T Nation

Media Bias

Ladies and Gentleman,

I’ve been following the release of sarin nerve gas story all day. Earlier today, CNN had it on their front page. Now it has disappeared completely. As of this evening, the front story on CNN involves Hurricanes. I caught some of the NBC World News Tonight and the story ran towards the end of the half hour.
I believe that American (World) citizens should be outraged by this. You can find plenty of information about this on other less well known websites. The supposed absence of WMD is one of the cornerstones of the Democratic Campaign. Am I alone is being angry that the liberal media is suppressing what should be one of the major stories of the year?
Another example, is the fact that when April’s job market report showed a 250,000 increase following the 300,000 new jobs in March, it never made the front page of CNN. The treasury insiders called this a “job explosion.” There was an increase in manufacturing jobs over the same period.
Does anyone else find this to be insulting? Just give us the news and let us make our own decisions. As it stands, it takes effort to find the truth about events. Unfortunately, most people only read headlines. That, Ladies and Gentleman, allows the media to make the agenda. I, for one, find the idea of an all powerful media to be quite frightening. Where are the checks and balances?

Hahahahahaha… I was all set to agree based on the topic itself… but then I read this.

The world must be a pretty confusing place to those that only see in black and white! Hahahahahahahahaha.

They ARE the checks and balances. Try ABC. If it isn’t there, it isn’t important. They would be the first news organization to make sure the right gets its views heard.

If someone found a shell with WMD that isn’t terribly important. I suppose that a lot of people would automatically think this justifies Iraq but I don’t think this shell would have been fired on US soil. Its common knowledge Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran.

If this was such a big deal why weren’t they fired on US soldiers? Where were the WMD then? Don’t talk to me about the Geneva Convention. Saddam would have used any weapons at his disposal. Why weren’t they used during the invasion?

Of course there is bias in the news (and entertainment) media. That should not be a surprise, given the fact that it’s damn near impossible to be objective at any level, much less on a minute-by-minute basis. With that said, I too am frustrated by the bias displayed by the mainstream media, mostly because they know of it, yet do little to end it (at least, that’s my perception of it).

And yes, most of it (on TV and in print, anyway) is liberal bias, but that makes sense insofar as the fact that in order to reach a broad audience, you need to cater to the most possible groups within the society…and that lends itself to a liberal outlook, and desire to be seen as even-handed, even when the situation cries out for objective inbalance! Besides, people love to watch what they hate…controversy always sells! This also explains why the media was pro-war, at least up until soldiers started to die (they were responding to our collective patriotism). Now they are appealing to the fear Americans have of being embroiled in another “vietnam.”

On the matter of WMD’s, I don’t think that the recent examples are the kind that will disprove the Democrats’ charge of bad intelligence…I do think that it’s important and should be made aware to everyone, but it’s not the stockpile that we all thought we would uncover. For now, the WMD issue is still favoring Democrats for this November. Maybe a huge cache of WMD’s will be found before then. Luckily, the Sarin gas didn’t kill any of our guys and gals there…

Finally, the only check and balance we should need with regard to the media is the on/off switch on the remote and car radio, along with our wallet. In other words, we can always just turn off the damn news programs and let them feel the pinch. Unfortunately, news programming is exploding on TV, and the printed press ain’t doing too bad either. So, there is no reason for them to change right now.

But yeah…it’s real annoying to have to listen to something you know is BS…like all the recent talk about how bad “sports supplements” are for us.

WMD issue? What issue are you talking about? They didn’t exist and still don’t. Saddam would have used whatever was necessary. No WMD were used during their “liberation”.

Except when whipped into a mindless patriotic frenzy the media is always biased against those in power. This is normal – because they are supposed to be a check against whoever is in power.

Besides, who else is there to talk about and second guess? Now, when Bush is thrown out on his ass and Kerry is made to look like a complete cluster fuck all the time, don’t be surprised.

The so-called “job explosion” still leaves us with 2.2 million LESS JOBS since Bush took office. You want to brag about that? You think this tiny little bump in jobs deserves major coverage? We’ve lost jobs for 36 of the 39 months that Bush has been in office.

Hell, none of the major networks ran a story about the new articles coming out in Newsweek and the New Yorker, that say that the torture of Iraqi prisoners was known about and signed off on by Rumsfeld, that it was part of a CIA operation in Afghanistan that Rumsfeld shifted into Iraq, when there was a surge in Iraqi resistance.

In other words, lack of news coverage cuts both ways.

Remember that the next time some commentator is telling you about how “dry” John Kerry’s personality is, instead of discussing what his ideas for the economy, health care, education, the environment (etc) are.

If the ricin/bomb story has any weight, it will stick around, and we’ll all hear about it. But since the administration has already cried wolf about finding WMDs several times, I’ll take this news with a grain of salt for the moment.

“They ARE the checks and balances. Try ABC. If it isn’t there, it isn’t important. They would be the first news organization to make sure the right gets its views heard.”

Funny. Everynight my wife bitches at me for watching the ABC news. She’s a true right-winger, and often throws things at Peter Jennings.

Where are the checks and balances?

Drudge report, Fox news, and the Christian Science Monitor (the last being fairly non-biased). Also lots of blogs on the web. You stand as much chance of the mainstream networks admitting bias as of lumpy turning conservative.

If you think there is no bias, try the following test: read a number of articles where politicians are discussed e.g. NY times, or listen to the same number of the network of your choice. Write down every time a person is referred to as either republican or conservative and another tally for democrat/liberal. Any idea what you will find? You will find that since democrats/liberals are the norm there is no reason to mention them, and only the dirty nasty evil conservatives need to be identified.

  1. If Saddam had WMD’s he would have used them.

Don’t be so sure. Saddam definitely had WMD’s in the first Gulf War and still didn’t use them against U.S. forces. He didn’t use them during Iraqi Freedom for one simple reason, legitimacy. Saddam felt that he had world opinion in his court, and his denial of WMD’s is what gave him his legitimacy. He held out hope that his resistance would win and had he used WMD’s in the intial invasion he would have a PR problem. The world would know that he had WMD’s, that he lied about their production and that he was indeed willing to use them. If he had taken such an action the UN would have then rallied against him. If he were to use the weapons he would never have been able to stay in power or return to power.

I know you guys will be dissappointed:

Rumsfeld says it wasn’t necessarily sarin
Washington-AP – Don’t jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.

Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the “field test” showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done – and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.

In Baghdad, officials said the bomb was apparently left over from the Saddam era. They said two members of a military bomb squad were treated for “minor exposure” - but that there were no serious injuries.

One official says the shell apparently contained two chemicals that are designed to combine and create sarin – but that they didn’t mix properly.


Your post was excellent. I agree completely.
Ask the U.N. how much WMD the Iraqi’s had in 1991-1998. Even the French would have rallied against him had he used them (They said as much).


One round does not equal WMD. I believe that Sadam had them, but it will take more than that one round to convince the world.

Me Solomon Grundy