Ex-ABC Head Westin Denies Liberal Bias, Rationalizes Greater Media Focus on Romney's Wealth

By Brad Wilmouth | May 23, 2012 | 06:25

A A

Appearing as a guest on Tuesday's The O'Reilly Factor to promote his book, Exit Interview, former ABC News president David Westin denied seeing a liberal bias among his colleagues when he was head of ABC News, and, when confronted by a recent study by the MRC's Business and Media Institute, rationalized the greater attention the media have paid to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's wealth this year as opposed to Democratic nominee John Kerry's wealth in 2004.

Host Bill O'Reilly began by recounting the recent MRC study documenting the imbalance in media treatment of Kerry versus Romney, giving Westin - who was head of ABC News in 2004 but has since retired - a chance to respond. Westin argued that the economy is a bigger issue this year than it was in 2004:

And my recollection in 2004 is the big issue the country was facing was the war. It was Iraq. That's what everybody was talking about. And interestingly - you remember this well - what happened during that election was really they turned around Kerry's war record with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - I talk about this in the book - and made it all sort of a referendum on his claim to be a hero.

He soon added:

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have - they shouldn't cover this less than they are. I'm not trying to defend that, Bill. But what I am saying is right now I think many Americans are worried about their economic situation. They're worried about their jobs, their houses, their children, their 401(k)s, things like that. That was not true in 2004.

He ended up suggesting that the media had followed an example supposedly set by the Bush campaign to make Kerry's war record an issue, and that the media are currently following a similar lead from the Obama campaign's attempts to make Romney's wealth an issue. Westin:

It's also driven by the opponent. I mean, the Obama campaign is pushing this story very, very hard. Bush was pushing the "let's challenge Kerry's war record hard, too."

But Westin's analysis ignored the fact that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - rather than the Bush campaign - were mostly ignored when the right-leaning group emerged in May 2004 until August when Kerry himself started attacking the group because their ad campaign challenging his Vietnam War record was hurting his poll numbers. The media came to Kerry's defense by trying to undermine the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In August 2004, the MRC's Media Reality Check publication twice documented the media's pro-Kerry treatment of the Swift Boat group in the articles, "TV Gives No Respect to Swift Boat Vets for Truth," and, "TV Focuses on Kerry's Spin, Not Kerry's History."

A bit later, after being pressed for an answer by O'Reilly, Westin eventually denied observing a liberal slant among journalists at ABC after he repeatedly avoided giving a straight answer to the media bias issue.

After Westin complained about a general "lack of diversity" at the network before he took over there, leading the former ABC News head to ramble about trying to include different types of people, he finally claimed not to have seen liberal bias at the network:

BILL O'REILLY: All right, liberal, conservative? You would admit that there were many more liberal thinkers than conservatives in the news organization when you got there, would you not?

DAVID WESTIN: I never asked people what their personal views are, but, Bill, honest to God, we fought every single day against that. I mean, I never heard people in news discussions take liberal points of view as (INAUDIBLE) ever.

Brad Wilmouth's blog
Login to post comments

Comments

I mean, I never heard people

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 7:04am.

I mean, I never heard people in news discussions take liberal points of view as (INAUDIBLE) ever.

Well he must have spent all his time in a "cone of silence."

PS: I think he said "Liberal points of view as, liberal points of view, ever."

It's in their minds

Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 7:45am.

The fact is liberals think they are centrist.

They believe big government, high taxes (always going up, not down), nanny state, rich pay their 'fair share' (while 40%+ pay nothing), all inclusive (i.e., the most vocal minority gets the majority position) are all centrist positions.

Americans keeping their own earnings is a Civil Right! Demand your Civil Rights!

You are right....

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 7:51am.

As Bernard Goldberg said, a fish doesn't know he's wet.

They think "liberal" is just "normal."

In their minds, there are only two kinds of people: "normal" and "right wing extremists."

Exactly

Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 8:40am.

And as even Westin admitted, when he was at ABC, the news staff tended to be East Coast educated white males. Westin conceded that bosses tend to hire people who are much like themselves, and that's why he tried to diversify his staff. But when one is a well-off white guy from a fancy East Coast college, the idea of what constitutes diversity is very likely to be driven not by daily interaction with hardworking Americans of all races and ethnicities, but by the minority professors of one's alma mater.

