Washington Post Confesses To Biased Reporting During The 2008 Presidential Campaign

The one thing about making an accusation against anyone is that those who are doing the accusing are under the requirement to prove the accusation. However, a confession requires no such proof at all.

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has released just such a confession. From her November 9th column:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts. ... Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."

As Bill Hamilton's comments show, this was not an accident. It was a deliberate decision made by the editorial staff of the Post itself. The "larger purpose" he alludes to is getting Barack Obama elected.

More:

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain. Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic.

So, the Post was more interested in making "history" than they were in presenting a fair, objective and unbiased report of the news. That doesn't surprise me, but I think many people were done a huge disservice by it.

This little tidbit is very telling:

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

Note that last sentence. It is not an accusation coming from a right-of-center blogger. It is a confession coming from a left-of-center publication.

And this:

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

Those of us who engage in politcal research and analysis would do very well to remember this in 2010 and 2012 as well as keeping it in the backs of our minds over the next four years as the Post reports on President Obama's policies and actions. If they did such a deliberate hatchet job during the campaign, what are they going to deliberately mislead us on during an Obama Administration?

Be sure to send this post and the following link to all your friends. We need to get this information out and spread it as far as possible.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

An Obama Tilt In Campaign Coverage
Deborah Howell
The Washington Post
November 9, 2008

New York Times Casts Off Any Illusion Of Objectivity Over John McCain Editorial

Please tell me that this doesn't surpirse any of you in the least little bit. Less than one week after the New York Times published an editorial by Barack Obama, the NYT embarks on its own little crusade of censorship and refuses the publish a column by John McCain. Their objection? McCain should have "mirrored" Obama. In other words, the NYT has decreed that McCain should be delivering the same misguided, ignorant message that Obama is shilling.

McCain's work was rejected by NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley. In Shipley's own words: "'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece." Not contrasts it, but mirrors it.

Oh, and did I mention that David Shipley served in the Clinton Administration as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter?

Obama's essay was all about getting out of Iraq, even if it means we lose. Senator McCain holds the viewpoint that we should win the war and then end it. Shipley agrees with Obama and refuses to allow McCain' point of view to be made public through the NYT. Apparently, McCain's viewpoint doesn't fit in with the New York Times' agenda of propaganda.

But, you can read a full text of Senator McCain's essay right here:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains. Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted. Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism. The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance. To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future. Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops. No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013. But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama. Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.” The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely. I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

You can access the original story on-line here:

NYT Rejects McCain's Editorial; Should 'Mirror' Obama
Drudge Report
July 21, 2008

---

What Would You Ask Barack Obama During a Nationally Televised Interview?

So, if you were a reporter for say, the Washington Post or the New York Times, or better yet for NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN, what would you ask Barack Obama on one of his campaign stops?

Peter Kirsanow asks some of those question over at National Review Online. How I would love to be able to hear Obama answer each one of these question:

1. You’ve stated that as president you’d transcend the sharp partisanship that pervades Washington, but you favor a rapid pullout from Iraq, plan significant tax increases, oppose any and all restrictions on abortions, and favor Supreme Court justices in the mold of Stephen Breyer — positions strongly opposed by most Republicans. Accordingly, on which of these issues would you be willing to compromise, and to what extent? Which Democrats do you think would give a little, and how would you convince them? How would you get interest groups and donors to go along? ... 6. Stephen Moore calculates that your tax increases would result in a 52.2 percent income and payroll tax. Moore also states that your estate tax would be 55 percent, the dividends tax 39.6 percent, and the capital gains rate 28 percent. Do you dispute these numbers? If so, please provide your respective rates. 7. You admit that you won’t extend the Bush tax cuts. What’s the highest personal-income-tax rate you’d support? ... 11. You advocate a rapid pullout from Iraq, voted against FISA reauthorization, support unconditional negotiations with state sponsors of terrorism, oppose offering lawsuit protection to telecommunications companies that help the government monitor communications by suspected terrorists, and demand that Guantanamo be closed. Given our enemies’ mindset, isn’t it likely that they’d interpret your record as a sign of weakness — thereby strengthening their resolve and/or increasing the probability of attack? ... 15. During the February 21 Democratic debate, you stated that “Washington, D.C., is where good ideas go to die” due to the influence of special interests and lobbyists. Please recite three instances in which you, as senator, stood up to left-leaning special interest groups. Please include only significant substantive concerns of such groups, not, for example, whether you should appear on Fox News. ... 18. You maintain that the surge is a “complete failure” and that it hasn’t produced stability or political reconciliation. Yet for several months now, most objective accounts have shown that the surge has produced a dramatic reduction in violence, Iraq is becoming stable (albeit tentatively so), and significant political progress is occurring. Why do you refuse to acknowledge these facts, and why do you insist on pulling out of Iraq on the verge of what could be a significant and historic victory? Why shouldn’t voters infer that winning the war may be less important to you than scoring political points? 19. You support giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants and letting them participate in the Social Security system. Why won’t this encourage more illegal immigrants to come to the U.S.?

