Networks Biased in Reporting Sex Scandals, Report Says

[Desertdog]

Networks Biased in Reporting Sex Scandals, Report Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200610/NAT20061012b.html

(CNSNews.com) - The establishment media has a double standard when reporting the sexual proclivities of Republicans versus Democrats, a media watchdog group found in a report on the Mark Foley scandal.

Over the past 12 days, more than 150 stories on Foley aired on morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, the Media Research Center, parent company of Cybercast News Service, found. Compare that to 19 stories over one year in the scandal involving Mel Reynolds - a Democratic congressman from Illinois convicted in 1995 of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker.

"The numbers are clear and shocking: 152 stories on Mark Foley over 12 days, yet only 19 stories on Mel Reynolds over an entire year. This double standard reeks of political partisanship and proves how far the liberal media will go to downplay the sexual degeneracy of a liberal Democrat and trumpet the sexual degeneracy of a Republican," said MRC President Brent Bozell in a statement.

Reynolds also conspired to have sex with the teen's 15-year-old friend, solicited child porn, and was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault and obstruction of justice.

CBS did two stories on Reynolds' 1994 indictment (two anchor briefs), while NBC did one evening story and ABC didn't touch on the indictment at all, the MRC found.

And when Reynolds was convicted in 1995 on all 12 counts, NBC did 10 stories (seven anchor briefs, a morning story and two morning interview segments), CBS did five (four anchor briefs and a full morning story) and ABC reported on it once.

Foley resigned recently amid reports that he traded sexually inappropriate messages with an underage male participant in the congressional page program.

NBC did a total of 56 stories on the Foley scandal (20 on the evening news and 36 in the morning), compared to 50 on ABC (20 in the evening and 30 in the morning) and 46 on CBS (15 in the evening and 31 in the morning).

"The Republican is accused of repugnant behavior, via e-mail primarily, toward minors. The Democrat was charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison for very real sexual assault toward a minor along with obstruction of justice," noted Bozell.

"The same networks that gave absolute minimal coverage to the Democrat are now flooding the airwaves with stories about the Republican, on the eve of the elections. If this isn't evidence of a liberal media agenda, nothing ever will be," Bozell added.

The MRC looked at stories on the Foley scandal from Sept. 29 when the story broke to Oct. 11. A fraction of the stories were brief anchor updates.

[Perd Hapley]

I am shocked.

[Iain]

The only thing that I'm shocked by is the fact that a "conservative media watchdog" thinks that the "liberal media" is biased. Big shock there.

Nothing new under this sun, everyone thinks the media is out to get them. Hear it all the time from all sides, if it's not Foley it's Rupert Murdoch trying to destroy socialist politicians.

[Perd Hapley]

Iain, are you aware that Murdoch aligns himself with the liberal Democrats?

[Iain]

That's irrelevant, a Scottish socialist MSP was just on Question Time claiming that Rupert Murdoch's newspapers are trying to destroy him over allegations that he visited swingers clubs, sued for libel, won and then admitted to a friend that he had in fact visited said swingers club.

The point is - everyone thinks that the media is out to get them, and they all have 'proof'.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, I get you Iain.  I don't think it's the same here in America.  Whatever it might be like in other countries, the media here is unquestionably biased to the left.  This latest study is but a brick in the wall.  American leftists claiming that the press is biased to the right seems to be a recent phenomenon, and in my opinion is merely a copy-cat of what conservatives have been saying for decades.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The point is - everyone thinks that the media is out to get them, and they all have 'proof'.

...and by implication they all must be wrong, and we should ignore anyone who says the media is biased against them.  Right?

You say that everyone thinks the media is out to get them.  I suppose you are right, everyone probably does think the media is out to get them.  The difference, however, is that only some of those people are correct in their thinking.  The difference between conservatives saying the media is biased left, and liberals saying the media is biased right, is that the conservatives are correct and the liberals are incorrect.  (By "media" I mean the mainstream American media.)

I highly suspect that the recent claims of rightward media bias are a ploy by the left to weaken the evidence of a leftist media.  I have seen variations of this arguement over and over again from the left.  

"All politicians say the media is biased against themselves, therefore when that one group of politicians says so they shouldn't be taken seriously."  It's a pretty good way to obscure the fact that the media is biased against Republicans and/or conservatives.  It's like crying "wolf" over and over again, hoping that when the real wolf comes along nobody will listen.

Think of it this way:  If some people think that 2+2=4, and others think that 2+2=5, and still others think 2+2=6, then it's true that they all believe they're right.  But in fact, only the folks who say that 2+2=4 are right, and the others are wrong.  But with everyone saying that the sum two and two equals something different, it might be hard for someone who doesn't already know to establish what the true value is.

[Iain]

Please note - I wrote the following and then nearly didn't post it. It was mostly written (all 1,000+ words) as a concrete formulation of various thoughts I've had about the media and its complex relationship with the general public, thoughts that have become more frequent since joining THR and APS. I'd appreciate discussion rather than anger in response, I'm aware that what I say may not be popular. Like I say at the end, it is opinion, and not many are in any position to offer anything other than opinion in response, so I'll respect yours if you respect mine.

