Update with video posted below fold.
File this one under the rubric "Unintentionally Revealing Moments of MSM Bias." ABC publishes an article about media watchdog groups and singles out two for mention: NewsBusters and Media Matters. But the article goes on to cite the work of and publish comments by a representative of only one of those groups. Which one do you think it was?
Yesterday, ABC posted an article by its Samantha Wenders entitled The Camera Is Always Watching: The Internet Has Helped Citizens Play 'Gotcha' With the Press; Is That a Good Thing?"
Wrote Wenders: "Media watchdog groups like the conservative Newsbusters and the liberal Media Matters regularly post examples of what they see as bias in the media."
Cut to a comment by Karl Frisch, director of media relations at Media Matters: "Our goal at Media Matters is to hold the media accountable, and the best tools at our disposal are showing what's actually happening in the media."
There followed three long paragraphs focusing on the Media Matters posting of Don Imus's infamous comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. "New Yorker" media maven Ken Auletta is also given an opportunity to weigh in on the controversy.
Here at NewsBusters, we don't like to be lumped together with Media Matters, but it's perhaps understandable that others might see us at two sides of a coin. And if Wenders wanted to quote Media Matters first, well, OK, maybe she was going in alphabetical order.
So I kept reading, awaiting the focus on NewsBusters' work and the comments from one of our senior editors. And awaitin', and awaitin' . . .
That's right: no such focus ever came. Not a word about NewsBusters' work, much less comments from one of our honchos. Cut instead to some criticism of "gotcha" journalism. Writes Wenders: "But sometimes the criticism might not aways be fair."
And what does Wenders cite as her sole example of such "unfairness"? The recent incident in which MSNBC's Chris Matthews invited attractive CNBC financial reporter Erin Burnett to "get a little closer to the camera." Wenders uncritically cites the comments of an MSNBC exec who predictably denied any prurient interest on Matthews' part:
Some have suggested that Matthews was leering at Burnett, but MSNBC said that Matthews was only making a joke about the odd camera angle and strange lens being used in the shot. "As frequently happens once video gets on the Internet, it was taken out of context and incorrect assumptions were made," MSNBC Vice President Jeremy Gaines told i-CAUGHT.
Video (1:40): Real (1.21 MB) or Windows (1.03 MB), plus MP3 (754 kB)
Anyone who believes for a second that this was about bad camera angles and not Matthews' infatuation with the fetching Ms. Burnett is invited to view the video of the moment and read the accompanying commentary at, that's right, NewsBusters, in an item by our P.J. Gladnick.
In any case, Wenders and ABC themselves gave incontrovertible evidence -- of their own liberal mindset. An article on media watchdogs that interviews only the liberal side of the equation and cites as its other sources a New Yorker reporter and and an MSNBC exec. Perfect.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is embarrassing even by
August 22, 2007 - 05:42 ET by mostlymoderateThis is embarrassing even by ABC standards (which are quite low, obviously). Article should not have been broadcast until both sides had a fair interview.
Still Bonus
August 22, 2007 - 06:05 ET by HeikiNB is a valuable source of information in regard to learning more about, and even in making up one's mind on some pretty critical issues, so the fact that the site was even mentioned I consider to be a huge plus. Article-type commentary by the owners of the site aside, some of the best analysis of the most important questions of the day, I've found, can be found in the comments following postings. Bravo, NewsBusters; free publicity is always, always a good thing, and in this instance, happily, a Good thing as well.
Here's to a (relatively) bias-free future!
It is hard to tell if an
August 22, 2007 - 11:27 ET by TruthMongerIt is hard to tell if an MSM interview of non-moonbats like us will be a good thing or not come broadcast time...
By censoring NB here at least ABC was prevented from twisting NB words around to their leftwing favor.
We have become adept at finding the silver linings haven't we?
Non-Moonbat? You believe in
August 22, 2007 - 11:30 ET by LeonNon-Moonbat?
You believe in the ark. You believe the world was created 6,000 years ago. You believe that man and dinosaur walked the earth together.
You are the definition of a moonbat.
You're the kind of Republican that scares ordinary Repbulicans, whose only real concern is their money and how it's being taxed.
moonbat therapy for ya
August 22, 2007 - 11:36 ET by TruthMongerwere they going to interview me?
anyway who's the moonbat here leon?
you believe in secular humanism and modern science - which has a different shifting-sand take on the universe everyday...
so how's it feel to realize you're the moonbat on this rock:)?
The question is....
August 22, 2007 - 11:38 ET by Sergeant ROCKThe question is, which brand of tin-foil does he use for his headgear?
Odd Camera Angle?
August 22, 2007 - 06:01 ET by P.J. GladnickMATTHEWS (laughing): No, you're beautiful! I'm just kidding! I'm just kidding! You're a knockout! Anyways thank you, Erin Burnett. It's alright getting bad news from you even. Okay. Thanks for coming on Hardball.
Matthews was just joking about the odd camera angle and strange lens? Yeah...riiiiight!
Check out the look on his
August 22, 2007 - 07:23 ET by motherbeltCheck out the look on his face in the video; does that look like he's scrutinizing an odd camera angle?
