It’s been a full 48 hours since antiwar icon Cindy Sheehan publicly announced that she was leaving the Democrat Party due to Thursday’s bipartisan agreement on an Iraq war funding bill.
Yet, Google News and LexisNexis searches have identified that not one major media outlet has covered her announcement.
Not one.
Given the media’s fascination with this woman since she traveled to Crawford, Texas, in August 2005 to picket near President Bush’s ranch, one must wonder why they have abandoned her now?
Does this suggest that the media’s antiwar proclivities are only important when they shed a negative light on the Administration and Republicans, but not when events such as this speak poorly about Democrats?
Before you answer, consider the following data. Since August 1, 2005:
- CNN has aired 511 segments which included Sheehan’s name
- ABC has aired 92
- NBC has aired 75
- CBS has aired 63
- The Associated Press has published 280 articles which included Sheehan’s name
- The New York Times has published 147
- The Washington Post quite coincidentally has also published 147
- The Los Angeles Times has published 122
- USA today has published 40.
Please be advised that this data is un-audited, and unchecked for duplications. However, it is quite clear that Sheehan, when she served a function of embarrassing the Bush administration, got a lot of attention.
In fact, as you might imagine, many of the 1,447 reports referenced above included actual interviews with Sheehan. And, if we broaden our search to include all major American press outlets, we find a total of 2,272 articles or transcripts referring to Sheehan since August 1, 2005.
Yet, when she made a major announcement concerning her departure from the Democrat Party for antiwar reasons, not one media organization thought it was newsworthy.
What’s the only logical conclusion?
Cindy Sheehan only had value to the press when her antiwar sentiments embarrassed the President. But, when she attacked Democrats for betraying their antiwar campaign promises, she became persona non grata.
How disgraceful.
In fairness, as the following links attest, we here at NewsBusters have also paid a lot of attention to Sheehan since August 1, 2005. Yet, unlike those we analyze, and, often, critcize, we haven't forsaken Cindy when she attacked Democrats:
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
MSM - Sheehan - the bottom line
May 28, 2007 - 13:04 ET by Gary HallMSM - Sheehan - the bottom-line.
Protect the Democrat party.
Sheehan has such a following amongst the activist left (which includes much of MSM) that reporting on her departure would only serve to divide the Democrat party. Dividing the Republican Party is fine with the MSM; in fact, the words appear regularly in the headlines, or in by-lines.
Man. You're working hard, Noel - super coverage.
PS - One of my all-time favorite Sheehan utterances: ".. pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans.." Right when everyone else was calling for troops to be sent in.
Do we have an all-time record
May 28, 2007 - 13:10 ET by saw the lightDo we have an all-time record for links in a Newsbusters post?
"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb (insert terrorist-supporting nation here)"
Well, as we know, the plum jo
May 28, 2007 - 14:14 ET by SMGalbraithWell, as we know, the plum job in journalism is covering the White House not Congress.
It's the center of the political universe and reporters gain national attention and break big stories - and networks/newspapers attain high ratings or circulation - when they report on executive branch wrongdoing. Few people care if Congressman Smith from Wyoming is accused of misfeasance.
If, however, an executive branch official - even an undersecretary of state for Botswana cultural affairs - gets indicted, it'll be a front section, if not front page story.
Sheehan turning on the Democrats is a story but not, it seems to me at this date, a big story. The big story is a mother of a fallen soldier confronting the President (any president) over his decision to go to war (any war).
Sure, the bias in the press is not that they tell us what to think but that they tell us what to think about. And that decision - what to cover and not cover - is affected by their personal views, views that are documented to be overwhelming from the left.
Ideology, then, may play a role; but I think a small one.
And that decision - what to
May 28, 2007 - 14:48 ET by motherbeltAnd that decision - what to cover and not cover - is affected by
their personal views, views that are documented to be overwhelming from
the left.
Ideology, then, may play a role; but I think a small one. - SM Galbraith
HUH????
HUH????Huh, right back at you
May 28, 2007 - 17:24 ET by SMGalbraithHUH????
Huh, right back at you.
As I noted, since most of the press's attention on politics centers around the White House (regardless of which party runs the country), the fact that Sheehan's divorce (if you will) from the Democrats doesn't involve the Administration makes the story less juicy.
