They Report, Dems Intimidate

And people claim vague intimidation from random emanations and penumbra consisting of the rumor someone might have questioned their patriotism at some point… Intimidation is, apparently, more part and parcel to liberal strategy – official, DNC strategy, not some vague rumor or theory.

http://instapundit.com/archives/016976.php

They Report, We Intimidate

The Boston Democratic convention featured a rich side menu of interesting seminars. One of the most controversial was a workshop for new Democratic campaign press secretaries that sounded like a call to arms in its advice on how to deal with the new media universe.

Lecturers urged press secretaries to confront what one warned was "media that are no longer tilted in your direction." Bullying was openly encouraged. "When it comes to the media," suggested Democratic strategist James Carville, "intimidation works." "Challenge them," added David Brock of Media Matters, a new liberal group set up to criticize conservative media outlets. Democrats used to rail at the likes of Reed Irvine and his conservative group Accuracy in Media, accusing them of nitpicking at media stories and ginning up public complaints against them. No more. It will be interesting to see what, if any, "intimidation" success stories the Democrats will be touting in coming months.

--John Fund

I suspect that if a Republican were reported to have said this, it would be bigger news. Hey, the intimidation must already be working!

But actually, the most revealing bit is the part about media “no longer tilted in your direction.” It’s not media bias that’s bothering these guys. It’s the fear that it may slip away.

UPDATE: Is it already happening? Here’s what the reporter whom Teresa Heinz told to “shove it” reports:

"I hope you burn in hell," read one e-mail. "You're a (expletive) Nazi," went another. "Teresa should have told you to go (expletive) yourself," another friendly e-mailer offered. And these were among the milder communiques; those that included death threats will be forwarded to the senders' respective hometown police departments.

One of my daughters back in Pittsburgh was brought to tears by a caller to our house. The clever woman identified herself as a Washington reporter seeking to interview me but then embarked on a filthy tirade. It seems a member of the Heinz Kerry Civility Enforcement Patrol posted our home address and telephone number on the response part of my convention blog.

So far, it doesn’t seem to be working on this guy: “That said, and as I shove off from Boston, I’m still waiting for the answer to my question of Sunday night last.”

See also this effort by members of Congress to follow with the publicity stunt/ attempt at legal intimidation from Moveon.org – and I do mean legal intimidation. The suit was misuse of process in that it was obviously against current 1st Amendment law, and was not arguing for a good-faith change in that law. This is in the same vein [original post has many embedded links, which can be followed by going to the link below]:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/002449.html#002449

PURE CHUTZPAH

“Several members of Congress sent a letter Tuesday to Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, to express their opposition to what they say is the network’s ‘unfair and unbalanced’ bias towards the Republican Party.”

So reports the UPI yesterday.

The group, composed of 38 Democrats and Independents from the U.S. House of Representatives, has requested that Murdoch meet with them to discuss their concerns.

"The responsibility of the media is to report the news in an unbiased, impartial and objective manner," the letter reads.

"It seems clear that Fox News network has a deliberate bias in favor of, and often serves as an extension of, the Republican Party's policies and ideology."

Murdoch owns 100 cable channels, 40 television stations, nine satellite networks, one film studio and 175 newspapers, reaching an estimated 4.7 billion people worldwide.

The letter's co-signers include Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic Leadership, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee.

A spokesman for Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said there were legislative avenues that the group could pursue as a secondary measure but declined to speculate on what those might be. (Emphasis mine.)

“Legislative avenues”?? You mean force Fox to be “fair and balanced” – according to the criteria this group outlines? What a hoot! Where are all the lefty “censorship” screamers on this one? This is true censorship – when the government threatens to muzzle an outlet of expression. But since Fox presents a “threat” to what leftists hold near and dear, well, it must somehow be “dangerous” and hence not subject to free speech protections. Sounds just like an American college campus, now doesn’t it?

The letter cites recent studies by organizations such as Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting and the Program on International Policy Attitudes.

The FAIR report found that Fox's "Special Report with Brit Hume" overwhelmingly favors conservative and Republican guests over liberals or Democrats at a ratio of 5-1. 

