Two examples, one from each Seattle newspaper.
On Monday, the Seattle Times editorial board made this prediction.
How will he do it, how will President Gen. Pervez Musharraf rig Pakistan's parliamentary elections today to ensure his hold on power?
Here's what happened.
Pakistan appeared on Tuesday to be heading for a transition to an elected civilian government after President Pervez Musharraf told visiting United States senators that he accepted the resounding defeat of his party in elections and would work with a new Parliament.
Many Pakistanis expressed relief that the overwhelming victory of the two major moderate opposition political parties in the parliamentary elections on Monday signaled a change in direction after eight years of military rule under Mr. Musharraf, even though in the past the parties had rarely produced models of stable government.
In yesterday's Seattle PI, columnist Joel Connelly complained that John McCain's press coverage has been far too favorable. It has been as sycophantic, if you were to believe Connelly, as Connelly's own coverage of Bill Clinton was, for years. (Connelly is wrong; although McCain has had better coverage than most Republicans, he has not been treated better than most Democrats.)
Today, the most influential newspaper in the world, the New York Times, published this strange attack on McCain, an attack which hints at a sex scandal, but provides no evidence of either sex or scandal. I saw the story on three of Seattle's local TV stations this morning, and I am sure I could have seen it on a fourth, if I had kept on channel flipping.
It is not unusual for newspapers to be proved wrong, but it seldom happens this quickly.
There are lessons in both errors. The Seattle Times editorial writers might consider being just a little more modest. I don't know much about Pakistani elections, but I am honest enough to admit that I don't know much. They should do the same. (Some, especially in this area, think that the editorial writers should be more modest on almost every issue.) Writing editorials may make a person feel omniscient — but an editorial writer would be foolish to be overcome by that feeling.
(Was the editorial writer overcome by Bush Derangement Syndrome, and predicted the worst because Musharraf has been an ally of Bush and the United States? It wouldn't surprise me, but I have no direct evidence on that question.)
As for the press's favorable treatment of McCain, that's easily explained. First, as Connelly mentions in the column, McCain is good about giving reporters access. Second, the press almost always gives favorable treatment to Republicans who are attacking other Republicans — as McCain has done from time to time. Similarly, the Republican candidate who must not be named got surprisingly favorable treatment from the press — because he spent much of his time attacking other Republicans. And it is easy to think of dozens of other examples.
Now that McCain is the almost certain nominee, that favorable treatment ended, as almost every Republican would have predicted. (And, as some did predict.) I am not sure whether Connelly doesn't know about this pattern — or whether he doesn't want his readers to know about it.
When events disprove an argument as quickly as happened in these two examples, a decent journalist ought, at the very least, to do an update. I'll look for updates in both the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI — but I won't hold my breath waiting for them.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at February 21, 2008 07:04 AM | Email ThisGlenn Beck was pondering the favorable treatment (unfavorable press, actually) concerning three presidential candidates this past cycle.
First, the MSM went out of their way to revile Romney and the Mormon religion. They constantly brought it up in all their press that Romney had to spend an inordinate amount of time defending.
Then, Huckabee was given somewhat of a pass with his remarks on his religion.
And then, he went on to talk about the complete free ride Obama received regarding his spiritual advisor- his pastor- and that pastors strange comments and beliefs.
Another example, IMO.
Posted by: swatter on February 21, 2008 07:48 AMYa' know Jim, what has been going on at the NYT impresses me as analogous to a drug addict who goes from being able to present a respectable outward appearance as their life starts slipping away and then as time passes their destructive behavior becomes increasingly public. The NYT staff know they are no longer able to control what is news and they also know that the managment of the company they work for is a joke. Call it a case of the Casey Jones Syndrome if you will.
I think that perhaps the editors and those in charge are trying to put the tired old bag out of her missery by pulling stunt after stunt like this.
Posted by: JDH on February 21, 2008 12:38 PMJust out of morbid curiosity I took a glance at how our friends at HA are approaching the subject. Not one, not two, but three seperate topic threads about the article so far. Many obscene comments in each. I didn't bother to read all of them, the drift was obvious. I know better than to comment over there unless I want to find out how many creative new names they'll call me. My all time favorite from when I've dared to venture an opinion at HA? "Assclown".
Interestingly, my skimming of HA revealed not a peep about the legislature proposing to limit in some way the amount of miles we drive. They really are good little obediant communists over there.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 21, 2008 03:01 PMMusharraf lost popularity because he is correctly percieved by Pakistani voters as a military dictator who is propped up by US taxpayers, not home-grown grass-roots support. His failure to protect Bhutto was another big factor.