The press likes controversy. And especially controversy involving the President and the White House. No one cares a lick about Congressman Smith in Idaho doing something improper. Or Cindy Sheehan dissing the Democrats.
But if that Congressman Smith was Undersecretary Smith, then it's a big story.
The White House, not Capital Hill is always the big enchilada.
Sure, the MSM's dislike of Bush and, especially, the war influences their reporting. But it's not the only factor affecting their news judgement. And, it seems to me, it's not even a major factor in this story.
"No one cares a lick abo
May 28, 2007 - 17:46 ET by MikeB"No one cares a lick about Congressman Smith in Idaho doing something improper." Let me fix that for you, SM: No one cares a lick about Democrat Congressman Smith in Idaho doing something improper. But, let an R appear after Congressman Smith's name, and suddenly it's worth 24/7 coverage.
Which is worse, SMG, Republican Congressman Foley improperly e-mailing a 17-year-old male page, or Democrat Congressman Studds having homosexual relations with a 17-year-old male page? Which got more coverage? Which Congressman was not re-elected to office, and which one was re-elected for 7 more terms? Ideology has a great deal to do with whether or not a story gets told or emphasized.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
mikeB-- you left out an important
May 28, 2007 - 17:54 ET by misterbillmikeB-- you left out an important question--"which one was in Massachusetts?" The state that keeps sending that grotesque Chappaquiddick Teddy back to the Senate every 6 year.
Memories of bumper stickers f
May 29, 2007 - 07:38 ET by ahusserMemories of bumper stickers from the past:
"More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than all nuclear accidents combined"
and
"If Ted had been driving a VW he's be President now."
"A mind is a terrible thing." - A comic I forgot the name of.
Which is worse, SMG, Republic
May 28, 2007 - 18:36 ET by SMGalbraithWhich is worse, SMG, Republican Congressman Foley improperly e-mailing a 17-year-old male page, or Democrat Congressman Studds having homosexual relations with a 17-year-old male page?
Clearly the latter.
Don't read me wrong. There is a liberal bias/slant to the MSM. Your above example is a good one.
It's just that on this story involving Ms. Sheehan, I think most of fhe explanation for the failure/unwillingness of the press to give this much coverage is due to the lack of a "tag" that they could use. And that tag usually centers on a White House connection.
Look, a mother losing a son in a war and then protesting it and wanting to see the President is, to be blunt, a great story. Regardless of the party running the White House, it's a story that any reporter would love to do. Did the press cover the story with a little more emphasis (and joy) because they hate Bush? Sure. But they would have covered it even if it was Clinton.
Perhaps not as aggressively; but still covered it.
The point I'm grasping to make is that ideology or bias doesn't explain all of the failures of the press. Sometimes they're lousy reporters and sometimes ratings are the causes.
SMG
Good point, counter-point
May 28, 2007 - 23:01 ET by acumenThe point I'm grasping to make is that ideology or bias doesn't explain all of the failures of the press.
Forgive me for butting in SMG but I would like to add your point is valid.
However, when not even one out of many big corporate media goliaths fail to cover this story when they have covered so many others from personal interest to politics concerning Sheehan, one can't help but be suspicious there is more at play here than ratings or lousy reporting. For example, if the story is sat on by so many outlets, it is hard to make the case for shoddy reporting as nothing was reported. On the other hand, based on MSM history, it seems quite logical to assume media bias played a major role here. But that is just this observer's opinion, it's late and I'm off to bed.
G'night all and on behalf of my fallen CSgtMaj father, I thank you Noel for once again making this a memorable Memorial Day.
My point was that your reas
May 28, 2007 - 22:46 ET by motherbeltMy point was that your reasoning sounded contradictory. How can you say their personal views are overwhelmingly left-oriented, but only a small part of the problem. Kind of like saying a person eats 5000 calories a day, but that's only a small part of why he's overweight.
I disagree with you on the liking controversy part. Your using Cindy Sheehan as the example belies your contention. Everyone in the MSM cared about "Mother Sheehan" when she was condemning "Bushco". Now that she's lashing out at Democrats, they yawn. Or is your point that her loudly castigating the Democrats (who have nurtured, encouraged, and supported her) is not "controversy"?