Great! Now maybe the group will go after NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, WaPo, etc. using studies by the Media Research Center and, dare I say, OTLM! Yeah, right. And maybe Lucifer will wear a parka.

Two-thirds of Fox viewers, for example, wrongly believed that a link between Iraq and al-Qaida had been found, while only 16 percent of PBS/NPR viewers and listeners and 40 percent of print-media readers shared the same misperception.

In addition, 33 percent of Fox viewers believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, in contrast with 11 percent of PBS/NPR viewers and 19 percent of ABC News viewers.

“Wrongly believed”? The 9/11 Commission itself said that al Qaeda and Iraq had links. (“There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” said 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean.) Maybe it’s that Fox actually reported on links (and possible links) instead of stating – wrongly, like this article – that there were [definitively] none? And maybe it’s only been on Fox where people saw reports that shells filled with Sarin and mustard gas were found in Iraq? Or shells containing blister agents? Aren’t these weapons of mass destruction? Oh, but even though they of course are, a certain number must be discovered to satisfy the Left.

"The report suggests the one-sided, partisan reporting of Fox News has the effect of improving the president's standing with the American people on the basis of not news, but disinformation," said the legislators' letter to Murdoch.

Both polls are featured in the recent documentary "Outfoxed," also referred to in the letter, which delivers a highly critical analysis of Fox's alleged political bias and agenda-pushing techniques. It has been widely dismissed by Fox News.

The documentary, sponsored by the Center for American Progress, a think tank headed by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, and MoveOn.org, an online advocacy group, has sold 100,000 copies since its DVD release two weeks ago. 

MoveOn.org? Podesta? Need more be said?

MoveOn.org and AlterNet.org, part of the Independent Media Institute, have both filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission over Fox News' use of the "Fair and Balanced" trademark, which they say is deceptive and misleading.

The complaint by MoveOn.org acknowledges the right of any news channel to present news with a political slant under the First Amendment but charges that the slogan misinforms consumers and does not accurately represent Fox's broadcasts, based on the studies it cites and former Fox employees' testimony.

Gee, isn’t that big of MoveOn.org that they “acknowledge the right of any news channel to present news with a political slant under the First Amendment”? So, when can we expect them to file a complaint about the New York Times’ slogan of “All The News That’s Fit To Print”?

Fox, [Walter Cronkite] says, has completely "eliminated journalism," a sentiment echoed by several media analysts and former Fox employees featured in the documentary ("Outfoxed").

Jon Du Pre, former West Coast news anchor for Fox, says, "They made it perfectly clear what they expected from us.

"We weren't so much ... a newsgathering organization as we were a proponent of a point of view," he says.

Rebuttal: Go out and get Bernard Goldberg’s Bias and Arrogance.

I saw something on this yesterday.

How many times has the right petitioned to take away the first amendment rights of the left?

I guess free speech only extends to those who agree with the liberal agenda in this country.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
How many times has the right petitioned to take away the first amendment rights of the left?[/quote]

I think you got your sides mixed up. The left are the liberals.

It was a rhetorical question. The right has never lowered themselves to the level that the left has now sunk.

Were you drunk when you posted this?
(Edit: I just saw your post in another thread where you said you were too busy to post this week. Too bad! In trying to make 5 different points in this thread, I don’t think you made any! So I’m sorry for any personal jabs here, but rather than go back and edit them out, I’ll apologize here for ridiculing the slap-dash nature of your thread.)

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
“Challenge them,” added David Brock of Media Matters, a new liberal group set up to criticize conservative media outlets.[/quote]

THE HORROR! For Gods sake nobody deserves to be “challenged”!!!

Hey! I think this is the dumbest post I’ve ever seen you write, and frankly I am surprised.

The guy is a partisan hack, and the newspaper he writes for is a total piece of shit. But go ahead and align yourself with them if you want. The poor baby can dish it out, but he can’t take it. They wrote mean stuff on his blog! sniff

Is it the “News” or is it an “outlet of expression”? FOX News needs to make up it’s mind. Lets not confuse “Free speech” and “the News”.

