MSM Confessions

Perhaps embarrassed by allowing themselves to be so used by Democrat smear operatives, and so many among the MSM actively collaborating, pre-election mea culpas are appearing in some MSM quarters. Or, perhaps, with their Dem sweep less probable, they are just coweringly covering their bets (and butts) a bit.

The George Soros-financed CREW organization has effectively focused particularly on spreading unproven allegations and ancient nitpicks, to be headlined against Republican candidates. The Arizona Republic’s article, “Inquiry on Renzi: Real deal or campaign trickery?” described how such attacks work:

The scenario is a familiar one to state and federal prosecutors during election season:

As the day for casting ballots draws near, a political operative files a complaint alleging criminal misconduct by the opposing candidate. Investigators, with a responsibility to determine whether the allegations have merit, open an inquiry.

The operative then tips off journalists that the candidate is the target of a criminal inquiry.

And, finally, reporters find a law enforcement official, usually anonymous, who confirms that the candidate is under investigation.

However, as the Arizona Republic article points out,

A Justice Department official in Washington, D.C., confirmed a "preliminary inquiry" of allegations about Renzi. The official also cautioned Wednesday that initial media reports contained significant inaccuracies. The official said the Justice Department contacted at least two newspapers Wednesday about "chunks of stuff in their stories that's wrong."

But, the political damage is done, as smear artists intended.

Today’s weasely ombudsman columns from the New York Times and the Washington Post admit to their papers’ coverage slants.

The Times’ Byron Calame (pronounced, “calamity” of an ombudsman) confesses:

Getting both sides of a story and sorting them out for readers is the basic job of newspaper reporters and editors. This is a key to creating a newspaper that is fair — both to readers and to the people and institutions that are the subjects of stories.

Seeking comment from those written about, especially when they are put in an unfavorable light, is a particularly important aspect of fair coverage. It helps ensure that readers get the most complete and accurate view possible of a newsworthy development. Unfortunately, The Times has had too many cases recently where subjects weren’t given a chance to comment, or the attempt to reach them was insufficient.

The WP’s Deborah Howell admits:

Allen supporters think he can't catch a break; I sympathize. The macaca coverage went on too long, and a profile of Allen was relentlessly negative without balancing coverage of what made him a popular governor and senator.

Calame and Howell introduce a number of important mitigations, of the slammed party not cooperating as the paper would like, sometimes in the late evening (!) not being reachable immediately, which speaks to the 24/7 news cycle. But, as Calame points out, his paper could have without harming its story line, excluded the one-sided part. Further, Calame and Howell might have mentioned that both leading papers, like most of their ilk, have been unrelievedly hostile, reducing candidates’ ease at confiding quickly to reporters’ calls in the mid of night with loaded questions.

There’ll be much more investigations coming in the next few months, not only from grandstanding saboteurs of national security among possible House Democrat committee chairs, but from serious scholars of journalism.

Brooks Jackson, of FactCheck.org, reviews the “Whoppers of 2006,” not mentioning his organization’s disproportionate picking on Republicans, and concludes:

Our system of government leaves it to voters to sort out the truth from what they see and hear, with whatever help they can get from a free press.

That help from the “free press” we have in the MSM, however, is like being handed a greased pole for vaulting over the bar of smears.