Remember how opponents of the Bush administration, like the New York Times, opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom in part because of the effect it might have on Middle Eastern stability? Well, now that it has happened, the Times has no trouble spinning the positive developments of the last few weeks into "threats of instability," from Iranian nuclear power to Iraqi violence. But there's one thing the Times is certain that the administration isn't responsible for: anything good.
Administration officials say Mr. Bush's calls for democracy in the region have been secondary to the ripple effect of the elections, however imperfect, held by Palestinians and Iraqis in January, and the open, messy but still invigorating political jockeying among those peoples after the balloting.Ah, I see. So the possibility for Egyptian and Lebanese democracy has nothing to do with Bush. It's the Iraqi elections that deserve the credit. Remind me again what prompted those?"You can't dismiss the argument that the themes we're hearing from Washington are helping to cause changes in the Middle East," a senior State Department official said. "But you have to give the main credit to the elections in Palestinian areas and in Iraq. The Iranians, the Syrians and the Iraqis have to be reacting to the elections."
Someone reading this "News Analysis" in a vacuum would think that they just sprung up spontaneously. So you can "give the main credit" to these "elections." That's fine. That's safe. As long as you don't give it to Bush, because lord knows that all the people who work at the Times are smarter and more sophisticated than he is.
Incidentally, there elections in Iraq and Palestine may have gone smoothly, Syria may be forced to end its occupation of Lebanon, and Egypt may hold multiparty elections, but that doesn't mean that we -- assuming we work at the Times -- can't report on all the reasons the Bush administration had nothing to do with it, according to "administration officials," "a senior State Department official," "many experts," "some European diplomats," "an American official," "Arab officials," and of course "an Arab diplomat." All of whom are perfectly willing to steer plaudits away from the president... as long as they can do so anonymously.
This is journalism.
Comments (3)
Umm, what? Your criticism makes less sense than the article.
The article does not purport to take credit away from Bush, it just quotes people who say that it wasn't Bush's words in the State of the Union address that caused this change, but rather the elections. It doesn't say or even imply "the Bush administration had nothing to do with it." You're projecting a meaning onto the quote that simply isn't there.
In fact, any reader with half a brain would realize that attributing the recent changes to the Iraqi elections is giving some credit for them to the Bush administration. Or does every mention of the elections have to be followed by the words "which would never have happened if not for President Bush and the Republicans"? The worst you can say about the 4th and 5th paragraphs is that they don't really fit in with the rest of the article.
While you may read every article through the narrow perspective of whether it supports or endorses the current administration, some articles (surprise!) aren't about that. This one isn't about apportioning "credit" for what's happening there so much as a general overview of what's going on there and the many moving parts that make the future uncertain. My conclusion based on the article is that when the current situation finally plays itself out, it's not clear whether anyone will *want* to take credit for it or not.
And while I understand your objection to anonymous sources, but it's hardly as if the Times and other major papers only rely on those who criticize the administration, as you imply.
I used to believe all the hype about liberal bias in the "mainstream media," but if these are the best examples you can come up with then the media is doing a pretty good job.
Posted by Dave | March 9, 2005 12:50 AM
Posted on March 9, 2005 00:50
I can come up with lots of examples of media bias -- see today's post, for instance. I don't post on all the ones that I read. (Incidentally, this is a "news analysis" piece, so it's allowed a little more latitude than a typical story.)
As for the substance of the post, you read that article differently than I do. For one thing, it doesn't quote anybody talking about the SOTU address (or the inaugural address). Rather, it debunks the more general idea that "Bush's calls for democracy in the region" and "themes we're hearing from Washington" are primarily responsible.
The problem is that no "reader with half a brain," not even the most fervent Bush supporter, thinks that Bush's words are the cause of the change. So if the article is merely saying what you're arguing it says, then the "analysis" exists only to disprove something nobody is claiming to be true at all.
I don't read it that way. I read it as trying to minimize the credit assigned to Bush. Of course every article doesn't have to say, "which would not have happened if not for Bush, but an article talking about the credit -- and that is a key theme of the article, as I read it (otherwise paragraphs 4 and 5 have no point) -- does have to do so.
Posted by David Nieporent | March 9, 2005 2:28 PM
Posted on March 9, 2005 14:28
I can come up with lots of examples of media bias -- see today's post, for instance. I don't post on all the ones that I read. (Incidentally, this is a "news analysis" piece, so it's allowed a little more latitude than a typical story.)
Well, I think it was an interesting choice, then. There are lots of examples of media bias, but for some reason you chose to make your first real post in about 6 weeks about an article that was, in fact, not really biased at all ;)
The problem is that no "reader with half a brain," not even the most fervent Bush supporter, thinks that Bush's words are the cause of the change. So if the article is merely saying what you're arguing it says, then the "analysis" exists only to disprove something nobody is claiming to be true at all.
I didn't say that it was about whether the SOTU (or Washington's words) were responsible for the recent changes. This is what I argued the article was saying:
This one isn't about apportioning "credit" for what's happening there so much as a general overview of what's going on there and the many moving parts that make the future uncertain. My conclusion based on the article is that when the current situation finally plays itself out, it's not clear whether anyone will *want* to take credit for it or not.
And based on the headline ("Mideast Mix: New Promise of Democracy and Threat of Instability"), that does in fact seem to be the point they are trying to get across. While you can question the depth of the analysis, I still think the charges of bias are misplaced.
I don't read it that way. I read it as trying to minimize the credit assigned to Bush. Of course every article doesn't have to say, "which would not have happened if not for Bush, but an article talking about the credit -- and that is a key theme of the article, as I read it (otherwise paragraphs 4 and 5 have no point) -- does have to do so.
Well, as I said earlier, I think paragraphs 4 and 5 don't really have a purpose within the context of the rest of the article, which doesn't talk about where the credit is due *except* to give "credit" to the elections in Palestine and Iraq--which I see as implicit credit to Bush.
But let's say I granted that graphs 4 and 5 really are anti-Bush. If you took them out and left the rest of the article as it was, would you still see the story as trying to take credit away from the Bush administration? What other parts of the article purport to do that, in your opinion?
Posted by Dave | March 10, 2005 4:01 AM
Posted on March 10, 2005 04:01