I love the anti-intellectual bent! Gee, isn’t that the “class warfare” you claim you deplore?

Wrong, Fox News viewers thought that Saddam was actually responsible for 9-11.

[quote]In addition, 33 percent of Fox viewers believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, in contrast with 11 percent of PBS/NPR viewers and 19 percent of ABC News viewers.

“Wrongly believed”? The 9/11 Commission itself said that al Qaeda and Iraq had links. (“There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” said 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean.) Maybe it’s that Fox actually reported on links (and possible links) instead of stating – wrongly, like this article – that there were [definitively] none? [/quote]

There was no working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, pull yourself together, man. What is a “LINK”? Don’t you and I have a LINK, because BostonBarrister and Lumpy “communicate”? Saddam was not behind 9-11 and had nothing to do with 9-11! GET A CLUE! What is a “link”? If all they did was exchange birthday cards, that’s a “link”!

Pathetic! Did Chuckmanjoe discover your log-in info? “FILLED with sarin?” HA HA HA How very Chicken Little of you.

FILLED WITH SARIN!!
FILLED WITH SARIN!!

In case you don’t remember, the only thinge we’ve found are OLD weapons left over from the first Gulf War. But George Bush claimed that Saddam had “re-constituted” his WMD programs and had “stockpiles” of WMDs. These old (and inert) shells that are lying around decomposing don’t qualify.

If our government actually found WMD in Iraq, then George Bush and Dick Cheney would be talking about it EVERY SINGLE DAY. They haven’t found jack shit! The lack of real WMDs in Iraq is the single biggest embarrassment of George Bush’s entire presidency! If we ever actually find WMDs George Bush will be all over the TV talking about it!!!

But YOU say we found WMDs and that these crappy old shells are WMDs and the real problem is that the news is censoring the story??? ARE YOU HIGH? Why won’t Bush himself claim he found WMDs? Is BUSH censoring himself?

It’s really a matter of false advertising. Instead of calling themselves “Fair and Balanced” all Fox News needs to do is change their name to “PRAVDA”, problem solved!

Well, you could say if there is truth to their complaints or not. And there is!!! The movie “Outfoxed” has Fox staffers talking on-screen about how they are told what the day’s “Talking Points” will be, and shows memos from Fox’s GM that all revove around supporting the GOP and attacking the Democrats.

[quote]Fox, [Walter Cronkite] says, has completely “eliminated journalism,” a sentiment echoed by several media analysts and former Fox employees featured in the documentary (“Outfoxed”).

Jon Du Pre, former West Coast news anchor for Fox, says, "They made it perfectly clear what they expected from us.

"We weren't so much ... a newsgathering organization as we were a proponent of a point of view," he says.[/quote]

Exactly!!!

All Fox News has to do is stop lying about their mission. Oh, but nobody should “challenge” the media!!!

Lumpy, old weapons from previous wars are stockpiles. And, moldering or not, a CBW shell is still a WMD.

It’s really amusing how the WMDs we actually do find in Iraq… don’t count.

Ask George Bush if these old shells count as WMDs that present a “gathering threat” of a “reconstituted WMD propgram”!

If George Bush doesn’t think they count, then why should I?

Lumpy,

BB’s articulate ability to set certain facts straight and point out liberal hypocricy as it relates to free speech seems to have gotten you a bit ired.

Incidentally, there is no doubt that Al Queda, Saddam Hussein and 9/11 can be at least indirectly associated. You see, Saddam’s failure to comply with the 1991 cease-fire agreement made it necessary for American troops to be stationed on Saudi Arabian soil on a more or less permanent basis. This situation so angered Bin Laden that he severed his relationship with the Saudi government and began planning for 9/11.

Don’t mention it, glad to help you out a little bit. If I can provide you with any more clarification on the truth, just send me an e-mail.

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Were you drunk when you posted this? [/quote]
No, although I admit to being a little rushed, which may have led to your confusion. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to clearly delineate my own comments from the linked posts. FYI, I linked the whole posts, rather than just the parts that buttressed my points, so that you could read for yourself and decide.

