demonstrating so ably that words mean things. Distorting ideas, and the words used to define them to one’s own use, either ignorantly, or purposefully, is not an argument. Rather, it’s an announcement to the world how little value is given to ideas, which are, if nothing else dependent upon the words used to define them.
In the arena of ideas, so many fall shamefully short of the bar. Words mean things. Ideas matter. The rest is meaningless chatter designed to avoid the very ideas proffered.
Stellar job, Sean
October 24, 2008 — 10:57 am
Eric Bramlett says:
It could have been worded much better, if it was intended as an unbiased statement. “Logical” implies reason and intelligence. “Emotional” implies irrational. Personally, I have strong logical reasons for supporting the Democratic ticket.
October 24, 2008 — 11:18 am
Sean Purcell says:
In the arena of ideas… Words mean things. Ideas matter.
For multiple examples of the truth in this statement, go here.
October 24, 2008 — 11:18 am
Sean Purcell says:
Eric,
I read your “strong, logical reasons” last week. I appreciate your input, but I am comfortable with my statement.
October 24, 2008 — 11:26 am
John Sabia says:
Excellent point. Journalistic integrity? what’s that?.
October 24, 2008 — 11:28 am
Rob says:
How does the clip at 1:25 say anything at all about media bias? He is quoting a conservative editorialist and asking what she thinks about it. I did not notice her to be ‘visibly shaken’.
There have been several conservative journalists who have questioned Palin’s abilities, intelligence and experience so this isn’t an anomaly and it completely destroys the notion that liberal journalists have lead an organized campaign to make her look bad. It’s a legitimate question and here was an opportunity for her to defend herself. Isn’t that a good thing?
It’s got to be better than having people hear that she spent 3-4 times the median annual income on a month’s worth of clothing.
As far as McCain being a ‘logical’ choice and Obama an ’emotional’ one- that’s completely absurd. The Republicans for the last ten years have made decisions based on ‘gut’, ‘principle’, ‘conviction’, and ‘tradition’- seemingly everything but ‘facts’. Palin herself was chosen to excite the base, and look how well she’s done- her appeal is solely emotional.
October 24, 2008 — 12:48 pm
David Shafer says:
Having spent some years “crafting” messages in my previous occupation as a trial consultant and having listened to “political spinmeisters” brag about how they destroyed Clinton’s health care ideas by simply attaching emotionally charged words to the arguments, I gotta say that all “political spinmeisters” buy into the idea that people vote on emotions, not logic. What scared me at the time was that they had the data to back up their assertions! I think this election is no different, other than the emotions are working for the Democrats instead of the Republicans this time!
October 24, 2008 — 2:05 pm
Robert Kerr says:
Actually, CNN’s Griffin did come out and apologize. He said that he did not mean to say the quotation wrong. He says it aired once. As soon as they found out it was wrong, they edited that part of the interview out. Look it up, the apology is there.
Oh, you must be making that up, you Liberal Media apologist.
I bet you’re a Socialist, too. Here … take the Socialism test – do you think a billionaire should pay any more income tax than a minimum wage worker?
If you answered yes, you’re a commie. Go live in Russia or Cuba, you pinko.
October 24, 2008 — 2:05 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Rob,
Read the source material again. Might help you to read the comments as well. You missed most of the points, but I will address one new one you brought up only in that it reflects the misleading bias I am talking about.
She didn’t spend any money “on a month’s worth of clothes.” More research, less headlines.
October 24, 2008 — 2:12 pm
Sean Purcell says:
David – Can’t say I disagree with you on emotion being a stronger force than logic in most people’s decisions, right or left.
Robert – Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Your wisdom is always appreciated.
October 24, 2008 — 2:18 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Geez, I almost forgot: Brian, can you see the els from here?
October 24, 2008 — 2:23 pm
Thomas Johnson says:
@Robert: I think that neither a billionaire nor a minimum wage earner should pay income tax. Income tax inherently by its nature punishes success and rewards sloth. Furthermore, I have never seen a minimum wage worker create a job for another.
October 24, 2008 — 3:05 pm
Dave Waltman says:
Everyone is biased. You. Me. Every journalist ever. Even if only facts are reported you have to ask which facts get airplay. Those with the power of language always get to tell the story…usually to their advantage.
October 24, 2008 — 6:16 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Sean –
Thank you for taking a very small part of my logical reasoning and representing it as a whole. Very straw man of you.
October 25, 2008 — 12:41 am
Sean Purcell says:
Eric,
We may not always agree, but I do enjoy your wit. 🙂
October 25, 2008 — 3:31 am