Centerfield

Welcome to the REAL problem of media bias. Sensationalized, fragmented, without decent context, normalized around simple emotions.

You can best predict the nature of media coverage by understanding the needs that motivate the media: ratings. The media is working with it's "let us count the days" script. I find it a snooze. Next.

I think you are both being too kind. If the press cared only about sensational stories, we'd have a lot more hero stories from Iraq (the marine who tucked a grenade under himself to save his squad, the women who won a Silver Star, et.)

If they were just suffering late-summer news doldrums, how 'bout the story of the guy who walked down 51 flights of stairs at the World Trade Center, and is now in Crawford to support the President.

Why hasn't anyone in a major daily written an op-ed on how Sheehan has garnered support from Al Sharpton and David Duke. You'd think that this would be a dream situation for a bored opiner.

I have a lot of "How about"s and "Why didn't"s along those lines - anyone can come up with a better list than mine.

But, deep down, I don't think that this is any more complicated than knee-jerk anti-Bushism.

Lit, my point, in cased you've missed it, is that it is really far LESS complicated than knee-jerk anti-bushism, which is a form of conspiracy theory. Conspiracy is always a fun theory, but it leaves something to be desired if you really like parsimony. Conspiracy is easy to describe (you call anti-Bushism "simple"), but very, very hard to do.

If stories such as the ones you allude to actually could be compelling ratings grabbers, then your explanation's accuracy would have to be relying on all the major outlets to be actively eschewing ratings opportunities for the sake of an agenda. Reporters and station managers and editors at newspapers and magazines are far too venal to do that.

Personally, I don't even get the sense that Sheehan continues to be especially widely or extensively covered. Is this still being made a big deal of across the news outlets? If so, I've missed it.

Unfortunately the radio station which I listen to on my commutes (it has good classical music) has a newsroom which is run by the NY Times.

They quite literaly have a daily story on Cindy Sheehan.... every single day, I kid you not. Last week thier LEAD story one day was that "Cindy Sheehan had returned to Crawford from her hiatus to care for her mother". I've GOT to think there was SOMETHING more newsworthy going on SOMEWHERE in the world then that.

I don't believe in conspiracies but I tend to think LR has a point. Frankly, it doesn't take much of conspiracy either. There are only a few outlets that determine what stories get attention. Except for local news, everyone else covers exactly the same material on the national/international front that they do. My guess is because they either lack the resources or are too damned lazy to dig up origional stuff on thier own.

I'm not alleging a conspiracy. However, when Terry Moran of ABC News says that there is a deeply ingrained anti-military bias in the national media, I don't blow that off.

I agree that all the major news organizations are driven by ratings, but there is a lot of latitude inside that matrix for hyping one story over another. Sheehan's coverage began, I believe, because a lot of the media saw this as mildly embarrassing for the President, and who could resist such a thing? I like it too. It's fun.

But you can create ratings by creating controversy, like Krugman's columns at the NYTimes. Or, if one has an agenda, one could ignore the controversy caused by, say, Krugman's columns at the NYTimes. Which do you think the NYT has chosen to do?

The Times ran hero stories after 9/11 (and by hero stories, I generally mean remarkable human stories of bravery that don't require much in the way of context - the people were rushing out, the firement went rushing in - you know the kind of thing that I mean). But they ran a front-page feature last week that asked the question "where are all the hero stories from the military?"

I consider that a little disingenuous from a paper whose managing editor said recently that even sophisticated readers sometimes had trouble discerning news from commentary in their stories.

Sensationalist bias or political bias or keep-it-simple-stupid bias, the effect is the same.

Sheehan's words are "cleaned up" of the kookier content before being reported in the mainstream press, and she is framed in the most favorable light. Her funding and sponsorships by MoveOn.org and UFPJ and the Dean and Kucinich organizations are glossed over. The presence of the professional radical left-wing protestors stage-managing the "event" goes unmentioned, as does the state-of-the-art satellite-linked mobile press command and video production center they brought with them. Sheehan now speaks to reporters only with the screening and pre-approval of her handlers, staying in her air-conditioned trailer when not doing scheduled photo ops.

It's a very slickly run operation.

Sheehan's words are "cleaned up" of the kookier content before being reported in the mainstream press, and she is framed in the most favorable light. Her funding and sponsorships by MoveOn.org and UFPJ and the Dean and Kucinich organizations are glossed over. The presence of the professional radical left-wing protestors stage-managing the "event" goes unmentioned, as does the state-of-the-art satellite-linked mobile press command and video production center they brought with them. Sheehan now speaks to reporters only with the screening and pre-approval of her handlers, staying in her air-conditioned trailer when not doing scheduled photo ops.

Even if every lick of this is true (which is dubious, frankly), so what?

Her question remains unanswered: what "noble cause" did my son die for?

All the moaning about handlers and crying about screeners doesn't change that. If asking that question makes her "radically left wing", then there are a helluva lot of radical left wingers in this country right now. A lof of people want the answer to that question.