Once again, sorry this was a tad unclear - I usually insert quote marks or use some other device to make it clear where my comments are when I place them in a pasted item, or between pasted items, as here

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
“Challenge them,” added David Brock of Media Matters, a new liberal group set up to criticize conservative media outlets.

Lumpy: THE HORROR! For Gods sake nobody deserves to be “challenged”!!![/quote]

I notice you focused on this quote rather that the one in which James Carville said the media should be intimidated, which was the crux of why I included that whole item – BTW, that item was by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal

[quote]BB: I suspect that if a Republican were reported to have said this, it would be bigger news. Hey, the intimidation must already be working!

Lumpy: Hey! I think this is the dumbest post I’ve ever seen you write, and frankly I am surprised. [/quote]

That item was from U. of Tn. con law professor Glen Reynolds. He’s not actually very dumb. And, I think, his point, which you skipped, is quite valid. If the Republicans were giving seminars on how to intimidate the media, you would see much more attention given to that item.

[quote] BB: UPDATE: Is it already happening? Here’s what the reporter whom Teresa Heinz told to “shove it” reports:

Lumpy: The guy is a partisan hack, and the newspaper he writes for is a total piece of shit. But go ahead and align yourself with them if you want. The poor baby can dish it out, but he can’t take it. They wrote mean stuff on his blog! sniff[/quote]

Once again, that was Prof. Reynolds writing. And, I notice you skip the parts about people posting his home address, calling his house, making his daughter cry – kind of different than writing articles one doesn’t appreciate, or asking an unappreciated question at a press conference, don’t you think? I’m not going to imply you condone that stuff, but you shouldn’t ignore it if you’re actually responding to my point.

[quote]BB: This is true censorship – when the government threatens to muzzle an outlet of expression. But since Fox presents a “threat” to what leftists hold near and dear, well, it must somehow be “dangerous” and hence not subject to free speech protections.

Lumpy: Is it the “News” or is it an “outlet of expression”? FOX News needs to make up it’s mind. Lets not confuse “Free speech” and “the News”.[/quote]

This quote was from the weblog http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

FoxNews does both news and opinion shows, just like newspapers do both news stories and opinions. This is not a difficult distinction to understand. The problem comes when opinion is interjected in news, and when only one viewpoint is presented in a story about a divisive, two-sided issue. We’ve discussed this on other threads, I believe.

[quote] BB: Sounds just like an American college campus, now doesn’t it?

I love the anti-intellectual bent! Gee, isn’t that the “class warfare” you claim you deplore? [/quote]

Once again, this was from the author of the post from thatliberalmedia.com. However, no, it’s not class warfare. Unless you think college students and professors compose a class. I think the reference was more to the “ivory tower” mindset of those sheltered from the real world – which, of course, would explain why a lot of college GRADS are Republicans…

[quote] BB: Two-thirds of Fox viewers, for example, wrongly believed that a link between Iraq and al-Qaida had been found, while only 16 percent of PBS/NPR viewers and listeners and 40 percent of print-media readers shared the same misperception.

Lumpy: Wrong, Fox News viewers thought that Saddam was actually responsible for 9-11.

BB: In addition, 33 percent of Fox viewers believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, in contrast with 11 percent of PBS/NPR viewers and 19 percent of ABC News viewers.

“Wrongly believed”? The 9/11 Commission itself said that al Qaeda and Iraq had links. (“There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” said 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean.) Maybe it’s that Fox actually reported on links (and possible links) instead of stating – wrongly, like this article – that there were [definitively] none?

Lumpy: There was no working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, pull yourself together, man. What is a “LINK”? Don’t you and I have a LINK, because BostonBarrister and Lumpy “communicate”? Saddam was not behind 9-11 and had nothing to do with 9-11! GET A CLUE! What is a “link”? If all they did was exchange birthday cards, that’s a “link”![/quote]

Firstly, these comments were actually a mix of the commentator from the weblog talking about the article he was commenting on, so it was confusing. But it wasn’t really related to my point.

