On Sunday, CNN’s Reliable Sources convened, in the words of host Brian Stelter, the “perfect panel” to discuss media coverage of the Democratic and Republican conventions that was anything but perfect as it included Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan and Hillary Clinton biographer/BBC reporter Kim Ghattas with only Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik being the person that could be considered to be anything close to a straight shooter.
In the course of the panel, topics included the notion that fact-checking more things Trump espouses than others are appropriate due to his problems with facts, the DNC rightfully having more coverage than the RNC, and the ironic notion that the Fox News Channel (FNC) has created a culture where viewers could experience confirmation bias of only viewpoints that match their own.
On fact-checking, Sullivan spun that individuals like Trump created “circumstances” where people like him are fact-checked more that’s widely been exposed by NewsBusters (and particular a Bozell & Graham column here):
You know, false equivalency, we have to look at as you pointed out, who is telling the truth most of the time and who isn't telling the truth most of the time. There's real difference there. So, to say, well, you know, we have to treat them equally, sometimes the circumstances don't call for that.
Stelter later turned to Ghattas and lobbed this softball from left field about whether “the press properly noted that historic nature of that moment, Clinton becoming the first female candidate from a major party” and “properly recognized for women both in America and women around the world.”
Needless to say, the author of a Clinton biography that even The Washington Post found to have “gushing praise for Clinton’s energy and amiability” trumpeted the reality that the DNC received more primetime coverage (particularly by the major broadcast networks) than the RNC:
I think it probably was. I think that the complaints of the RNC had about the DNC getting more prime time air time is precisely because this was a historic moment that a lot of people were following, that a lot of people on the right and on the left commented as being historic and have been given commensurate attention....it was a very important moment to watch. It was also very inspiring.
Ghattas moved on to blast FNC for not covering the speech by Khizr Khan and his wife at the DNC remembering their late Muslim son’s service to our country but conveniently omitted that FNC only ran small clips of Pat Smith’s address to the RNC well after she had spoken.
<<< Please consider helping NewsBusters financially with your tax-deductible contribution today >>>
Nonetheless, she cited the Khan example as a cudgel to bemoan FNC not being fair in her eyes and creating a media landscape where people can tune in only so they can have their personal feelings confirmed by someone else (so, kind of like this Reliable Sources panel):
I think too much of what people are getting from watching television is siloed, you get information that confirms what you already believe, you get information that already confirms your world view and I think that is very problematic, because it does end up putting people in the situation where if the candidate they don't support wins, they say, well, hold on, I don't understand. Nobody I know voted for this person.
Ghattas continued to put forth liberal proclamations as she argued how all sides should be covered and cited not abortion, the Iran nuclear deal, or taxes but being fair to both the Israelis and the Islamic extremist terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah:
I made sure that I always was in touch with a different parties in the country, whether it was Hezbollah, whether it was Hamas, whether it was the opposition, whether it was government official, so that when something broke, I was in touch with all of the country, the mood in all of the country, or all those who represented the different strands in the country. Not just half of it and I think not enough of that is done on television.
The relevant portions of the transcript from CNN’s Reliable Sources on July 31 can be found below.
CNN’s Reliable Sources
July 31, 2016
11:21 a.m. Eastern
BRIAN STELTER: Let's talk about these issues with a perfect panel, Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post media columnist, David Zurawik, media critic with The Baltimore Sun, and the BBC's Kim Ghattas, Hillary Clinton campaign correspondent, and the author of the book, The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power.
(....)
MARGARET SULLIVAN: You know, false equivalency, we have to look at as you pointed out, who is telling the truth most of the time and who isn't telling the truth most of the time. There's real difference there. So, to say, well, you know, we have to treat them equally, sometimes the circumstances don't call for that.
(....)
STELTER: One hundred days to do that. Kim, let me ask you about the Democratic Convention for the moment, though. You know, you've been covering Clinton for years. Do you feel the press properly noted that historic nature of that moment, Clinton becoming the first female candidate from a major party? Was it properly recognized for women both in America and women around the world?
KIM GHATTAS: I think it probably was. I think that the complaints of the RNC had about the DNC getting more prime time air time is precisely because this was a historic moment that a lot of people were following, that a lot of people on the right and on the left commented as being historic and have been given commensurate attention, even Megyn Kelly acknowledged in a tweet that this was historic and for people around the world watching, it was a very important moment to watch. It was also very inspiring. I do think that perhaps what is problematic is how quickly we then — the media then moves on to the next topic, and that was perhaps Mr. Trump at that point. I think that it is problematic, for example, to see that Fox News did not cover the speech of Khizr Khan, the father of the fallen captain — Army captain. I think that does a disservice to their viewers as well and I think too much of what people are getting from watching television is siloed, you get information that confirms what you already believe, you get information that already confirms your world view and I think that is very problematic, because it does end up putting people in the situation where if the candidate they don't support wins, they say, well, hold on, I don't understand. Nobody I know voted for this person. Look, Brian, when I covered the Middle East and I did extensively for many years —
STELTER: Yes.
GHATTAS: — as a reporter, I made sure that I always was in touch with a different parties in the country, whether it was Hezbollah, whether it was Hamas, whether it was the opposition, whether it was government official, so that when something broke, I was in touch with all of the country, the mood in all of the country, or all those who represented the different strands in the country. Not just half of it and I think not enough of that is done on television.