Yeah, Chris realized he was stepping in it; that's why the forced jocularity at the end.
Jaw-dropping
August 22, 2007 - 07:21 ET by motherbeltThey didn't compare them, they contrasted them. The goal of Media Matters is to "hold the media accountable." And Newsbusters takes things "out of context" and makes "incorrect assumptions."
The inherent bias is just jaw-dropping.
motherbelt.... I read
August 22, 2007 - 08:29 ET by Jermotherbelt....
I read the article but was unable to locate the quoted negative remarks concerning NewsBusters, or any other specific criticisms of NewsBusters. Did I overlook them?
Jer
You're right...NB is not
August 22, 2007 - 10:10 ET by motherbeltYou're right...NB is not specifically mentioned. But NB is where the item about the leering Chris Matthews appeared.
Two sites were singled out for mention: Media Matters and Newsbusters. I may have jumped to a conclusion, but the fact is that the one example they chose of "unfair" criticsm (after allowing the MM spokesperson to brag about keeping the media accountable, as a positive trait) just happened to be the one that appeared on NB. So I think it was a reasonable assumption.
Any mention of the fact
August 22, 2007 - 06:13 ET by Jack BauerAny mention of the fact that Media Matters is a George Soros funded front group with millions of dollars at its disposal, and an arm of the..
Media Matters lineage
August 22, 2007 - 07:38 ET by nofateJack, I missed that mention too. Nor did they bother to mention that David Brock, the head guy is a Shillary hack; actually a former conservative, who broke some aspect of the Clinton misdoings in Arkansas, in American Spectator, I think. Also, remember the dust-up over the TV mini-series "The Path to 9-11"? If I'm not mistaken, Media Matters was intimately involved with the NEA in banning the classroom use of the study guides that were developed for that show. Their main sin, as with Fox News, was attempting to show both sides of the issue, and attempting to do it fairly. But that is not allowed, as showing the truth is perceived as an attack by the Clinton spin machine.
The mention of NB is at least a step in the right direction. I'm sure there are hundreds of us regulars that regularly send links to NB articles to people we think would be interested. I routinely send NB articles to my whole address list, whether they are liberal or conservative, and so far have not gotten negative feed back from the lib contingent. Point is, that when NB gets mentioned, there are a lot more people out there than ABC realizes, who know the real NewsBusters. BTW, imho, the site has vastly improved, both in operation, and tone, since the new upgrades.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
nofate -- NB is clearly a
August 22, 2007 - 07:56 ET by Jack Bauernofate -- NB is clearly a grassroots operation in which many conservatives spend their time for free analysing and reporting on ever increasingly blatant shilling by a hack media for one wortldview.
Media Matters is a top down hierarchy headed by George Soros, who has given MILLIONS to this front group of scary funadamenatalist "liberal" ideologues.
Not only that...
August 22, 2007 - 09:06 ET by pbanks7but it's common for me to read NB in the morning, and hear El Rushbo comment on the same story later that day.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
I will give Wenders credit
August 22, 2007 - 10:12 ET by motherbeltI will give Wenders credit for labelling both Newsbusters as conservative and Media Matters as liberal.
Small steps. One foot
August 23, 2007 - 01:05 ET by nofateSmall steps. One foot after the other.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
Let me first say: I'm
August 22, 2007 - 06:51 ET by BeanManLet me first say: I'm shocked...okay, I'm over my shock.
Now, I'm reminded of a time way back when it was new that I visited a vendor of video teleconfrencing equipment in DC so I could see the equipment first hand. As we sat at the table on our side, they connected to a sales representative who was in Dallas and boy was she a knockout! My co-worker and I agreed that they had done that on purpose so we would think what great equipment this was. As they were telling me about how I could control the camera on the other end with the remote, I grabbed it and zoomed in...and zoomed in and panned and such with the excuse that I was just checking out the...ahem...equipment! However this wasn't a national TV event!
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
My idea
August 22, 2007 - 07:45 ET by sarcasmo(This would require actual journalism, so I don't expect it to happen!) I think a journalist should infiltrate and study both communities and interview not just the chiefs on both sides, but also the indians. I'm sure the members of both groups might have different agendas than their leaders.
Of course, ABC wasn't even able to fairly interview both sides' chiefs -- a fairly simple task considering all the contact-info around here. I'm sure any ABC distor..er...reporter who tries this will probably have his/her feelings hurt because for some strange, unfair reason, all the indians on one side don't seem to have any love or trust for ABC's "journalists."
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
For what it's worth, this
August 22, 2007 - 08:21 ET by DraglineFor what it's worth, this story also ran on their iCaught television show last night. I was waiting for the opposing NewsBusters interview to air, but then I realized I was asking for too much.
Great News, Not only was
August 22, 2007 - 09:02 ET by LeonGreat News,
Not only was Newsbusters mentioned in an ABC article yesterday, but today, Drudge is linking to an article about the Newsbusters posters!
link
:)
Happy Wednesday Morning!
Reminder for Leon:
August 22, 2007 - 10:48 ET by JPR1Freshman orientation next Tuesday, 8:00 am.
