Could the DNC Have Done It Better?
If anyone ever wonders why conservatives suspect that the MSM is hardly "fair and balanced," today's radio NBC news bulletin was a prime example.
It began by announcing that although today was supposed to be a good day for the Administration with the appointment of Tony Snow, it actually turned out badly because Karl Rove was appearing again before the Fitzgerald grand jury. For some reason, the report omitted to inform the public that Rove is not a target, according to his attorney, Robert Luskin.
The report then went on to discuss President Bush's low poll numbers, at which point a clip from Tim Russert was introduced, in which Russert asserted that the drag on the President's job approval was because of the economy, citing a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finding that only 19% of those polled feel "comfortable" about the economy, compared to 77% who felt "uneasy."
Certainly, it's easy enough to "report" on a poll -- especially when it's one issued by the news organization providing the "coverage." But it's fair to ask: Didn't anyone think it was worth reporting that today, the stock market closed on a six year high? Or that consumer confidence is at the highest level in four years?
It's hard to imagine that the folks at the DNC could have drafted a more favorable report, from their perspective.
It's interesting -- the NBC poll makes much of the "sour" mood in the country. But one's tempting to wonder: How much is the mood is being detected by press coverage, and how much is being driven by it?
It began by announcing that although today was supposed to be a good day for the Administration with the appointment of Tony Snow, it actually turned out badly because Karl Rove was appearing again before the Fitzgerald grand jury. For some reason, the report omitted to inform the public that Rove is not a target, according to his attorney, Robert Luskin.
The report then went on to discuss President Bush's low poll numbers, at which point a clip from Tim Russert was introduced, in which Russert asserted that the drag on the President's job approval was because of the economy, citing a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finding that only 19% of those polled feel "comfortable" about the economy, compared to 77% who felt "uneasy."
Certainly, it's easy enough to "report" on a poll -- especially when it's one issued by the news organization providing the "coverage." But it's fair to ask: Didn't anyone think it was worth reporting that today, the stock market closed on a six year high? Or that consumer confidence is at the highest level in four years?
It's hard to imagine that the folks at the DNC could have drafted a more favorable report, from their perspective.
It's interesting -- the NBC poll makes much of the "sour" mood in the country. But one's tempting to wonder: How much is the mood is being detected by press coverage, and how much is being driven by it?
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:05 PM
5 Comments:
On the President's no-good, very bad day Carol notes, "it actually turned out badly because Karl Rove was appearing again before the Fitzgerald grand jury."
What's that old-lawyer saying... You only need to appear before a Grand Jury once if you tell the truth.
Five times is the charm.
Oh yeah, twisted. As if new or different questions never come up later. Nice try.
The AP reports this re: Mr. Rove's testimony: Rove "testified voluntarily and unconditionally at the request of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance," Luskin said in a statement. "Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges."
And: "According to Luskin, Fitzgerald has advised that Rove is not a target of the investigation. A target is someone likely to be indicted."
I'm not an old lawyer, but I've heard this one: Those who gloat before the end of the game could find the "l" knocked out of them and be the goat.
Wow, Bachbone, so Rove's lawyer is claiming that having his client testify for the fifth time--in a visit lasting over three and a half hours--is a good sign? Hey moog, would ja buy that for a buck?
Dave Schuster of MSNBC reported tonight, "While his supporters continue to put on a good face, sources close to Karl Rove say the Presidential advisor is now more worried, not less, that he is going to be indicted."
And who did Mr. Shuster give as his "sources?"
This same Mr. Shuster reported that his "lawyer sources" told him John Bolton had testified for Mr. Fitzgerald's grand jury. A few weeks later, on Hardball, Shuster admitted that information was wrong and retracted his assertion.
Mr. Shuster also edited an answer Pres. Bush once gave to suggest that Bush had said "Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one and the same." The words in context show how Shuster's selective editing skewed matters: "...The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is, I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."
After hurricane Katrina, Pres. Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." Mr. Shuster reported that this was not true, because Mr. Mayfield, of the National Hurricane Center, said there was "grave concern" about the levees "being topped." Shuster said this "clearly" showed the "..Presidents' team did anticipate the breach." However, NBC's Lisa Myers, using that same information, reported, ""Today Mayfield told NBC News that he warned only that the levees might be topped, not breached, and that on the many conference calls he monitored, 'nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened.'”
Given just these few examples, Mr. Shuster's views and reporting might be considered less than completely accurate and honest.
Post a Comment
<< Home