Added:
But they would have covered it even if it was Clinton. Perhaps not as aggressively; but still covered it. - SMG
I think you just made my point.
SMG
May 28, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Noel SheppardSMG,
Happy Memorial Day.
Obviously, we're not together on this one. But, that's okay. I don't agree with everyone all the time, and I'm sure you don't either. The day I actually agree with someone 100 percent of the time is the day I no longer have any original thoughts. Agreed?
That said, I think both of her announcements are newsworthy because of what she became as a result of all the media attention given to her. In the summer and fall of 2005, she WAS the antiwar movement, maybe more than anybody else in the country.
You should read some of those links to NB articles I provided to refresh your memory. In the second-half of 2005, you couldn't turn your television on without seeing her face.
As such, now that she is disappointed in the Party she worked so hard to get into office -- and, rightfully so I might add! -- her exit is extraordinarily newsworthy if indeed the press are every bit antiwar as they have been demonstrating for roughly the last four years since Howard Dean took center stage.
Think about it. If their goal really is to get us out of Iraq, then these two announcements well-covered and properly framed would put more pressure on the Democrats to accomplish this goal.
However, if this has always been about Democrats, and advancing their objectives, then publicizing these annoucements goes contrary to the media's objective.
This is especially the case given Obama and Clinton's votes against this bill. After all, if they wanted to advance an antiwar meme, they could have used Cindy's announcements to show how Barack and Hillary have it right this time. Unfortunately, they would have had to also include Cindy's disgust for Democrats.
With this in mind, it seems quite clear that advancing Democrat objectives are much more important to the media than ending the war. ns
You're almost correct in the question you pose...
May 28, 2007 - 14:26 ET by c5thenI think that the MSM is ant-conservative. Bush just happens to be the current poster child for their scorn and "we-know-better-than-you-do" egos.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Of course, the MSM has an a
May 28, 2007 - 15:02 ET by alfalfaOf course, the MSM has an agenda and a "template" that every story must fit. This didn't fit the template - because it is against the Democratic party and doesn't bash Bush. It must all be pro-Democratic and pro-BSD. The "template" is everything, so that they can spoon feed you just the news that they think you need to hear. No need to clutter your mind with anything else.....
Good-riddance to her.
May 28, 2007 - 15:18 ET by bigtimerGood-riddance to her.
15:01
May 28, 2007 - 16:43 ET by In Excess15:01
And awaaaaaaaaaay we go!
May 28, 2007 - 17:30 ET by ShadowTXHey! I can see it now!
The Rosie & Cindy Show with the Michael Moore Dancers!
The Sheehan story isn't that
May 28, 2007 - 17:44 ET by balboaThe Sheehan story isn't that interesting or relevant since she decided to side with Chavez, and her "story" lost steam. Don't think it has anything to do with leaving the democratic party. She just doesn't have the cache she used to.
I find it interesting...plus
May 28, 2007 - 17:53 ET by bigtimerI find it interesting...plus hilarious.
Balboa
May 28, 2007 - 18:02 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Really? She lost steam after meeting Chavez?
Okay. Let's examine your premise. She met Hugo on January 24, 2006. Let's give that story a week to die down, shall we? As such, since January 31, 2006, there have been 691 major media reports including her name. 142 by CNN alone.
Want to amend your theory? ns
She lost steam in MY esteem a
May 28, 2007 - 18:05 ET by balboaShe lost steam in MY esteem after Chavez.
I fail to believe that the networks aren't making it a big story simply to save face for the Democratic party.
Balboa
May 28, 2007 - 18:13 ET by Noel SheppardB,
167 reports since after Election Day, 34 by CNN.
121 reports this year, 26 by CNN.
Still think it isn't odd that NOT ONE report's come out on her quitting the Dems AND quitting the peace movement in the same holiday weekend?
Honestly, Balboa, I've got some bridges I'd like to discuss with you. ns
Noel
May 28, 2007 - 19:46 ET by balboaWell, considering not even Fox News has it on their website, must not be that odd.
Balboa
May 28, 2007 - 20:35 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Well, maybe that's an indication that Fox isn't as separated from the rest of the media as liberals believe. ns
Or that the story isn't that
May 28, 2007 - 20:37 ET by balboaOr that the story isn't that important.