When Westin and company see themselves as being objective and centrist -- as Goldberg pointed out in his best-selling book Bias -- they recruit people like themselves because it seems the correct thing to do. Of course, they are actually liberals with an agenda, so the recruits tend to be liberal with an agenda. The MSM is insular, feeding off its own closed collective minds.

These newsroom won't fix themselves as long as their owners are happy. Our salvation came with the advent of alternative sources of news.

What constitutes "diversity"

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 9:10am.

What constitutes "diversity" for liberals is ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation.

And they all just happen to have the same liberal worldview.

Job qualifications

Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 10:57am.

never enter into it. Look at our president for example.

If you're not getting flak, you're not over the target.

This denial

Submitted by c5then on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 8:02am.

Is what they have to do so they can sleep at night, I guess.
Rather than being journalists who seek out the opposing views and make sure to ballance the story of any controversial or political issue with all the points of view, they have instead sold their soles and become activists for thier own personal political viewpoint. Some of them are OK with that and in fact revel in it. Some have to rationalize that they are really centirsts and therefore just reporting from the "middle" point of view. Others I guess take a lot of showers or maybe get a job with FoxNews.

Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!

The Truth Hurts

Submitted by KevinB on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 8:05am.

Most liberals will deny their bias because "denial of reality" is the centerpiece of liberalism.

"Ignorance is our most expensive commodity..." - Rush Limbaugh

The problem with Westin's

Submitted by Bruzilla on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 8:12am.

The problem with Westin's argument is he still can't justify why Romney's wealth is even an issue. He says that in 2004, the issue of the day was the war, so Kerry's wealth wasn't reported on because it had nothing to do with the war. Fair enough. But what does Romney's wealth have to do with the economy or fixing it? What does it matter how much money he has, or how he and his family choose to spend that money? Using Westin's argument, Romney's wealth should be no more of an interest to the MSM now than Kerry's was in 2004 as neither have anything to do with the hot topic of the day.

"Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." Peasant

Has anyone ever read one of

Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 8:20am.

Has anyone ever read one of these weasels' convoluted defenses against any charge of media bias and said, "Oh, well, that makes sense. I'll buy that."?

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

Hey Chris, how 'ya doing???

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 8:23am.

And to answer your question: Of course! All their friends!!

Hi MB

Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 8:32am.

Busy trying to make a buck in a new job. Not much time (or energy) to comment very often. I usually just skim the posts and the commentary. In fact, I just realized that I must be heading off to work soon. How are you? You still make some of the best observations here.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

They're all in on the master attack plan.

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 8:27am.

1. Mitt's religion

2. Mitt's wealth

3. Mitt's arcane family 'scandals'

4. Mitt's temperament

5. Mrs. Mitt

Up next, Mittt's health. Then the Mitt kids.

You are correct!

Submitted by retrocon on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 12:58pm.

but really, they've focused on 2 and 5 so far, they are still digging up 3, and making stuff up for 4.

I think the really big thing will be when we see the big "Mormonism exposed" documentaries on TV.

Garments, sealing, secret ceremonies, baptism of the dead, golden plates, polygamy, jewish indians, etc. Folklore or real won't matter... I'm betting that the MSM will spend the last month of the election cycle trying to make LDS look very cultish.

Obviously, you won't see such documentaries about black liberation theology.

Nah, no bias, I didn't see any

Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 9:18am.

The thing I took out of this interview is the OBVIOUS lie about Bush attacking Kerry's war record, it NEVER happened.

H/t to Brad for pointing out that blatant lie.

Or was he misquoted or taken out of context errrrrr WE MISUNDERSTOOD what he said?

The LA slimes yesterday rights a huge piece on the horrible Ann Romney and the with's LOVE of horses, even though the helped her deal with MS, she has MONEY that witch.

If you make poverty easy, you will have more of it. Benjamin Franklin

O'Reilly let this guy off the hook

Submitted by cbeyer on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 9:26am.

