| About | |
| Contact Us | |
| Articles | |
| Topic Index | |
| Reports | |
| Quotes | |
| On the Web | |
| Links | |
| TW Tracker | |
| Support | |
Times Watch for
April 26, 2004
Can We Find a “Liberal”?
The Times topped its front-page with Sunday’s march for abortion advocates, but reporter Robin Toner was still having difficulty using the “liberal” label for anyone woo marched or spoke in Washington yesterday.
At least the Times headline expressed the partisan political tenor of the rally (“Abortion-Rights Marchers Vow To Fight Another Bush Term”), unlike the Washington Post (“Women’s Rally Draws Vast Crowd”). But an ideological label might be a wise idea when Toner’s first paragraph refers to opposition to “the Bush administration and its conservative allies,” and then reports in the fourth paragraph: “Speaker after speaker declared that President Bush and his allies in Congress were trying to impose an ideological agenda on abortion and family planning programs, both at home and abroad.” Only one side of this divide is ideological?
On the front page alone, Toner noted Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Steinem (called “one of many feminist icons who turned out Sunday”), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. Wouldn’t “liberal” fit everyone on this list?
Inside the paper, after comment from White House spokesman Taylor Gross, Toner quoted Anthony Romero of the ACLU, and June Walker of Hadassah claiming, “Everywhere, it seems we have ideology creeping into women’s health policy.” Toner quoted Kate Michelman, leader of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and noted the major march sponsors: “In addition to Naral [why the lower case?], the ACLU, and the Feminist Majority, those sponsors were the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Organization for Women, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and the Black Women’s Health Imperative.” None of these groups were “liberal”?
(To her credit, Toner did note that protesters chanted at pro-life opponents “Pro-life, that’s a lie, you don’t care if women die,” a regular NOW marching slogan.)
Reporter Andrea Elliott had the same problem in her story on Latin American immigrants attending the march who were “Against Abortion but in Favor of Choice.” There were no liberals organizing their trip. Fabiola Pena told Elliott she thinks abortion is wrong, but “had seen the devastating consequences of outlawing abortion in their native countries; botched abortions, oversized families, neglected children. In some ways, they said, these real-life experiences speak lounder than the abstract but powerful anti-abortion belief system in which they were raised.”
At least Elliott reflected a bit of culture shock: “‘Loco! Loco!’ Ms. Orellana squealed. Staring back at her was a woman inside a three-foot-long felt and satin vagina…‘These people have no shame!’ Ms. Orellana said. ‘But it’s O.K.’ Ms. Flores replied, almost to herself.”
For the Toner story, click here.
For the Elliott story, click here.
The Many Faces of Bob Woodward
Arts and Leisure Editor Frank Rich traveled in a predictable pattern on Sunday, asserting that family members of Iraq soldiers and 9-11 victims were the new force in representing public opinion. He attacked President Bush’s “media allies” for their critiques of the politicized 9-11 widows the media have used to attack Bush: “this stab at damage control went nowhere. Knocking widowed ‘Jersey girls’ looks as un-American as badmouthing Bruce Springsteen.” But they were not called “un-American.” (For example, Dorothy Rabinowitz called them
“strident” and misguided,
but not “un-American.”)
Rich began his dirge with a historical comparison, from Woodward and Bush to the story of Lyndon Johnson “losing” the support of supposed opinion-meter Walter Cronkite:
“If Iraq were Vietnam, then Bob Woodward's appearance on ‘60 Minutes’ last Sunday night might have been when George W. Bush lost ‘Joe Public’ (the current Texan president's preferred term for Mr. Average Citizen). Mr. Woodward, the most famous of American reporters, has not been previously known for being tough on Mr. Bush. If he had been, the president would never have granted him hours of on-the-record interviews. But last Sunday, Mr. Bush appeared to have lost him. Mr. Woodward went so far as to editorialize that ‘some people’ may find the administration's covert financing of the run-up to the war in conflict with the Constitution.”
The nagging problem with Rich’s take is the different faces of Woodward: Woodward as outraged anti-Bush TV pitch man for his book, versus Woodward the pro-Bush, apple-polishing yes-man who drew out Team Bush like the consummate con man. Look no further than John Tierney’s brief piece in his “Political Points” column on page A-20. Tierney looked at the transcript of Woodward’s interview with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, wryly mocking the Woodward interviewing tactics:
* Nod frequently. To get ahead, Mr. Woodward repeatedly offers Mr. Rumsfeld encouragements like "I agree," "Well said," "That's great," "Thank God," "No question," "I am totally in sync with you on that" and "I totally understand exactly what you're saying." When Mr. Rumsfeld mentions the "enormous numbers of hours" spent by Mr. Bush deciding on the war, Mr. Woodward replies: "It's an exercise in patience, not impatience. Would you agree with that?" He gets no quarrel.
* Praise his boss. "Whether you like what the president did or don't like it, it is one of the gutsiest calls in history," Mr. Woodward says, alluding to the decision to go to war. He marvels at the many briefings of Mr. Bush and says, "He really had his hands in it, didn't he?" Mr. Rumsfeld adds his own dollops, telling how he and his wife "invariably" return from an evening at the White House and say, "Isn't that just a delight to be working with a person who is that way, who is that straightforward, that open, that comfortable with himself, that rooted — that has the confidence, courage, I guess the words you've used."
On Monday, White House reporter Elisabeth Bumiller tried to figure out in hyperbolic language why Team Bush both recommends Author Woodward to supporters (who might actually read him) and attacks Television Pitch Man Woodward (where most voters have seen Woodward’s descriptions of Bush as frighteningly rigid and religious, even flagrantly unconstitutional): “So if all the president's men, as Mr. Woodward might say, were so busy trashing ‘Plan of Attack,’ why were all the men and women at the president's re-election campaign determined to tell the world how much everyone should love the book?”
First, she reported, Bush strategist Karl Rove believes the book portrays the president as decisive and engaged. “The second factor is that the campaign is taking a cherry bomb and making cherries jubilee, or engaging in some classic political disinformation.” Although Bumiller reported the Bush campaign “gamed out their response to Mr. Woodward’s book in a strategy session several weeks ago,” she offered no examples of Bush campaign “disinformation.”
Bumiller followed the “cherry bomb” talk with more hyperbolic language. The White House would not go as harsh on Woodward as they “derided” the stories in a book on former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. “Nor was it going to go after Mr. Woodward in the way it tried to blow-torch Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief.” Blow-torch? For the record, a quick Nexis search shows the Times never put the word “blow torch” within five words of “Clinton” or “White House” during the Clinton presidency.
For the complete Frank Rich analysis, click here.
For the John Tierney feature, click here.
For Elisabeth Bumiller’s “White House Letter,” click here.
E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org