These are only a few of the question that Kirsanow would like to have asked. I'm certain there are other questions people would want answered as well. Perhaps we should begin a mass email campaign to the major newspapers and networks demanding that these questions be asked and that Barack Obama not be allowed to side-step them.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Ask Obama
Peter Kirsanow
National Review Online
March 3, 2008

McCain Camp Vows To 'Go To War' With NYT

Well, it didn't take long for leftist Old Media to come out and run a "hit piece" aganst John McCain. And it was the Old Gray Lady herself that did it. The New York Times ran a story about rumors concerning John McCain and a lobbyist. From Johnathan Martin and Michael Calderone over at the Politico:

John McCain’s campaign promised to “go to war” against The New York Times Wednesday night after the newspaper posted its long-awaited story on McCain's alleged relationship with a telecom lobbyist. Both McCain and the woman in question denied having a romantic relationship. The story, word of which first leaked to the Drudge Report in December, relies on anonymous sources tied to McCain who said the lobbyist was warned to keep her distance to the senator in the run-up to his first presidential bid.

So far, nothing new here. These accusations have been thrown around before.

More:

"It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign," communications director Jill Hazelbaker said in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

And still nothing new. The lefists at the NYT know that the Dems cannot win on the issues and are making early efforts to deflect attention away from those issues. Further, the timing (and placement) of this story looks as if it was also meant to divert attention away from the fact that Hillary Clinton's campaign is severely tanking at this point and she is the NYT's hometown favortie.

But here is another reason why the timing and placement of this story is suspect:

Asked about the impact that the allegation of adultery would have among social conservative activists, some of whom still aren’t entirely sold on McCain, Black said they would see it as “The New York Times spreading rumors and gossip.”

And the McCain campaign pledge concerning the matter:

“We’re going to war with the New York Times, so they’ll probably like it.” Another adviser to McCain offered a similar defense. “Conservatives are standing up for us,” this source said. Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review and a sometime critic of McCain, sided with the Arizona senator, suggesting the Times just used other elements as cover to print a sex story. “Let's be honest: This story is all about the alleged affair, and all the Keating Five and campaign finance reform rehash is window dressing,” Lowry wrote on his magazine’s blog. Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity, who also had criticized McCain harshly at times, also was supportive on his show.

How refreshing it is to see a GOP candidate who is going to fight back against the left-wing biased of Old Media.

The leftists at the New York Times and their Dem allies may have seriously miscalculated this one. Conservatives, even those who have voiced opposition to John McCain's candidacy, are not going to tolerate hit pieces like this. In fact, this accusation is going to cause more Conservatives to rally around the GOP candidate.

There is a very important moral here. Three things you should never trust in the world of Politics:

1. Rumors.
   
2. Anonymous sources.
   
3. Disgruntled ex-associates with an ax to grind.
   

It didn't work for Dan Ra^ther and it won't work for the NYT.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Camp Vows To 'Go To War' With NYT
Jonathan Martin and Michael Calderone
Politico.com
February 21, 2008