Don't know why but O'Reilly never really challenged this guy on bias in the media. It was a fluff interview. Media bias is so overwhelming and there are so many examples, I wonder why O'Reilly conducted such an ineffective interview.

Chris H. Beyer Right of Way Pundit

Now here's Westin

Submitted by celator on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 9:32am.

Now here's Westin demonstrating the effects of having been in a deep liberal trance for many years. Blank face. Dead eyes.

The trance state becomes normal for the Westins of the MSM, and all who are not in agreement with these characters are "out of touch", odd, not in step with the American people, outliers, traitors.

Only those living deep in the bowels of the liberal godzilla monster are "normal" and smart and understand what is really going on. Puppets like Westin, for example.

"This is not your mother's Democratic Party"--Andrew Breitbart, CPAC, February 2012

Sure...

Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 10:02am.

They "fought" against IT every day. But the guy never articulated anything happening there as liberal bias. He says there is a "tendency" to hire people "like yourself." But he also didn't know the personal opinions of anybody who worked there.

But he/they "fought" against IT -- liberal bias, that is...in case the audience, by then, had lost track of the very simple question Bill asked him. Sure, we buy all that. Makes perfect sense. {{*_*}}

No matter how many times you play that video (and no matter how PR-polished the guy is), it comes out the same way each time: dodge, dodge, dodge. He said nothing. But he sure sounds so reasonably nice. ^_^

"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan

Here's the bottom line that

Submitted by NCfairandbalanced on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 10:02am.

Here's the bottom line that escapes this ABC loon: (and he almost admits it anyway!)

2004 and 2012. Both incumbents are in trouble with their record (Obama...the economy, Bush 43...the war, not capturing Bin Laden etc.).

This guy said all's fair attacking Romney because we're worried about an economy. We weren't in 2004. BUT...we were worried about a war! It's all about whether the media wants to protect the guy who happens to occupy the Oval Office at the time or not.

Quite simple, really.

For and against

Submitted by gwalt on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 11:06am.

In 2004 95% of the media was against Bush.
Today, 95% of the media is FOR Obama. And Obama is still under water. The rate and the amount of air time devoted to beaming hero Jesus worship of their messiah should translate to a 70%+ approval rating.
Obama is in the high 20's and they know it. He isn't sharing any of his take with DNC for the first time in history because he will keep it all and not run. The recent analysis of his non-spending ( Even his PAC isn't) shows he is depending on Treasonous Media to carry his weight, then he will bail. Enter Hillary.

"A lot of briefing for a 2 hr. special with Dan Rather. Saw the show & wonder why we bothered". Ronald Reagan

They weren't, eh?

Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 1:02pm.

"They're worried about their jobs, their houses, their children, their 401(k)s, things like that. That was not true in 2004."

Ahh, I happen to remember that we were suffering a recession in 2004, with high unemployment, a loss of personal savings, low home sales figures, ect. just as is occurring today. So, your excuse just doesn't work.

But, of course, it was the liberal media who tried to frame the 2004 election as being about the Iraq War and not about the rather dismal economic situation we were facing.. That's why Kerry's wealth was rarely mentioned by the liberal media, it was "off message."

For some reason, though, the "NATO" war in Afghanistan (funny that, shortly before Obama's election attempt, the war is being descried as a NATO war, justified by NATO being involved apparently, but the Iraq War, which also had NATO involvement, was always described as Bush's War by the liberal media.) isn't much of an issue in THIS election, not according to the liberal media anyways. Now it's the "economy," complete with attacks on Romeny's wealth, but not Obama's. I wonder why that is (I ask rhetorically)?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

There was an economic

Submitted by Fredy on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 12:59pm.

There was an economic component in 2004! ABC news was reporting every day on the 'secret' Bush recession. The fact that there was no recession did not actually stop them from including fake anecdotal evidence on a daily basis as they pushed for their candidate, John Kerry.

No recession?

Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 1:05pm.

There wasn't a recession in 2004? Yea, tell that to the people who were laid off! Several of my friends were amongst the unemployed that year. Yes, we did suffer a recession in 2003-2004. It wasn't as bad as the current recession, but it was a recession none the less.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.