Balboa
May 28, 2007 - 21:23 ET by Noel SheppardAre you getting dizzy? :-) ns
No he isn't NS.
May 29, 2007 - 08:03 ET by SportPoliticsNo he isn't NS. That's what stabilizes his psyche. If he stops doing it, he'll become a gyroscope or begin autodrilling toward China, or worse yet bloodflow will have resumed and his head will explode.
Amazing
May 29, 2007 - 10:50 ET by Mr. BishopI find it truly amazing, that every time he's backed into a corner... he tries to simply change direction.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
Hey Noel,Do you have any stat
May 29, 2007 - 11:14 ET by TruthMongerHey Noel,
Do you have any stats on the news coverage of Rev. Falwell's resignation from PTL? Here are some links from Time Magazine and the New York Times:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965779,00.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/jerry_falwell/index.html?s=oldest&offset=40&
TM
May 29, 2007 - 11:33 ET by Noel SheppardTM,
LexisNexis turned up 1000 results for "Falwell and PTL Christian" between October 1 and October 31, 1987. ns
Thanks Noel - do you think Sh
May 29, 2007 - 11:39 ET by TruthMongerThanks Noel - do you think Sheehan might produce a similar count in the next 30 days?
TM
May 29, 2007 - 11:44 ET by Noel SheppardTM,
So far, very few outlets have picked up the AP piece. I think this will get little attention today, and be gone at midnight. ns
World Net Daily carries story:
May 28, 2007 - 18:57 ET by c5thenThe Internet news site World Net Daily picks up story here
Lets see if any of the MSM are shamed into at least mentioning it...
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
FoxNews reports Sheehan Good Bye Cruel World diary
May 29, 2007 - 07:24 ET by SportPoliticsFoxNews reports Sheehan Good Bye Cruel World diary.
[Sheehan, however, said she had become increasingly disillusioned with the Democratic Party. In an open letter to the Democratic members of Congress on Saturday, however, she announced that she was leaving the Party because she believed its leaders had failed to change the country's course in Iraq.]
It's a text report, so it's not very impressive nor does it rise above left wing bias.
MSM
May 28, 2007 - 19:05 ET by newsdredgeAre you kidding me? The MSM loves our drug-addled president! They backed him up all the way into this Iraq misadventure and for years after. It was long after public sentiment swung hard against the war that the MSM said anything contrary to the president. All one has to do is watch an entire press conference to see how the press protects Bush by not showing us his druggie body language and stumbling incoherency in news highlights.
And it's not liberal or conservative bias. It's simply protecting corporate interests by enhancing the perception of political stability.
Twilight Zone here in the pos
May 28, 2007 - 19:09 ET by bigtimerTwilight Zone here in the post above folks!
It's a brand new Troll
May 28, 2007 - 19:13 ET by Free StinkerLook everyone!
It's a brand new Troll. It even has that "new troll smell" ;-)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
Free,stop dissin the Trolls,
May 28, 2007 - 19:17 ET byFree,
stop dissin the Trolls, this person doesn't reach that high
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
LOL. I hereby appologize
May 28, 2007 - 19:24 ET by Free StinkerLOL.
I hereby appologize to the Trolls.
Now Free...I wouldn't go quit
May 28, 2007 - 19:28 ET by bigtimerNow Free...I wouldn't go quite that far....
LOL!
Only for comparing them to
May 28, 2007 - 19:32 ET by Free StinkerOnly for comparing them to the fact devoid newbie. ;-)
...the new troll smell is the
May 29, 2007 - 11:17 ET by TruthMonger...the new troll smell is there all right:)! Hee-hee-hee...
Newsdredge. What a moronic se
May 28, 2007 - 19:21 ET by ThisnThatNewsdredge. What a moronic set of statements. Please back them up with facts. We want to know about specific evidence that the President is drug-addled. We want you to cite a recent, and entire press conference showing how the press protects the President. We want to know dates and time documenting "his druggie body language" -- you say these can be found in news highlights. Which ones?
Anybody coming on Newsbusters needs to be prepared with facts. Are you prepared? We are all eager to see them.
W
May 28, 2007 - 20:38 ET by Emma Grump...sounds like somebody's had one bong too many...