He and his party have stolen elections in the past. The interesting question is why didn't they do it this time as well. Is it because Musharraf lost the backing of the CIA?
Backing dictators across the globe only hurts the US. I just hope the next dictator in Pakistan is better than Musharraf. Or if the next leader is popular, that he or she is not a socialist. Neither right nor left-wing socialism are good. The best outcome is a republic that respects individual rights. But I'm not sure the people of Pakistan even want that. If not, they are doomed to one brand of socialism.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 21, 2008 03:18 PMI think that it's at least possible that this was designed to see if it would sway Republicans away from McCain in the remaining contests and over to Huckabee, just to confuse things, as they are on the Democratic side. "Look people, your nominee is a liar and a cheat..." might have succeeded if there were more meat to the story, but there doesn't seem to be...
Instead, it is starting to rally conservatives around McCain because it is the New York Times doing a hit job on someone with no EVIDENCE! Nothing inflames us more than this and it seems that a lot of us are starting to circle the wagons and protect a man we could have cared less about just a few weeks ago.
Posted by: CandidConservativeinKitsap on February 21, 2008 05:37 PMThe NYT which for most of the past year has been the Hillary Clinton Newsletter is facing internal self-destruction because they put all their eggs in her basket and Obama stole the basket. They must be questioning their own editoral board of Lib Geezers and now have to save face by attacking McCain.
The whole Lib machine is throwing ratchets because they have been planning for two years to have Hillary as Queen of the US and now the whole thing is self-destructing!
As far as "local Seattle newspapers" -- c'mon, I left college a long time ago.
"The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses."
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
To say that Hillary Rotten Clinton and Barack Hussein Obamanation have'nt gotten even better press coverage than McCain is laughable. The press has gushed after them like a child to a new puppy. The empty suit and the empty pant suit Jr. Senator's from Illinois and New York (by way of Arkansas?)respectively have done little or nothing to qualify for the POTUS, but man can they promise the moon.
As far as Musharaf, if he goes (whether by election or assassination)that part of the middle east will unravel fairly quickly. He is the linch pin holding both that country and that region together from radical Muslim extremists that haven't learned to think beyond a 7th centure mindset.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 22, 2008 07:18 AMSuch is the way of the left. Tolerance for anything other than Marxism is zero. Those who dissent will be suppressed or shamed. How dare any press give McCain a positive view. All positive views are reserved for Clinton and Obama. And over at HA, all of the good party youth have bought in to the NYT story. Fact check? What's that? Unsubstantiated claims? Bring them on, as long as they are directed to the right.
Truth and integrity are old fashioned notions that can be dispensed with immediately as soon as one has fully embraced the far left ideology.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2008 09:41 AMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
In his New York Times articles (including one published on March 31, 1933), Duranty repeatedly denied the existence of a Ukrainian famine in 1932-33. In a August 24, 1933 article in NYT, he claimed "any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda", but admitted privately to William Strang (in the British Embassy in Moscow on September 26, 1933) that "it is quite possible that as many as ten million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year." [1]
Guess what people? The NYT still hioghlights the Pulitzer prize awarded Duranty as being among the paper's accomplishments. This tells us something about the Times and also about what a Pulitzer is worth - given that they have not retracted their award of it to a confirmed lier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
In his New York Times articles (including one published on March 31, 1933), Duranty repeatedly denied the existence of a Ukrainian famine in 1932-33. In a August 24, 1933 article in NYT, he claimed "any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda", but admitted privately to William Strang (in the British Embassy in Moscow on September 26, 1933) that "it is quite possible that as many as ten million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year." [1]
Guess what people? The NYT still highlights the Pulitzer prize awarded Duranty as being among the paper's accomplishments. This tells us something about the Times and also about what a Pulitzer is worth - given that they have not retracted their award of it to a confirmed lier.
Regarding the NYT/McCain smear attempt... I'm ashamed (well no, not really) to admit I rolled with laughter after I read this... especially the first comment ...
WARNING TO DUFFER...Take your meds BEFORE you read this piece. Have someone well versed in Heimlich and CPR standing by... with smelling salts!
NYT hit piece on McCain, silent on Huma
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 22, 2008 01:23 PMNeither do I, Ragnar. These threads tend to die a natural death. Yup they go off topic, but in the absence of profanity or personal threats I fail to see what harm is done.
My take is that if Stefan,(who doesn't allow comments now),and Jim (who cuts off comments if they don't stay exactly on his "topic"),continue in this vein perhaps we should avoid commenting at Sound Politics generally. Then they can just talk to themselves.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 22, 2008 02:09 PM