Finally, a reporter rejects nonsensical right-wing attacks
September 30, 2009 1:20 pm ET by Jamison Foser
NBC's Chuck Todd in an online Q&A today:
[Comment From Sabrina] Chuck, why is this administration treated with such kindness by the media and the previous administration was not? Isn't the media suppose to report the news and not give their opinions of the news?
12:44
Chuck Todd: Sabrina -- This criticism comes across to me as incredibly empty... apparently folks forget how the first three years of the Bush administration were covered... I think too many folks mistake opinion-driven commentators for journalists and it skews things. But the level of scrutiny given to Obama in this first year is the same as for Bush 43, same as Clinton 42, same as Bush 41... I've witnessed and been involved with all of it back to Clinton... We tend to have MUCH shorter memories on the issue of so-called media bias especially if it doesn't fit the sterotype point we are trying to make... It's frustrating to watch and, with all do respect, I don't accept the criticism as legitimate. [Ellipses in original]
It would have been great for Todd to explicitly point out that claims of "liberal media bias" ring hollow in light of the media's handling of Iraq, the 2000 election, and their relentless hyping of Clinton-era non-scandals.
But, at this point -- with journalists tripping all over themselves to agree with every media criticism from the Right, no matter how inane -- we'll take it. Good for Todd for clearly rejecting the attack.
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
(IMHO, Chuck's a tad too defensive and never really accepts any criticism of the media as legitimate, but he's right on with these comments.)
This question seems like a perfect example of that. It's similar to the people who heard "Deliver us, Obama" instead of "Deliver us, Oh God".
Confirmation bias (or myside bias) is an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms preconceptions or working hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.
In the right wing worldview, if you're not given fawning breathless coverage of how great you are, then the media is liberal. As in, the coverage of the Bush administration's blunder on Katrina. Lots of true stories there, but it was called "liberal" bias. For some reason, even though the stories were true.
I applied the same standard to Bush. When someone criticized or praised Bush for inaccurate reasons, I pointed that out to them.
The problem now: we have a so-called "media outlet" that panders to stupidity and ignorance. These outlets are pandering to the delusions of motivated reasoning, and they know better.
The other problem: Republicans should denounce this. But, they won't, because it helps them win. And to them, winning is everything, even if it means disaffecting their constituencies.
Even though Chuck Todd looks like the manager from "Flight of the Concords", he makes a good point. I wouldn't have been so diplomatic about it.
The humongous lie, that W received scrutiny at any time from those who had anointed him long before he even announced he was running for the job, is inexcusable.
Plus, Fox, Limbaugh et al are completely out of lilne with their schtick. Now is not the time for divisive rhectoric.
We are at a very critical time in our history and need to get it right for the US to rebound.