This "article" by Seattle PI reporter Levi Pulkkinen. He begins with this:
Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott wants to see George Bush impeached, whether or not, he says, Bush is still in office.
He ends with this quote from McDermott:
"There's nothing that requires that impeachment be done when someone is in office," he said. "The time has come for this guy to pay for what he's done."
And in between adds everything he can find to support McDermott's position.
But nothing, not a single thing, giving the other side. Pulkkinen did not even bother to get a quote from McDermott's opponent this November, Steven Beren. (As the Seattle Times did.) Pulkkinen may not have met any, but there are people who disagree with McDermott on this issue. A professional, even a biased professional, would have given one or two of those people a chance to speak.
This article is not just biased, it is absurdly biased, so biased that it would make a great example of what not to do in a junior high journalism class.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(As for McDermott, I can't recall him ever finding an enemy of America that he didn't like. He's had a long career, so there may have been an exception or two, but there haven't been many.)
Note to commenters: The topic of this post is the bias in this article, not impeachment. Feel free to argue that it is, or is not, biased, but skip any discussion of impeahment.
Posted by Jim Miller at September 12, 2008 01:19 PM | Email ThisConsidering how the advertising bucks get spread out to much more media than the old days (which results in lesser revenue to the papers), I often wonder what would happen if the press would make a conscious effort to go neutral. Would the other side then become unglued and cancel subscriptions and negate the gains from the other side. Or, does it even matter anymore?
Another ponder question and scratching the chin type of thing, why can't the left even see its own bias? When I watch Hannity, I can hear the bias, but when Britt is on with the panel, it is more balanced and I can tell the difference. Why can't the lefties?
Posted by: swatter on September 12, 2008 02:23 PM
Unions Bargain At Table With Governor Whose Re-election They're Helping Fund
BY SONYA D. JONES AND JOHN R. LOTT JR.
Posted 9/11/2008
Democrats are expected to make strong gains in state legislatures this fall, but what do these stronger Democratic majorities mean? A look at Washington State may show what is in store for the rest of the country.
Public employee unions are handing over vast amounts of money to the incumbent governor's re-election campaign, while the governor is simultaneously sitting at the bargaining table negotiating contracts with these very unions.
If it seems inappropriate for the governor, Christine Gregoire, who is locked in a very tight re-election, to benefit personally from the parties that her office is negotiating with, that's just your conscience, not the law.
As of Aug. 28, a number of unions -- the Washington Federation of State Employees, AFSCME, National Education Association and Washington Education Association, Service Employees International Union, and the AFL-CIO -- had already contributed more than $1.5 million to the Evergreen Progress PAC.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=306024671310400
How are our "watchdogs" doing?
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
-- Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
-- Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
-- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
-- Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
-- Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
-- Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
-- Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
-- Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
-- Never plagiarize.
-- Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
-- Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
-- Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
-- Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
-- Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
-- Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
-- Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
-- Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
-- Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
-- Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
-- Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
-- Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
-- Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
-- Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
-- Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
-- Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
--Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
-- Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
-- Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
-- Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
-- Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
-- Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
-- Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
-- Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
-- Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
-- Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
-- Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
-- Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
Thank you for printing the" Journalist Code of Ethics". My, how far present-day "journalism" has fallen. I especially like the following line:
"Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."
After reading this line, I thought of an AP article in this morning's online Pravda-Izvestia (P-I) regarding yesterday's ABC News/Sarah Palin interview. After reading the article, I wondered if the author had watched the same interview, as the article was fraught with personal (leftist) perspective and opinion. It definitely belonged on the editorial page, or better yet, the bottom of a birdcage. Does the MSM have a clue as to why they are dying?
Posted by: Saltherring on September 12, 2008 04:41 PMHas Mc Dermott ever paid his $1Mill fine for illegally recording private cell phone calls???
In this case, McDermott is both catering to the far left (e.g., ACORN, CodePink, MoveOn.org, etc.) in a gesture that aligns him with a meaningless effort - but pleases the extremists.
And, combined with this, the liberal media gives me a total pass on the matter, allowing him to spend all his time and effort pleasing the extremists rather than actually representing the needs and liberty of ALL his constituents.
For what it's worth, I did issue the following statement to the local media, and it was (in this case) reasonably reported by Emily Heffter in the September 10 Seattle Times:
"Jim McDermott's support for the impeachment of President Bush is 'ludicrous' given McDermott's own ethical issues.
"In a statement issued yesterday [September 9] on his congressional website, McDermott said that 'for the last two years' he had 'struggled' with the impeachment issue, finally deciding to support impeachment because 'America must hold its leaders accountable.'
"It's ludicrous for someone who is like McDermott - so dishonest, so unethical and so corrupt himself, to talk about the issue of accountability in government.
"The impeachment effort is without merit, an example of McDermott simply seeking to score points with the 'fringe left' while arrogantly ignoring his constituents. With the success of the surge and victory in Iraq closer than ever, McDermott wants a distraction, and wants to avoid a debate on Iraq and other key campaign issues.
"I've challenged McDermott to a series of broadcast debates and have called upon McDermott to retract his May 3 statement calling our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq 'mercenaries' in a 'war on civilians.'"
Posted by: Steve Beren on September 12, 2008 04:54 PMSheesh, I hope not! Let's clear the playing field and start over.
Posted by: Paula on September 12, 2008 05:11 PMI continue to be amazed that some Democrats continue to have this obsession with impeaching/basing Bush when, after eight years, the strategy has not been successful.
Posted by: Don Ward on September 12, 2008 06:44 PMThe overwhelming answer was they 'wanted to make a difference'.
Great goal, but unfortunately it's the antithesis of what journalism SHOULD be: presenting FACTS and news, not influencing it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 12, 2008 09:17 PMImpeachment is to remove someone from office. So yes, in fact, there is a requirement that it be done while they are still in office.
What a freeking hypocrtical moobat. McCrazy, it is time for you to pay up for what you have done.
Posted by: pbj on September 13, 2008 04:05 PMhttp://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr09-03-08.html
Posted by: JDH on September 13, 2008 05:59 PMwhat--like a restroom hand washing sign at a bordello?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 15, 2008 08:16 PMSince you're too lazy even to define "enemy of America", I'll do it for you.
An enemy of America would let the Chinese steal one of our Naval surveillance airplanes. (And apologize to them for it!)
An enemy of America would take no action upon learning, "Bin Laden Intends to Strike Within U.S."
An enemy of America would authorize illegal wiretapping -- a felonious & therefore impeachable offense, btw -- and still not catch a single terrorist thereby.
An enemy of America would allow anthrax attacks to go unsolved, for seven long years.
An enemy of America would blow a foreign country to pieces based upon lies, then appoint interns from the Heritage Foundation to mismanage the result.
An enemy of America would authorize torture, which is a complete affront to our values, and thus another impeachable felony.
An enemy of America would take Jack Abramoff's bribes.
An enemy of America would let a boy-chaser have free tries at Congressional Pages.
An enemy of America would conspire to allow a corrupt Speaker of the House to avoid penalties for unethical behavior.
There's a few examples of Rep. Jim McDermott NOT siding with various enemies of America, Jim. Thanks for asking.