The Sheehan story is big because the public is interested in it. The left supports her, by and large, and the right is irritated by her. Both sides are paying attention.

I agree with bk, the news is biased, but generally towards sensational stories to get ratings, and away from stories that might irk their advertisers. But ratings win every time.

But it makes sense that Sheehan's handlers would try to moderate the message; it doesn't help the cause to play into the hands that question her motives. After all, you'd think that a mother of a slain soldier would be untouchable...but we all know better now.

Yep, when you don't like the subject under discussion (the media coverage of the Crawford Circus) just change the subject and wave the flag! That's classic red herring, Carla. Deny that anything is relevant other than the chosen propaganda. When any of the details come under scrutiny, start dragging those smelly fish across the trail!

So listen to Carla everyone, and remember, pay no attention to those folks behind the curtain. Remember that the only thing you should take away from any media coverage of the Crawford Circus is the chosen message of Sheehan's handlers. Do not think. Do not ask questions. Keep your eyes on the watch. Concentrate on the the message...the message...the message...the message...the message...the message....

Hey, Jim? The "appeal to emotion" is just a variant of the "red herring" logical fallacy. It may be great for deluding yourself, but it doesn't prove a damn thing except the bias of the person using it.

What's the matter, Tully? Too much caffeine? ;-)

The argument is clever, but it's a touch irrelevant. After all, I've been saying "W sucks!" since 2000, but the media hasn't been running after anyone who says so; the only difference now is that 58% of Americans now agree with me.

And that's why Sheehan is big news.

Her question remains unanswered: what "noble cause" did my son die for?

I mean, isn't that bleedin' obvious? The advisability, or even sanity, of attempting those goals is very much an open question, but how can anyone who's paid the slightest bit of attention over the last 2.5 years really not know?

Her question remains unanswered: what "noble cause" did my son die for?

All the moaning about handlers and crying about screeners doesn't change that. If asking that question makes her "radically left wing", then there are a helluva lot of radical left wingers in this country right now. A lof of people want the answer to that question.

This question has been asked ad nauseaum by anti-war protestors, and answered as many times by war supporters. AWPs don't like the answers they have received so far, listing plausible good reasons for intervening in Iraq. Oh, well.

I have no problem with AWPs criticizing each and every one of the cited pros in favor of the war by listing the cons. But the claim that the war has been carried out without the admin or its supporters stating the rationales is just a lie. That's all it is.

AWPs want President Bush to respond directly and publicly to Sheehan so that they'll have a new fresh quote to criticize. To have the war of words they want, they need fresh fuel from Bush. But Bush is smart enough to know by now that there's nothing he can say that would appease the AWPs. Many everyday Americans know this too, which is why, even though Bush's polling numbers are currently down, this is not carrying over into anti-war protest activity.

What would be the point of Bush re-stating the admin position that we invaded Iraq as part of a policy to pre-empt dangerous nations, protect national security, and establish a democratic example in the middle east that would show other nations that they too can have human rights and a genuine say in the affairs of their country. Just so AWPs could re-state their vehement disagreement with the validity of these views?

"We've been waiting for an answer, MR. President..." is a big lie. The truth is that AWPs have been demanding that they get the answer that they want to hear. It's not going to happen.

I've been saying "W sucks!" since 2000, but the media hasn't been running after anyone who says so

Excuse me, Jean? Have you been asleep in a cave since November 2000? In any case, I'm not making an argument, I'm pointing out facts. The Sheehan circus is being massively funded by the Dean and Kucinich organizations and MoveOn.Org and UFPJ and CodePink and Ben & Jerry, the staffing is drawn from the professional protestors of the Marxist/anarchist anti-globalization anti-war radical left (the camp organizer led the Seattle WTO riots), the media strategy is being handled by Fenton Communications, and Sheehan is tightly controlled by her RAWL handlers. It's about as "grassroots" as Astroturf. The media can't have missed any of this--they outnumber the crowd in Camp Casey.

All of those are facts. Yet none of them seem to appear on the six o'clock news. And if you bring it up, the left goes bonkers and starts working distraction tactics at histrionic volumes. (Heresy must be suppressed, after all. Gotta keep to message!) Note Carla's first post above. First, cast doubt on the facts. Then claim the facts don't matter. Then change the subject and go back to the mantra. Concentrate on the mantra. Pay no attention to the folks behind the curtain. Cognitive dissonance is not good for the message, ya know.

Sheehan's not something holy, nor is the Sheehan-based operation. It's a propaganda operation, and a very professional and well-financed one at that. Plain and simple. No matter how pitiable the figurehead. Large portions of the MSM appear to be cooperating, for whatever reason.

