The following is a news analysis and commentary.
As some reporters unequivocally declare Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to be “wrong” when he claimed thousands in New Jersey celebrated the Sept. 11, 2001 Islamic extremist terrorist attacks, I observe with more than a passing interest.
My interest isn’t in the presidential candidates; it’s in the news media’s conduct.
One news outlet dubbed Trump “the post truth 2016 candidate,” lifting a propaganda phrase passed along by the usual suspects. If one didn’t know better, one might think Hillary Clinton’s supporters among propagandists, astroturfers and the news media know she polls weakest when it comes to honesty, so they’re on a mission to reduce her strongest Republican competition to equal footing.
If voters can be convinced that Trump and Ben Carson are liars, then those candidates are less likely to attack Clinton’s own dubious relationship with the truth…
It may not be a conscious thought on the part of some reporters; more of a reflexive response. Maybe they constitute the post truth news media.
Substitution Game
If you’ve read my New York Times bestseller Stonewalled, you know that I’m a fan of an intellectual exercise I call the Substitution Game. It involves comparing how the press treats similar events or people depending on how the reporter or news organization feels about the issue or the newsmaker.
In the case of Trump–thoroughly despised by so many in politics and the news media–his claim about cheering Muslims has been widely dissected for days. Reporters sometimes gleefully challenge him directly, aggressively and repeatedly.
Trump’s claim “defies basic logic,” says one report. “No news reports exist…” declares another, as if an event cannot have occurred, by definition, unless it was played on the news.
In the meantime, politicians who are better liked by the news media get a relative pass on statements that could arguably merit the same brand of scrutiny and analysis as Trump’s.
For example, President Obama claims mass shootings only happen in the U.S.–as he stands in Paris where there was a mass shooting about two weeks earlier. He claims to have met his green energy goals even “quicker” than expected –never mind the instances where the goals weren’t met. He calls the U.S. “the largest country” (Canada and Russia are bigger; China and India have more people). And all of that was just at his December 1 press conference at the Paris climate change summit.
The intent is not to pick on President Obama. To be sure, there is context for the questionable comments. But the point is: reporters do not chew on them for days upon end. They don’t constantly pick arguments with Mr. Obama or demand he apologize. In fact, for the most part, reporters seem simply not to notice.
Logical Fallacy
Reporters may believe it’s untrue or unlikely that thousands in New Jersey cheered-on the World Trade Center attacks. They may not know anybody who participated in such a thing and they may not be able to locate videotape of it. But that’s quite different than knowing, unequivocally, that it didn’t happen.
Knowing that it didn’t happen would require a magical mix of omniscience and clairvoyance. Reporters who claim to know that it didn’t happen are committing a journalistic error more serious than the offense of which they accuse Trump.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump’s or Carson’s stories were definitively proven to be fabricated, it’s difficult to argue that would be more significant or indicative of their leadership abilities than the missteps of one of their opponents: Hillary Clinton. Yet reporters tend not to question her fabrications or misstatements with the same determination and persistence.
Clinton’s Honesty Issue
For the sake of brevity, we’ll review two of the most notable examples: 1. Clinton claimed we were shot at by snipers on a trip to Bosnia when she was First Lady (I was covering the trip for CBS News). Nothing even remotely close to sniper fire happened. 2. As secretary of state, Clinton publicly blamed the deadly Benghazi terrorist attacks on demonstrators inspired by a YouTube video, even though the best information was to the contrary (and she privately told her family the truth).
Substitution Game: With Clinton the lead Democrat running for president, are reporters engaging in days of passionate arguments with her about her false sniper fire claim insisting over and over, as they did with Trump, “It didn’t happen,” “It’s just plain wrong,” “Are you delusional?” or “It never happened”?
Have the same reporters criticized Clinton as secretary of state for misleading the public on Benghazi, demanding she “issue an apology”? Have they engaged in endless one on one debates with her for falsely claiming there were no classified emails on the private server on which she conducted the public’s business?
Couldn’t it be argued that Clinton was a post truth candidate long before Trump?
Slippery Slope
As reporters set aside their traditional role as fact seekers and veer into advocacy, they find themselves on a slippery journalistic slope.
There’s nothing wrong with reporting on skepticism of Trump’s (or other candidates’) claims. But to present Trump’s ideas about Muslim celebrations as the ravings of a lunatic requires dismissing, cherry picking, weighting or ignoring evidence.
In 2001, there were worldwide reports of relatively small groups of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks; some of them in the United States. Substitution Game: When CBS News anchor Dan Rather told CBS late night host David Letterman there were reports of celebrations by Muslims at home, there was no collective outcry from reporters demanding an apology from Rather or Letterman. Only when Trump suggested the same.
Substitution Game: When the Washington Post reported allegations of people “seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river,” nobody demanded the newspaper issue apologies or corrections. Only when Trump made his allegations.
When CNN and the Los Angeles Times reported on Muslims overseas in East Jerusalem celebrating the 9/11 attacks; and when Snopes.com reported that “journalists were threatened for capturing images of Palestinian celebrations, making real footage of the event harder to obtain,” and when the Foreign Press Association of Israel reported that “thousands filled the streets to celebrate” in the West Bank town of Nablus to celebrate the 9/11 bombings, and that “armed police blocked camera crews from photographing the rally,” the news wasn’t met with wild disbelief.
“The images of exuberant, cheering Palestinians – some of them children and teens – when they heard news of the tragedies angered and horrified people worldwide,” said one report at the time. Another said, “TV stations everywhere were broadcasting footage of revelers in the streets of Jerusalem and Nablus, in refugee camps and in coffee shops. Some joyously fired rifles in the air, laughed, handed out sodas and candy and made signs of victory with their fingers.” Others said that Palestinian Authority officials “phoned TV stations and other media to caution them their safety would be in jeopardy if they aired the [celebratory] segments.” U.S. News and World Report asked, “Why did so many inhabitants of the long Muslim ‘street,’ stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, appear to be overjoyed by what Osama bin Laden’s henchmen had accomplished?”
As the facts have been fleshed out, some reporters have found themselves in the awkward position of having to repeatedly redefine their criticism of Trump’s statement. At first, they scoffed at the notion that anybody celebrated the 9/11 attacks. But when overseas video surfaced, they narrowed their criticism and scoffed at the idea that there were celebrations specifically in New Jersey. But when multiple witnesses and accounts about New Jersey surfaced, they narrowed their criticism further and said it couldn’t have been “thousands.”
See how it works? Each time their narrative is undermined, they simply reframe the argument to avoid the appearance that they’ve had to concede anything.
When it comes to Trump’s 9/11 celebration comments, the news media’s conduct may not matter to people who dislike Trump; in fact, they may cheer it on.
But someday, the post truth news media might set its sights on somebody or something you care about.
How about the claims about the crowd in Washington the day Obamacare was passed? No audio or visual evidence despite a limited area, plenty of cameras and the offering of a reward.
President Obama is an “Islam-O-Phile” and is incapable of making the connection between his beloved “Great Religion of Peace” and the horrific slaughter of innocent people.
The Main Stream Media of today are an extension of The Democratic Party, therefore THEY treat Islam with Kid-Gloves, avoiding that same connection whenever possible.
After all, it’s much easier to just keep blaming everything ‘bad’ on Racist Republicans. Right?
Considering media are businesses first, seeking to sell ads and/or access and needing readers/viewers, the fact that they do not give a God damn about truth is easily explained.
By the way, after the Clinton-Benghazi hearings recently, no one that I recall mentioned the “video” lie. Now, think about this: Obama and Clinton and the herd put an American’s life at risk (the guy who made the video) and other Americans’ lives around the world at other embassies by blaming the video. If they really thought the video was a problem, why did they call attention to it? My uderstanding is the number of hits skyrocketed after the WH placed the video front and center. They put American lives at risk for political purposes.
That is an issue that needs to be exposed. Sheryl, write an article about that.
Thank you. Well said. Of course, most of us already know it, but can’t put our fingers on the specifics as well as you did.
Now, while we all know of the liberal bias, the real story never discussed is why and how much it actually matters. As an example, tea party policies are, in fact, mainstream. When polled on tea party policies, over 50% of the American people agree with them. Over 50%! Yet they are referred to by the mom as extreme right wingers, often called wackos. So, when you ask Joe Sixpack about their policies, he likes them. But when you tell Joe a candidate is a tea par.tier, they recoil in horror because they have been told over and over, and therefore believe, that the candidate is an extreme wacko.
Sheryl – do a piece on the impact of liberal bias. Would be Really hard assess the actual damage, but I’m sure it is substantial.
Concise. Precise.
Well done Ms Attkisson.
Sadly, the transition of the press from truth teller to political machine has not produced an informed electorate but rather an electorate of angry cynics. Americans place high value on truth and facts thus the serious drop in newspapers and magazines. We tend to be pragmatic when making decisions. With truth and facts at our fingertips, we’ll not again vote with a media driven emotion. Been there and done that and don’t want to do it again! Great analysis and commentary.
Keep up the good work Ms. Attkisson. It is appreciated.
For what it’s worth, the night of 9/11/01, and for the next several evenings, I was appalled to hear chants of “Bin Laden, Bin Laden” late into the night in Rathmines, Dublin, Ireland. I’d estimate the wandering groups of young men (all non-Irish) at perhaps two dozen each. Thousands of Dubliners heard it, yet Irish media failed to report on the phenomenon. It’s something this American will never forget.
Ms. Attkisson, you are the true definition of a journalist, tough and fair to both sides. I would love to watch your news show but cannot find it, and the website FullMeasure.news is seriously broken. When you click on what is coming up this Sunday, you get a page that references September 26th. I hope you will consider doing something on Fox News like a one hour alternative to 60 Minutes. You need to be on TV as much as possible – besides being a great investigative journalist, you have the brains and beauty that make you a natural on TV. Please look into higher profile ways to bring your stories to as many people as possible. Thanks
Well done, Sharyl. Thank you.
With due respect, Sharyl, if you wish to call your writing “analysis,” you should include direct quotes rather than paraphrasing things to your liking.
First, Obama’s statement about “met our [clean energy] goals a lot quicker” (19:35) is a lead up to the “cost of solar has gone down much faster” (20:28). He doesn’t say “all goals were met,” nor does he deny that some goals weren’t met. That part is your fabrication.
Second, at 26:30, Obama says, “I say this every time we have one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries,” the pronoun there comparing the *frequency* with which the U.S. deals with mass shootings. How can you credibly interpret this as the president saying “mass shootings only happen in the U.S.” (your words)?
Finally, there are many measures by which the U.S. is indeed the “largest country,” discounting size and population.
Taking a step back, what you imply is that Obama thinks (1) everything is great with climate change response, that (2) no other nations have mass shootings, and that (3) he is ignorant of the fact that the U.S. in not largest in size or population. Do you actually believe this?
If you do, I am truly sorry. If you don’t, you have just revealed yourself as part of the “post truth media” of which you speak?
You clearly don’t get that what Sharyl is pointing out here. She agrees with you that Obama’s statements would be taken out of context and that journalists would be deceptively adding that context as well as pushing people towards the wrong conclusions around those statements in how they present the information to audiences. The issues is that it is okay in the minds of “progresssive” pro-facism types (because they are fascists at this point) for journalists to do this to the right or anyone that is not onboard the “progressive” fascist agenda. Good thing the brainwashed are still a minority, bad thing is that thanks to colleges being indoctrination facilities for the last five or six decades, far too mant people in power are “progressive” fascists in their thinking and have dominated a media that is losing credibility at a rampant rate. It is pretty simple why college graduates (I am one with honors from a “progressive” school, because we know your next move is to insult my background) support corrupt “progressive” facists like Obama: they have been indoctrinated with an agenda to do so.
