Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

FOX attacks New York Times for bias, double standard

Reported by Chrish - January 30, 2007 -

Kirsten Powers, now identified primarily as a FOX Political Analyst, was on board with John Gibson's Big Story today 1/30/07 in their accusations of bias at the New York Times. The unbalanced segment was the latest attempt by FOX to whittle away at the credibility of their arch print nemesis.

The issue at hand was a rebuke by NYT Public Editor Byron Calame to Chief Military Correspondent Michael Gordon for comments made on Charlie Rose's PBS television show.

Here's Gibson's introduction, one of the most over the top and biased I've heard in a while:

"A New York Times reporter scolded publicly by his own paper for actually saying he wants the US to win the war in Iraq. The public dressing down came after(sic) the newspaper's om-buds-man in yesterday's edition. We never read a paper scolding if a reporter says we're losing the war, but when the New York Times Chief Military Correspondent, Michael Gordon, went on the air and said he wants the US to win in Iraq, he got a big, ugly slapdown from his anti-war, anti-Bush bosses. Take a listen to what Gordon said..."
"As a purely personal view, I think it's worth it, one last effort for sure, to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win, we've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think if it's done right I think there is a chance to accomplish something."

"Well, his bosses say he stepped over a line in his 'on air analysis'. But if he can't say he hopes we win, does that mean the paper wants the opposite, that we lose? Why does the left-wing media want us to lose?"

Gibson asked Powers what the Times was doing, scolding him - all he said is we should want to win. Powers jumped right in, saying the Times should have one policy for everyone, that no one is allowed to express personal opinions, but they don't seem to. There have been other times when NYTimes reporters have expressed opinions against the war, and they haven't gotten in trouble. She failed to name any names or cite any specifics at all to back up her accusation.

The segment continued in the same vein, with Gibson repeatedly misrepresenting the facts and Powers voicing support for one policy for all reporters, with no evidence of a double standard except their shared assertion of one. For instance, at one point Gibson noted the Washington Bureau Chief's remark that Gordon's comments were an aberration, clearly meaning that the lapse was a one-time occurrence. Gibson twisted it to mean that voicing support for the US to "win" is an aberration at the Times.


The "big, ugly slapdown" from the New York Times:

Drawing a Line

Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper’s chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon.

The rumored military buildup in Iraq was a hot topic on the Jan. 8 “Charlie Rose” show, and the host asked Mr. Gordon if he believed “victory is within our grasp.” The transcript of Mr. Gordon’s response, which he stressed was “purely personal,” includes these comments:

“So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.”

I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon’s voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has “long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances,” Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.

“I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far.”

It’s a line drawn correctly by Mr. Taubman — and accepted honorably by Mr. Gordon.

Of course, the folks at FOX don't see the inappropriateness of the Chief Military Correspondent commenting on his personal views of the subject he covers.

The chyrons throughout read "Media Bias" and "NYTimes reporter scolded for wanting US to win Iraq war."

What a clear difference between the two entities: the Times' educated, classy writing, vocabulary, respectfulness, and professionalism compared to FOX's unrefined, childish, vindictive and unprofessional hit pieces. Gee, which would an intelligent person choose as a news and information source?

It's like a cheap pocket knife on the Rock of Gibraltar. The knife might be sharpened before it wears away to nothing, and the rock will be virtually unscathed.