Granted that the "Sheehan operation" probably is partly propaganda. But that doesn't by itself make the message illegitimate. In the 40s, the American communist Party supported integration and was vocal in supporting Jackie Robinson's introduction into baseball. Undoubtedly, the ACP's advocacy was designed for propaganda purposes, but that didn't change the fact that their position was correct. Similarly, the "Ban the Bomb" movement in the 50s was Communist-inspired and certainly aimed in part at supporting the Soviet Union. But the message appealed to many people that weren't communists.

It's not unreasonable to point out that the Sheehan movement is not "grassroots" or that some of the supporters are radicals. In fact, I don't think there is any such thing today as a grassroots movement, whether liberal or conservative. They are all organized and orchestrated. Should the media be reporting that? Yes. But what bothers me is the effort to use this to make the argument itself illegitimate. The implication that there really isn't much antiwar sentiment, that it's all inspired by these left-wing groups doesn't wash. Granted, most people probably don't support an immediate pullout--that doesn't mean people aren't troubled by the war.

Personally, I find Cindy Sheehan quite annoying. She didn't seem to be upset about the war until her son--who volunteered after all--was killed. And I don't understand what she expects to accomplish by speaking to Bush--does she think he is going to concede that she is right and withdraw the troops. And the statements I have heard from her sound pretty silly. I do think she is allowing herself to be used by these groups and I doubt that she is smart enough to understand that. I really despise these groups. Nevertheless, the fact that she is supported by groups that I find unsavory doesn't necessarily invalidate the message any more than the fact that communists supported racial integration invalidated that idea.

As for the left-wing groups "messaging" her statements to make them more palatable, this is no different than what the intelligent design movement is doing in hiding its religious undertones.

...doesn't necessarily invalidate the message...

The message is that the war is a mistake and we should get out. I agree that her ostensible purpose to talk to Bush is stupid. (And he could have easily defused it by walking down and talking to her.) But it's obvious that her (or her handlers') general point is that the war is wrong and we should get out. You can certainly argue that, but I don't think that the fact that she is being used by unsavory groups by itself means that the message is invalid.

If that's the message, who says the message is invalid? Isn't the point that we should understand the actual message _AND_ see the source of the message as exactly what it is?

A small vocal group of protesters is vehemently opposed to our involvement in Iraq. This is news? I just don't see the merit in constant calls for constant re-hash. The protestors are tyring to create a groundswell, and that's their right. But it doesn't seem to be having much effect, despite the ways in which they choose to describe it.

You're absolutely correct that the truth or falsity (moral or factual) of propaganda is not dependent on the politics of the propagandizer, Marc, but that's utterly irrelevant to the point of the thread, which is media bias. Namely, that the media is only reporting that small slice of the Sheehan propagandizing that fits the RAWL's preferrred "grieving grassroots anti-war Mom thinks Bush Sucks" meme. But Camp Casey's decidedly NOT a grassroots pheonomenon, and Sheehan seems quite happy in the limelight.

IOW, the media is acting as a conscious enabler in actively spinning the story into the best framing for the message, which shows a prima facie case for bias on the part of the media.

The title of the thread is "Press Manipulation of Sheehan." It looks to me like that's exactly backwards in many respects, but that portions of the press are very willing accomplices in "polishing the act."

Take away Sheehan, and you're left with nothing but the Usual Suspects exercising their bankrolls and radical politics. Report on Sheehan in full, and she loses the cachet of "moral authority" with her conspiratorial rad-left ravings. It's a circus. Sheehan's the roper at the gate. But once you're through the door, it's the same clown acts as last week, last month, last year, last election, last term. Why is "the story" only one line of the roper's spiel, and not the totality of the show? Or at least the whole spiel, instead of one bit?

ABC/WashPost have polled the public over the Sheehan media circus, and found that few (if any) minds have been changed.

Sheehan's anti-war vigil has failed to mobilize large numbers of Americans against the war. If anything, her opposition has done as much to drive up support for the war as ignite opponents, the survey found.

IOW, the "rising chorus" of Sheehan-inspired anti-war sentiment we hear trumpeted is coming from those who already opposed the war, and appears to represent an increase in noise volume and histrionics levels, not overall numbers.

Tully,

I agree with you and my comments were really a digression from the main post. I do think the media needs to report on the sources of so-called grassroots movements, whether left or right. But just as the left manipulates the images of Sheehan to make a dishonest point about the "grassroots" basis of the antiwar movement, it is just as possible (and I think it happens a lot) that pro-war supporters use the unsavory credentials of many anti-war types to discredit legitimate arguments against the war.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Sheehan's antics have little effect. To the extent that support for the war is eroding, it's eroding because of what is happening on the ground, not because of anti-war protests. Same thing with Viet Nam; the nightly news had much more to do with ending the war than the anti-war movement.

But to what extent was that nightly news partial, biased, and opinionated, rather than factual, complete, and balanced? That's the nut of the matter. That the major media report an unbalanced and incomplete view of what's actually going on is obvious (and was during Vietnam as well). The issue is why.