That said, did you ever look at that survey? I did. The question was deliberately worded so as to comport with a thesis that Americans were being misled. While I don’t wish to look it up now, you can do so - the wording was approximately: “Do you disagree with the statement that there is no intelligence linking Saddam and Iraq with 9/11”, which of course meant that anyone who knew of the Czech intelligence reports would have answered that they disagreed, because there was intelligence.

That said, I personally think it’s highly improbable Iraq was directly involved with 9/11, while I do think Iraq was actively sponsoring terrorism.

But that survey was bunk.

[quote] BB: And maybe it’s only been on Fox where people saw reports that shells filled with Sarin and mustard gas were found in Iraq? Or shells containing blister agents? Aren’t these weapons of mass destruction? Oh, but even though they of course are, a certain number must be discovered to satisfy the Left.

Lumpy: Pathetic! Did Chuckmanjoe discover your log-in info? “FILLED with sarin?” HA HA HA How very Chicken Little of you.

FILLED WITH SARIN!!
FILLED WITH SARIN!!

In case you don’t remember, the only thinge we’ve found are OLD weapons left over from the first Gulf War. But George Bush claimed that Saddam had “re-constituted” his WMD programs and had “stockpiles” of WMDs. These old (and inert) shells that are lying around decomposing don’t qualify.

If our government actually found WMD in Iraq, then George Bush and Dick Cheney would be talking about it EVERY SINGLE DAY. They haven’t found jack shit! The lack of real WMDs in Iraq is the single biggest embarrassment of George Bush’s entire presidency! If we ever actually find WMDs George Bush will be all over the TV talking about it!!!

But YOU say we found WMDs and that these crappy old shells are WMDs and the real problem is that the news is censoring the story??? ARE YOU HIGH? Why won’t Bush himself claim he found WMDs? Is BUSH censoring himself? [/quote]

This was again the commentator on the website, and it wasn’t really related to my main point.

However, don’t forget to change your chant to “No stockpiles of WMD” from “No WMD” if you wish to be technically correct. There is, of course, ample evidence Hussein was pursuing his weapons programs, and that he believed he had weapons, and acted as if he had them – but that hasn’t mattered to you before, so why rehash?

[quote] BB: “The report suggests the one-sided, partisan reporting of Fox News has the effect of improving the president’s standing with the American people on the basis of not news, but disinformation,” said the legislators’ letter to Murdoch.

Lumpy: It’s really a matter of false advertising. Instead of calling themselves “Fair and Balanced” all Fox News needs to do is change their name to “PRAVDA”, problem solved! [/quote]

This was again a comment from the weblog. But, no, it’s really a matter of 1st Amendment law. Trust me on this one.

[quote] BB: MoveOn.org? Podesta? Need more be said?

Lumpy: Well, you could say if there is truth to their complaints or not. And there is!!! The movie “Outfoxed” has Fox staffers talking on-screen about how they are told what the day’s “Talking Points” will be, and shows memos from Fox’s GM that all revove around supporting the GOP and attacking the Democrats.[/quote]

Again, a comment by the weblog.

I generally don’t like “far right” or “far left” dismissives.

The problem with what you wrote is the Outfoxed movie is a Moore-type documentary. You could make the same exact movie about ABC news or CBS news or whatever. Reporters are given guidance by editors and anchors. There are plenty of reports about Peter Jennings axing pieces or demanding edits when the anti-administration line wasn’t strong enough for his liking.

Is it problematic? Yes. HOw much? Hard to tell, when the majority of interviewees are disgruntled former employees. Remember, always discount source bias.

But, even with the “problem”, unless you’re willing to admit that Fox is hardly an anomoly, you’re not presenting a “fair and balanced” account. =-)

[quote] BB: Fox, [Walter Cronkite] says, has completely “eliminated journalism,” a sentiment echoed by several media analysts and former Fox employees featured in the documentary (“Outfoxed”).

Jon Du Pre, former West Coast news anchor for Fox, says, "They made it perfectly clear what they expected from us.

