About
	Contact Us
	Articles
	Topic Index
	Reports
	Quotes
	On the Web
	Links
	TW Tracker
	Support

Times Watch for November 17, 2004

Religious Right, but "Religious Left"

     David Kirkpatrick, the Times' man on the conservative beat, works the other side of the street on Wednesday, mulling post-election grumbling among Democrats in "Some Democrats Believe the Party Should Get Religion."

     Kirkpatrick opens: "Bested by a Republican campaign emphasizing Christian faith, some Democrats are scrambling to shake off their secular image, stepping up efforts to organize the 'religious left' and debating changes to how they approach the cultural flashpoints of same-sex marriage and abortion."

     Fair enough -- but why the quote marks? The religious left indeed exists, as Jim Wallis of the liberal evangelical group Sojourners (who is quoted by Kirkpatrick) would attest. Yet over the last six months the Times has used the phrase "religious left" just twice, and Kirkpatrick on Wednesday puts it in quotes, as if in ironic contrast to the far-more common term "religious right." Indeed, over the same period the phrase "religious right" crops up 14 times as a description in news stories, and is never enclosed in distancing quote marks but simply relayed as undeniable fact.

     Kirkpatrick goes on to include this labeling disparity, finding conservatives on one side but only "progressives" not liberals, on the other. Later he pits conservative Christians against "tolerance": "Democratic partisans are also stepping up efforts begun in the last months of the campaign to rally the churches and religious groups already inclined to take their side. Weekly campaign-season conference calls of progressive Christian leaders have become a forum to plot strategy and coordinate actions, just as they say conservatives have done….Even as Mr. Bush supported an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, he also emphasized tolerance, breaking with his most conservative Christian supporters to repeatedly say he favored allowing states to recognize same-sex couples in other ways, like civil unions."

For the rest of Kirkpatrick's story, click here.

• Campaign 2004 | Democrats | David Kirkpatrick | Labeling Bias | Religion | Religious Right | Jim Wallis

Condoleezza Rice, "Hard-Line Hawk"

     The historic nature of Condoleezza Rice's nomination to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state (she would be the first black female to serve in that position) is glossed over by the usually race-and-gender conscious Times, which in three Wednesday stories emphasizes her "hard-line" and "hawkish" views.

     David Sanger and Richard Stevenson's front-page story, "Cabinet Choices Seen as Move For More Harmony and Control," includes these ideologically loaded descriptions: "Some saw the departure of Mr. Powell as the moment for conservatives under the influence of Vice President Dick Cheney to assume an even larger role. But some officials who know Ms. Rice well do not expect her to take a hard-line hawkish view when she goes to State….But that leaves in place Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, a strong-willed hawk who often clashed with Ms. Rice."

     A Richard Stevenson solo effort notes: "Mr. Powell's departure has been widely seen as a victory for hard-liners in the administration who chafed at diplomacy in the face of what they saw as urgent threats to national security and a perhaps fleeting opportunity to promote democracy among Arab and Islamic nations. But it is not clear whether Ms. Rice, as secretary of state, will be any more prone to siding with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld than was Mr. Powell. An early test will be the selection of her No. 2 at the State Department. There was speculation that the White House might settle on John R. Bolton, currently under secretary of state for arms control and international security, who has been an architect of the administration's hard-line policies toward North Korea and Iran."

     And White House reporter Elisabeth Bumiller's front-page story, "Bush's Tutor and Disciple -- Condoleezza Rice," puts the onus on Rice to disprove her "hawkish" reputation: "Is she as hawkish as those who urged Mr. Bush to invade Iraq? Or is she more moderate like the men who have been her mentors, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Mr. Bush's father?.... Already a conservative, she became convinced, friends say, that she was helping to preside over nothing less than the struggle between modernity and fundamentalism, and evolved along with Mr. Bush into more of a hard-liner."

     Later, Bumiller blames Rice for damaging U.S. relationships with allies: "In the second term, [Rice friend Coit Blacker] said, Ms. Rice knows that her success will depend in large part on mending the relationships with allies that were damaged, partly by her, in the first. 'Punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia,' Ms. Rice was widely quoted as telling associates in the spring of 2003, when she and Mr. Bush were angry at the allies who had not backed them on the war."

For the rest of Sanger and Stevenson on Rice, click here.

For the full Stevenson story on Rice's promotion, click here.

For the rest of Bumiller's profile of Rice, click here.

• Elisabeth Bumiller | Foreign Policy | Iraq War | Colin Powell | Condoleezza Rice | David Sanger | Richard Stevenson

Is the New CIA Chief "Suppressing Dissent"?

     New C.I.A. chief Porter Goss won't be catching any breaks at the Times, judging by the coverage so far. The headline to Douglas Jehl's front-page story on Wednesday reads "New C.I.A. Chief Tells Workers To Back Administration Policies." The cut-out line: "The newest spymaster lays down the law. Some see his move as suppressing dissent."

     Eric Umansky, the Today's Papers' columnist for Slate, calls the Times' headline "an interesting take" and notes that by contrast, the Washington Post's more mild headline: "CIA Chief Seeks To Reassure Employees."

     Jehl's actual article is more balanced: "Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to 'support the administration and its policies in our work,' a copy of an internal memorandum shows. 'As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies,' Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking 'to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road. While his words could be construed as urging analysts to conform with administration policies, Mr. Goss also wrote, 'We provide the intelligence as we see it -- and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker.'"

For the rest of Jehl's story on the new boss at the C.I.A., click here.

• CIA | Porter Goss | Headlines | Douglas Jehl

E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org