The new loser
May 29, 2007 - 07:55 ET by SportPoliticsTroglets live on e-blog andrenaline rushes, and this one didn't get it's fix. It's jones time.
What a nut job. Let me gues
May 29, 2007 - 08:07 ET by Jack BauerWhat a nut job. Let me guess, you've been sniffing the Daily Kosholes again.
BONG HIT! Newsdredge, you n
May 29, 2007 - 12:53 ET by MikeBBONG HIT! Newsdredge, you need to make an appointment with your pshrink to get your meds adjusted, as obviously your present dosage of anti-psychotics just aren't doing the job.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Newsdredge - are you sure y
May 28, 2007 - 20:32 ET by alfalfaNewsdredge - are you sure you aren't talking about yourself, because your comments seem to sound drug induced. BTW, the MSM has had Bush Derangement Syndrome as long as I can remember. Why else would they have so many stories about Sheehan's anti-war and anti-Bush stance and none about her latest "announcements" - or very little coverage about our brave soldiers and their accomplishments in Iraq?? George Bush is drug addled? Look in the mirror.....
Anti-war vs anti-bush
May 28, 2007 - 21:54 ET by belagI agree with Noel in saying that the non-coverage of Sheehan is pretty revealing of their intent.
Belag
May 28, 2007 - 22:02 ET by Noel SheppardB,
You agree with Noel? Say it isn't so! :-) ns
Thank you belag
May 29, 2007 - 07:59 ET by SportPoliticsThank you belag. I noted your attempt yesterday while you tried to make an intellectual argument concerning global warming.
I'm appreciative since I don't have to call you a name like I often do to other lessers who come in with astounding opinions based upon their shrunken leftoid frontal lobes.
Kudos for you, as it appears you aren't afraid to admit to the obvious, even if it confirms this sites goal.
The MSM is an unregistered
May 29, 2007 - 07:42 ET by daveinbocaThe MSM is an unregistered agent for the Democrat Party---except for talk radio and Fox/WSJ---the general drift is to bash Bush for everything from the weather to grammatical errors.
The Democrats are pushing forward the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that would drown talk radio in lawsuits brought up by the ACLU and trial lawyers---two other wholly-controlled subsidiaries of the Dhimmicrat Party.
MSM
May 29, 2007 - 08:05 ET by Cool ArrowPublic Relations Arm of the Vitriolic Democrap Apparatus (PRAVDA)
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Breeaking news: CNN.com has
May 29, 2007 - 09:52 ET by balboaBreeaking news: CNN.com has found the Sheehan story. So has FoxNews.com.
Nice going Lois Lane, you b
May 29, 2007 - 10:12 ET by MightyMouthNice going Lois Lane, you beat NB by 11 whole minutes.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'm nothing if not.........ti
May 29, 2007 - 10:18 ET by balboaI'm nothing if not...
...
...timely.
Amigo, per Noel's post belo
May 29, 2007 - 11:25 ET by MightyMouthAmigo, per Noel's post below you aren't really "timely" so were does that leave you per your post? :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM
May 29, 2007 - 10:21 ET by Noel SheppardMM,
You're forgetting how long it took for me to write the article -- including four embedded links -- as compared to Balboa's brief comment! :-) ns
Well Noel, I was impressed.
May 29, 2007 - 10:39 ET by Airforce_5_OWell Noel, I was impressed. (The standard "kiss up" fee applies by the way)
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat all day drinking beer.
Airforce
May 29, 2007 - 11:25 ET by Noel SheppardAirforce,
Check's in the mail! ns
Show-off. :-) This repub
May 29, 2007 - 10:48 ET by Dave RShow-off. :-)
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
Dave
May 29, 2007 - 11:25 ET by Noel Sheppard;-)
"Are the media Antiwar,
May 29, 2007 - 11:43 ET by Beowulf"Are the media Antiwar, or just Anti-Bush?" Simple answer - Yes.
The MSM are bailing on Sheehan because she has become (always was?) a detriment to both the movement and the party. She is so ridiculously radical that even most far-lefties can no longer stomach her tripe. But as is typical of the left-wing media, they want to play both ends against the middle, so unless they can benefit from announcing her breaking from the party, they won't.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers