PDA

View Full Version : Numbers Show Media Bias on Clarke



John Ashcroft
03-26-2004, 01:26 PM
While hundreds of news reports mentioned Richard Clarke's criticism of Bush administration, relatively few of those reports also mentioned documents contradicting key elements of what Clarke said.
A search of the Nexis news database shows that from March 24 through March 26, there were 872 news reports mentioning the name Richard Clarke.

Clarke is the former counterterrorism official who expressed support for the Bush administration when he worked at the Bush White House, then blasted the Bush administration after he left.

Clarke's new book, saying that terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration, came out this week, apparently timed to coincide with his appearance on Wednesday before the commission investigating the events leading up to 9/11.

Hundreds of news reports from March 24-46 discussed Clarke's contention that the Bush administration did not do all it could have done to protect the American people from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

A Nexis search of "Richard Clarke/Fox" and "Richard Clarke/Fox News" turned up only 130 stories, however.

A search of Richard Clarke/Chris Shays and Richard Clarke/Christopher Shays turned up 10 stories.

And a search for Richard Clarke/Fox/Chris Shays turned up only 2 stories.

The two-day search of the Nexis news database was conducted at 7:10 a.m. EST Friday.

Fox News' Transcript

Fox News on Wednesday, with the White House's permission, released a transcript of an August 2002 White House background briefing, at which Clarke described the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

"There was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," Clarke told reporters in August 2002.

Clarke also said the Bush administration, in its first eight months in office, adopted a "new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." He said the Bush administration ordered a five-fold increase in money for covert action before Sept. 11, 2001.

And Clarke told reporters that in March 2001, months before the 9/11 attacks, that President Bush had directed his staff to "stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem," that problem being how to deal with al-Qaida.

On Wednesday, in his testimony before the 9/11 commission, Clarke seemed to contradict what he said at the August 2002 background briefing: "[M]y impression was that fighting terrorism in general and fighting al-Qaida, in particular, was an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration. Certainly, there was no higher priority," Clarke said on Wednesday.

He also testified on Wednesday that terrorism was "an important issue but not an urgent issue" for the Bush administration.

Rep. Shays' Letter

In a letter to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday, Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., told panel members that "Clarke was part of the problem before Sept. 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat."

Shays said that before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a House panel held 20 hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism - and Clarke "was of little help in our oversight."

"When he briefed the subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive," Shays said in his March 24, 2004 letter.

Shays noted that "no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure."

http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf

Shays also released a copy of a letter he wrote to Clarke on July 5, 2000, telling Clarke that Shays' subcommittee found the information Clarke had given them "less than useful," and asking him to answer additional questions.

And Shays released a Jan. 22, 2001 letter he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice complaining that Clarke had not answered the subcommittee's questions. "During a briefing to this Subcommittee, Mr. Clarke stated that there is no need for a national strategy," Shays wrote to Rice.

"This Subcommittee, and others, disagree with Mr. Clarke's assessment that U.S. government agencies do not require a planning and preparation document to respond to terrorist attacks," Shays wrote.

Link: here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/26/91456.shtml)

steve
03-27-2004, 12:59 AM
The whole world is wrong but you! That no-nothing "media" is at it again...friggin bastards. :)

ELVIS
03-27-2004, 02:46 AM
Whatever...

pete
03-27-2004, 02:48 AM
hey john.

nice read

hope your well

BigBadBrian
03-27-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by steve
The whole world is wrong but you! That no-nothing "media" is at it again...friggin bastards. :)

Will you say that when FORD or PINK SPIDER whine about how the "corporate media" are pawns of the Bush machine? Hmmm?

Pink Spider
03-27-2004, 03:27 PM
I've never said that the corporate media were the sole pawns of Shrub. They're pawns of the two corporate parties; Republican and Democrat. There is no liberal bias, because there are no liberals left among the two.

steve
03-27-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Will you say that when FORD or PINK SPIDER whine about how the "corporate media" are pawns of the Bush machine? Hmmm?

Possibly.

Regardless of what your opinion is, it's weak at best to consistantly chalk EVERYTHING up in an ad hominem way - without actually arguing why YOU think x person is wrong.

it's one thing if you are referring to a particular entity (such as GreenNews.com or The Washington Times - two non-news sources that are 90% soley opinion) - but to reference opinions from all over the spectrum of different media outlts who often disagree with each other and pick one issue on which they do agree - it doesn't really back up the idea of a "media bias".

Dr. Love
03-27-2004, 10:44 PM
Newspapers and Newshows are businesses.

They do what they do to do 1 thing: Make money. How do they do that? Advertising space. How do they sell advertising space? By having a large amount of readers/viewers.

How do they do that? Interesting stories.

It's more interesting to read about President Bush doing something underhanded than it is to read about Clarke contradicting himself.

Which one you think is going to draw more interest with the average person?


The news isn't there to inform you. It might claim it is, but if it didn't turn a profit, it wouldn't be out there for you to be 'informed' by.

Dr. Love
03-27-2004, 10:44 PM
My point, of course, isn't that there's a media bias in favor of Clarke, but a media bias in favor of making money.

Seshmeister
03-27-2004, 10:53 PM
Media bias against Bush?

LOL I think with their 100s of millions of $s worth of TV adverts on the way they can look after themselves.

The UK has changed the law to cap election spending at $14m per party and that's an election for 650 seats including the Prime Minister.

Scaling that up for population the Republicans already have a ridiculous amount of cash to spend from their friends in big business.

BTW can someone tell me what happened to the Microsoft Anti Trust case after Bush got in?

Cheers!

:gulp:

John Ashcroft
03-29-2004, 10:19 AM
Killed, like it should've been.

If the Clinton admin spent as much time and energy pursuing terrorists as they did Microsoft, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened.