While the mainstream media continues to report White House attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria without mentioning that House Republicans took a similar trip on April 1, Greg Sargent notes a new wrinkle in coverage he spotted in The New York Times:
At today's press conference, President Bush finally acknowledged that Republicans and Democrats had both taken the trip, for once seeming to dole out a bit of equal opportunity criticism to members of both parties. Progress, right?
But in its account of the Syria portion of the presser today, The New York Times not only fails to mention that Republicans went on a similar trip, but also failed to even report Bush's acknowledgment that this involved members of his own party. Instead, the paper only reports Bush’s criticism of Pelosi’s trip -- it describes Bush's remarks only as criticism of Pelosi.
Here they are side by side:
From the press conference:
QUESTION: You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the international conferences on Iraq. What's so different or wrong about Speaker Pelosi having her own meetings there? And are you worried that she might be preempting your own efforts?
THE PRESIDENT: We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals -- signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad. And by that, I mean, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror...
Here's how The Times summarized his remarks:
The president offered no startling new language today about the war or his disagreements with Democratic leaders about how to conduct it. Rather, he strove to reassert his role as commander in chief of the military and as the leader in charge of American foreign policy, chiding the Speaker of the House, Nancy J. Pelosi, for visiting Syria today.
Mr. Bush said that visits like Ms. Pelosi’s, with their accompanying “photo opportunities,” may lead the Damascus government to see itself as “part of the mainstream of the international community,” and not the terrorism promoters they are. The Bush administration has been trying for two years to isolate Damascus diplomatically, but critics have called for dialogue with Syria as a means to help stabilize Iraq.
Given that this assault on Pelosi has been a key talking point for the White House and its media enablers for days and days on end, an acknowledgment from the President himself that the trip was taken by Republicans as well as Dems is not a small thing.
No, it certainly isn't. And whether this was an honest error or calculated omission, it demands a prominent correction. This type of omission, however, is par for the course in The Times and the MSM at large. What's simply mind-boggling is how a reporter (along with his editors) at our Paper of Record, or really any professional news outlet not named Fox, allows a piece to run that would receive a failing grade had it been submitted to a high school journalism class. Yet such omissions, intentional or otherwise, occur daily; so widespread is this sea of sloppy journalism that the most we can do is note some instances, like Sargent's catch, to exemplify the ubiquitous slipshod coverage that passes as responsible news.
Even with all the media watchdog sites out there now, for every piece like this you read, there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of similar instances a week that go unflagged. Large-scale omissions to small that saturate papers, televisions and computer screens, leaving readers and viewers ill-informed. And more often than not - the White House attacks on Pelosi's trip a perfect example - one mainstream media outlet works not as a checks and balance for another outlet, but rather as an enabler and barometer for what is acceptable, which, of course, works to perpetuate inadequate and misleading storylines.
It is this kind of institutionalized mediocrity, incompetence and dishonesty that genuine media critics like Bill Moyers rightly call a cancer on our democracy. While it's incredibly important for all of us to continue to catalogue and critique such journalistic hackery, profound change in mainstream media practices remains desperately needed.
If not that, then I'd suggest warning labels. Here's one that might work:
CAUTION: Doesn't contain full supply of essential information.
New York Times Doesn't Report Bush's Criticism Of GOPers' Syria Trip
By Greg Sargent
The Horse's Mouth
NY Times Omission Standard MSM Occurence
Posted by: MediaBloodhound | April 04, 2007 at 02:33 AM