-----------------------------

I've given quite a bit of thought to the media paradox in the last few months, and I'm sure my conclusions are not all that new. Most of the time I don't have much of a problem with the media that I expose myself to, and this is more than likely the case for two reasons - one is that I don't actually have all that many oxen to gore, my political views are somewhat amorphous and certainly not tied to any major political party or even political ideology. Secondly, the important part is that I don't have a problem with the media I expose myself to through choice, which is something I will return to later.

That's not to say that I think those media outlets are objective and non-biased, I watched CH4 and the BBC news most evenings, they both irritate me, the BBC often does over Israel as does CH4 but they throw in ten minutes of discussion about Madonna adopting African babies and that irritates me greatly. That brings me to a media outlet that often comes in for major stick - the BBC. I was asked by a New Yorker I met a while back if I didn't consider the licence fee to be somewhat communist. Others will tell me that the BBC is the mouthpiece of the state, that it is government controlled media by virtue of its funding arrangements, that it is pro-war. Yet, over Iraq and most specifically the David Kelly affair, there are those who tell me that the BBC is dedicated to the overthrow of the government, that it is pacifist and radically left-wing. The government itself was most certainly displeased.

During the recent Israel/Hezbollah business two media outlets stuck out to me. Firstly the BBC again, my view of their coverage was that it was less than perfect, friends of mine went further. But a trip to the Have Your Say message board cast a different light on the affair - apparently the BBC is pro-Israel. Secondly, the Guardian published an opinion piece which I won't ever forget reading in that paper. It was entitled (from memory) "You don't have to be an anti-Semite to think that Israel shouldn't exist, but it does help." In the Guardian? I read it there, and it amused me.

Sometimes my ox is gored, or I feel that it has been. Just last night there was a report about a case presently in court in which a man stands accused of abducting a small girl, who was soon found relatively safe and well. Under a recent law change the jury has been told that five years ago he was convicted of paedophile related offenses. I wanted the reporter to demand to know how this man is expected to get a fair trial, how it is that previous guilt is evidence of present guilt. I feel strongly that fair trials are something that should be fiercely protected and that this is not a change for the better. What I wanted though, was the media to report my views, for a second there I thought that failing to report my views was failing to be objective, when in reality it was a twenty second update on a high profile case.

A recent poll on THR indicated that over 50% of respondents believe that FOX news is the most objective network news outlet, even when 'none of the above' is given as a choice. Open that poll to the general public and you'd end up with a close run thing between several outlets, restrict the poll to DU and you'd probably get a similar answer to THR, but it wouldn't be FOX. Is FOX the most objective news source out there? I'm inclined to say that if you voted 'yes' then your judgment of objectiveness is pretty subjective, it is based on exposing yourself to that particular media outlet because it by and large coincides with your 'objectiveness'. I'd say the same thing to anyone who didn't vote for 'Iain's News Daily'.

This report tries to measure media bias, but it doesn't put too much context around these two cases - did Foley come to light in the 'silly season'? Was it the only story in town? Did other cases crop up right in the middle of Iran-Contra, the Iraq War, Watergate or Monica-gate? Did either of these men set themselves up for a fall (something the media does love) with statements they had made, denials, or positions they had taken? I was deliberately a little flippant in my first response because if allegations like this surface from one side the other ignores it because it came from the other side. Anything that you can say about them 'crying wolf' they've already said, and as far as they are concerned they are right and you are wrong, and of course you are right and they are wrong. They believe you are adding two and two and getting five. Neither of you have any actual real proof, other than crosses on Cheney's face and FOX labeling Foley a Democrat. Both accidental it would appear, and both caused an awful lot of people to get bent out of shape. We tend to note and remember grievances.

-------------------------------------------

Taken from here (which comes from here and is unashamedly not unbiased and worth reading if only to indicate that the 'liberal media' thesis is not unchallenged) are a few quotes (picked deliberately by the author, and clearly with the author's agenda in mind - so no different to almost any claim about media bias then) -

"There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don’t think we had anything to complain about," - James Baker (one of Reagan’s Chief’s of Staff, also Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and Secretary of State under George H W Bush)

"I’ve gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage—all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the ‘liberal media,’ but every Republican on earth does that," - Patrick Buchanan (former advisor to Nixon, Ford and Reagan and Republican Presidential nominee)

"I admit it... The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - William Kristol (‘Project for the Republican Future’, stuff with Dan Quayle, FOX contributor)

I can’t vouch for the validity (exact wording and general context) of those quotes, they’re just quite interesting.

NB - This is purely my opinion, my long-winded opinion. That's about all anyone is offering and can offer.

[Guest]

The media makes money by alternately pissing people off and by telling them what they want to hear. Notice that "reporting the unvarnished, unbiased truth" is not a part of this equation, nor is "supporting a specific political oligarcy for no apparent reason".

The media has a bias alright, a bias towards making money.