Look sharp there sport, high school is a big jump.
typical
August 22, 2007 - 09:37 ET by Sam"In any case, Wenders and ABC themselves gave incontrovertible evidence -- of their own liberal mindset. An article on media watchdogs that interviews only the liberal side of the equation and cites as its other sources a New Yorker reporter and and an MSNBC exec. Perfect."
...and I would add, then they attack a write-up from NewsBusters still without seeking comment. It's interesting that they took the time to try and discredit only an NB write-up and defend one liberal newcaster, Chris Mathews. Typical.
No comparison between MM and NB
August 22, 2007 - 10:09 ET by Dee BunkHow disgraceful that they didn't interview NB. At least they admitted MM is liberal. I'm still tired of the way Newsbusters is either lumped with MM or singled out as more biased. Never is it accurately portrayed that MM is an aggressive lobbyist group (currently promoting Hillary), while NB is a more passive information source.
Newsbusters does not advocate or stick up for one conservative over all others and is not dedicated to electing someone. There is a huge difference. Media Matters does mass e-mail campaigns to get conservatives thrown off the air. In their opinion they shouldn't even be allowed to speak. Correction - not just conservatives, but anyone criticizing Hillary as the Imus example showed. It's curious that Imus is the one example they give, but it's not mentioned that he is actually a liberal.
Am I reading a different
August 22, 2007 - 13:36 ET by JerAm I reading a different article than the one most on this thread are attacking? "The Camera is Always Watching" by Tapper and Wender...
1. contains no criticism of NewsBusters either expressed or implied
2. includes a brief 'general mission statement' from a representative of MediaMatters [perhaps because they had lit the fuse which ultimately detonated the Imus explosion]
3. there is no evidence that it was the NewsBusters piece on Matthews that was used in the Burnett controversy; MediaMatters--which, along with the liberal blogosphere in general are no friends of Matthews--also posted the Burnett video
Personally, I think NewsBusters and MediaMatters do a good job. But there are legitimate examples of liberal media bias. This was not one of them.
Jer
Jer - it's biased without question.
August 22, 2007 - 14:21 ET by Dee BunkHow do you explain interviewing one and not the other? I'm not sure why you replied to my coment in particular because I didn't say that the article was critical of NB. This article was pretty neutral to NB but favorable to MM. Most are critical of NB and favorable to MM. Just because this one isn't as bad as all the others, doesn't mean it's not biased.
There is no excuse for not interviewing and quoting NB.
You're right, Dee Bunk, I
August 22, 2007 - 15:48 ET by JerYou're right, Dee Bunk, I intended for my previous remark to be a general comment and not a specific reply to your post. Sorry for my mistake.
Jer
"...but MSNBC said that
August 22, 2007 - 10:42 ET by HypocriteHater"...but MSNBC said that Matthews was only making a joke about the odd camera angle and strange lens being used in the shot..."
As Dr. Evil would say, Riiiiiiiiiight.
first of all, George Soros
August 22, 2007 - 13:44 ET by katleefirst of all, George Soros is NOT associated with Media Matters, that is a tired old myth and while you can argue that MM LEANS left, they attack conservatives AND liberals as pointed out in the fact that they were, indeed, the very first to report on Imus' comments - as opposed to Newsbusters, whom I have never seen report on all the bias on Faux News, oh but I forgot, you're only here to report on LIBERAL bias, my bad
WRONG Katlee
August 22, 2007 - 13:48 ET by RJNice try, but a Soros funded organization funded MM.
Soros funds Media Matters thru Shadow Party Network
August 22, 2007 - 14:05 ET by Jack BauerYou are full of it madam.
If anyone wants to read about the malignant Soros... check out this site.
Right This Way Please
It will scare you shitless. Soros must be opposed as he is out to destroy the United States.
They're coming to take me away, ha! ha!
August 23, 2007 - 02:28 ET by nofateGeorge Soros: "
Are you gonna tell us when it appears? Potent stuff, Jack.
Here is some more info on this connection that came from a link on FrontPageMag to DiscovertheNetworks.org: A Guide To The Political Left:
And here is a profile of ABC Television that is eye opening and details the Clinton influences, as well as a surprise (to me) paragraph about ABC Radio:
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
katlee - as I described
August 22, 2007 - 14:49 ET by Dee Bunkkatlee - as I described above, the Imus thing was because of Hillary- Imus is anti-Hillary. Their primary concern is her.
For the drive-by propagandist katlee
August 23, 2007 - 02:20 ET by UnsaneRight.
On one of the very rare occasions that ABC did a story in my hometown of San Antonio, which IIRC pertained to some author buying a house in the historical King William district and wanting to paint it some weird color...who did they turn to for commentary from the local media? Why, Carlos Guerra of the San Antonio Express News...who, if he were any more Leftist, would be submitting articles for the Cuban press.
Did they turn to anyone else? NO.
Try again, and try some critical thinking this time.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
George Soros | Media Matters | Richard Poe
August 22, 2007 - 17:25 ET by BondPlainBondRequired reading.