"We weren't so much ... a newsgathering organization as we were a proponent of a point of view," he says.

Lumpy: Exactly!!!

All Fox News has to do is stop lying about their mission. Oh, but nobody should “challenge” the media!!!
[/quote]

See directly above for a comment on this.

Overall, Lumpy, I’m disappointed. You managed to focus on all the stuff in the posts that wasn’t pertinent to the point. That point, of course, was that the Democrats are attempting to intimidate the media - at least media they believe are dissenting from their party line.

Now John Kerry is threatening to sue stations that air the political ads of that anti-Kerry veterans organization. While I disagree with what I’ve heard about the ads (haven’t actually seen one), they are CORE political speech under the 1st Amendment, and trying to stifle them with lawsuits is a horrible idea. Imagine if Bush had tried to sue the NAACP for their James Byrd ads?

Anyway, back to work for me. Enjoy.

More on Kerry’s team of lawyers attempting to intimidate the media via lawsuits – whether you disagree or agree with the commercials, this is wrong. And, to paraphrase Tallyrand’s description of an enemy’s assassination by Napolean, it’s not just wrong, but a mistake. It gives the Kerry side of the argument the whiff of desperation, because it looks as if they are running to the courts due to lack of effective counterarguments.

Page 1 of the letter to stations running ads by Club For Growth can be found here:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/images/DNC_1.pdf

Page 2 of the same is here:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/images/DNC_2.pdf

The letter threatening stations who run the Swiftboat ad is here:

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html

Now, this is different from the intimidation of news reporters, but it is part and parcel to the same idea: controlling information and suppressing dissenting viewpoints. As I said, whether you agree or disagree, it’s hard to argue that the ads are not political speech, which is the core of what the 1st Amendment protects.

Slander and libel is different than a “dissenting opinion”. You make it seem as if the big bad Kerry lawyers are picking on the poor little TV stations, who don’t have their own lawyers and can’t defend themselves. Gee, maybe the ads ARE sleazy and SHOULD be pulled? Maybe a sense of fairness came into play? Maybe the charges are flimsy at best, and it’s irresponsible to spread them? What about that possibility?

Also, as far as Carville’s quote that the media should be intimidated… the media should strive to find the TRUTH. However the media has shown repeatedly that they will drop the ball, that they will repeat rumors as facts, that they will write stories based on talking points and not investigative journalism, and so on. YES the media should be intimidated, if that’s what is necessary to get them to be fair and truthful! Call these people on their bullshit, if that’s what it takes!!!

During the McCarthy era, the press took Joe McCarthy’s press releases and used them without questioning. The press got burned and they learned a hard lesson, that they should question their sources, that stories should be verified, that sources needed to be reputable. However these lessons seem tro have been forgotten, in the current interest for tabloid journalism and controversey. Today, if the GOP were to claim that the Sun revolved around the Earth, many newspapers would print the headline “Controversey Over Sun Being Center of the Universe”.

(How else can you explain the “controversey” over Creationism vs. Darwinism?)

EXACTLY!!! How right you are. Check out
http://mediamatters.org/

This website shows how the major and fringe media are biased, although it’s not the “liberal bias” you’d prefer to believe. MediaMatters is a website run by David Brock, a former right wing attack dog, who started using his conscience as a guide, and now documents right wing media bias as well as disinformation, dirty tricks and slander. Not only does MediaMatters show the lies and distortions of Limbaugh, Hannitty, O’Reilly and Coulter, but also the bias at the NY Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other “legitimate” news sources.

FoxNews is not the only media outlet distorting the truth, however they are the most flagrant by far!

David Brock wrote the book “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative” and his new book is called “The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy”.

Don’t have time to check out the Brock stuff at the moment. What I do know about his org though, is that it’s a 527 org funded by George Soros, and its purpose is to be an anti-Bush “attack dog.”

Compared to the James Byrd ad that the NAACP ran in 2000, this is nothing.

But to get the Moore swallowers to admit that they are guilty of worse than questioning Kerry’s service is…well…not gonna happen.