Congratulations on graduating w/ honors from college. What about my statement makes you think that I’d respond with an ad hominem attack on your educational credentials? Let’s talk about analysis, howsabout? First, quickly, please read up on the term “fascism” to see how wrongly you are using it (and that you are committing an ad hominem, yourself, in doing so). For the short-and-quick, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fascist_as_an_insult . Second, I “get” very well what Atkisson is saying. The problem is that the 3 statements she says “could arguably merit the same brand of scrutiny and analysis as Trump’s” are not at all comparable/analagous to Trump’s. My original comment documents just why this is the case.
Someday? Everyday, is more like it. I, among many others, am cheering as the traditional media slowly circle the drain. It’s too bad, because a robust news media should be an essential asset to our society. But since they have become monolithically liberal, they no longer are an asset to our freedom, they are a detriment. Good riddance.
I think journalism died as a result of Watergate. Richard Nixon in fact destroyed himself, but the perception was that Woodward & Bernstein brought him down – and many if the following generation of “journalists” see their proper role as deciders of fact and advocates for chosen causes. Objectivity is gone and even “straight” news reporting contains bias that was once confined to the editorial pages.
you are great and badly needed. What NIXON did was nothing as to what has been going last 20 Years. Also there were reliable reports of mid eastern students giving HI FIVES
Thank you for caring enough to report aggressively and even-handedly even when few others will. I speak for many when I say I appreciate the sacrifices you’ve made and the courage it’s taken to maintain your integrity.
Hillary told Chelsea the Benghazi attacks were terrorism while insisting to the public and the families of the dead that is was all caused by an “Internet video.” How odd is it that “reporters” in the prestige press spend their time pressing Trump about whether he should have said “thousands” while giving Hillary a pass?
You know better than I the damage the Fourth Estate’s corruption and indifference has done to this country. Thank you for caring enough to buck the tide! You have more admirers than you’ll ever know.
Re. Post Truth News Media. Excellent.
Unfortunately the main stream media is an extension of liberalism. Honest reporting does not happen. At the end of the day the country loses as politicians are not held accountable.
Wow! Sharyl your commentary as usual is very enlightening. Everyone should read your book Stonewalled.
Actually, research has shown that the media “bias” is liberal-leaning on social issues, but actually conservative-leaning on financial issues. It’s not as clear cut as everyone would like to believe. Also, you can call it a “bias”, or in a free-market system you could say the way the media covers stories is based upon demand or consumer preference, and that there is less consumer support for conservative media sources. Given that the majority of registered voters are independent now, the liberal social “bias” and conservative financial “bias’ reflects the views of a majority of voters.
Actually no. The dominant media (there’s nothing ‘mainstream’ about them) is a wholly-owned subsidy of the Democrat Party. Even regarding financial news. If they honestly reported on that topic the horrible Obama ‘recovery’ would never have been proclaimed and the false narrative of low unemployment would never have seen the light of day. With 93 million working age Americans simply gone from the workforce because they gave up trying (or have been unemployed for more than 6 months), the real unemployment figure is MUCH worse; upwards of 14% (some would save even higher). Let that number sink in: 93 million workers out of a total population of 320 million have simply dropped-out and the media says nothing?
Sharyl, this “analysis” of yours is as incoherent as your CBS reporting. I have no idea what points you were trying to make, other than “The LameStream Media” and “Conservatives are Victims” in the “Substitution Game”.
Everyone should realize the Media is not Liberal, nor is it Conservative. It is a BUSINESS. The millions earned by Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, Jake Tapper, Candy Crowley are being paid on checks signed by VP’s at giant Media conglomerates.
Judge accordingly.
Media is a business, not an ideology. Just look at Politico.com or RealClearPolitics.com if you want a lesson in how to attract clicks and advertisers.
That is a very articulate and accurate analysis of today’s media agenda. I am angered by what they are able to get away with. I wish that people would open their eyes to this. But I realize that most see only what they want to see. The truth be damned. Thank you Ms. Attkisson
R.L. Camargo
Thank you for reporting on this, Ms. Attkisson. It’s a shame how the major media lets its biases overwhelm its news judgement and compromises their journalistic integrity in the process.
Well said Sharyl….as usual…