| About | |
| Contact Us | |
| Articles | |
| Topic Index | |
| Reports | |
| Quotes | |
| On the Web | |
| Links | |
| TW Tracker | |
| Support | |
Times Watch for
May 3, 2004
Liar, Liar, Web Site on Fire
Media reporter Jim Rutenberg’s story was headlined “New Internet Site Turns Critical Eyes and Ear to the Right.” He’s not kidding about the newness: www.mediamatters.org apparently hit the Web on Friday. Brock said he “hoped his new project could be as influential as the Media Research Center.” Times Watch and the MRC will take that as a compliment, but despite being founded in 1987, neither Times Watch nor the MRC has ever been quite influential enough to be highlighted in a New York Times profile. This kind of publicity might mean millions in contributions to the new site, a project of the also-new Center for American Progress run by former Clinton consigliere John Podesta (and perhaps a few residual nickels for MRC). It’s too bad the favor was never presented to the conservative watchdogs.
Rutenberg does devote serious attention to Brock’s first problem: his self-confessed lying for the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” which is rarely offered in any detail. If he’s a big liar, then how does he build a profile as the reliable critic of “erroneous assertions”? Rutenberg allowed MRC Chairman Brent Bozell to underline that point, and to counter the idea that the MRC has dragged the “mainstream media” away from its historically liberal orientation.
It’s just too bad that the length demands of the Times don’t allow any old perspective on Brock’s act of publicly apologizing for “brutally criticizing” Anita Hill and for relaying the charges of Arkansas state troopers that they “helped procure paramours when he was the governor of Arkansas, the veracity of which he is no longer sure.” Is this really a matter for doubt? After the Starr report and the verdict of Clinton lying about the trooper-assisted Paula Jones incident, isn’t it a little late for agnosticism on this front?
For the complete Rutenberg story, click here.
• Jim Rutenberg | David Brock | Media Research Center
Risen’s Gross Sex-Abuse Story
Times reporter James Risen concluded his front-page story on Monday with the claim of Specialist Matthew Wisdom, of the372nd Military Police Company at Abu Ghraib, that he saw “two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with his mouth open.” That is a very graphic charge, hardly the sort of information that any broadcast news outlet could explain on the air. (In fact, editorialist Adam Cohen defended the free speech rights of Howard Stern on the editorial page today without doing the graphic courtesy of explaining what Stern’s show did to get canned by Clear Channel stations.)
The extreme frankness of this explosive charge is curious when put next to another Times story from Abu Ghraib. Last July, Times reporter Amy Waldman offered a very pessimistic dispatch about the failures of U.S. nation-building in Abu Ghraib, which quoted an Iraqi saying conditions in the town had “never been worse.” Waldman mentioned only in passing that Abu Ghraib was “home to Iraq’s most notorious prison.”
For the Risen story, click here.
For last July’s critique of Waldman, click here.
• James Risen | Amy Waldman | Iraq War
The “Nonpolitical” Democratic Response?
In two full stories in the print edition this weekend regarding Lt. Paul Rieckhoff— a National Guardsman who delivered the weekly Democratic radio address— the Times downplayed the partisan tone of Rieckhoff’s address while parroting Kerry campaign spin that Rieckhoff’s response to President Bush’s weekly address was unusual, coming from a non-political figure.
Readers of the Times got a preview Saturday morning, in an article by Carl Hulse, "Iraq Veteran Will Deliver War Critique For Democrats." Hulse began: "A National Guard member from New York who served almost a year in Iraq will deliver the national Democratic radio address on Saturday morning, filling a role usually reserved for prominent members of Congress and other political figures." The word “elected” would have been understandable, but Rieckhoff cannot be accurately described as an apolitical figure.
Hulse explained the Kerry campaign provided biographical information and claimed that Rieckhoff came to them, and not vice versa: "According to information from the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry, Lieutenant Rieckhoff is a resident of New York who was living in Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, and helped in the rescue efforts that day and later at ground zero with his National Guard unit. Kerry campaign officials said Lieutenant Rieckhoff approached them and was one of several Iraq veterans who had contacted the campaign with concerns about the war." So how is Lt. Rieckhoff not “political” if he was volunteering to help Kerry attack Bush?
On Sunday, Times reporter Anthony Ramirez followed Hulse’s lead and downplayed Rieckhoff’s partisan tone. While Rieckhoff is a registered Democrat who "approached the Democratic Party about his concerns about the war...He is one of only a few nonpolitical figures to deliver the Democrats’ response, said a Kerry campaign official." Although Ramirez did use three passages from the address, he did not quote the more strident partisan statements from Lt. Rieckhoff, including one suggesting that Bush lacked both courage and competence: “The soldiers I served with are men and women of extraordinary courage and incredible capability. But it's time we had leadership in Washington to match that courage and match that capability.”
For the complete Hulse story, click here.
For the complete Ramirez account, click here.
For the Kerry press release, complete with a transcript of Rieckhoff’s radio talk, click here.
• Carl Hulse | Anthony Ramirez | Iraq War | George W. Bush
E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org