February 29, 2012
Adapted from a report by Julia A. Seymour posted at businessandmedia.org on Feb. 22:
The Business and Media Institute analyzed broadcast network news references to gas or fuel prices between Jan. 20 and Feb. 20, 2012 and from March 24 and April 24, 2008. BMI found that in the 2008 period when Republican George Bush was president there were more than 4 times as many gas prices stories, news briefs or news headlines on ABC, CBS and NBC as there were in 2012 (97 to 21).
Coverage during the time periods differed not only in quantity, but in tone as well. [In 2008,] During Bush’s tenure, [reports stated that] gas prices were a huge economic threat and cause of suffering. … In 2012, the networks aired mostly matter-of-fact stories on the rising gas prices, and worried primarily that they would hinder the economic recovery, not that they are making people suffer.
Dismal broadcast network reports about “skyrocketing” gas prices filled the newscasts in 2008. There were reports about businesses closing, airlines struggling and truckers protesting — all because of the high gas prices. One ABC report said families were facing the “tough choice” between food or fuel. Others said that “wallets were running on empty” and consumers were told over and over that there was no relief in sight. The national average rose to $3.56-a-gallon on April 24, 2008, but by the end of November 2008, prices had fallen to $1.82.
The networks weren’t simply reporting the painfully high gas prices in early 2008 though, in many cases they were exaggerating them. NBC’s “Today” focused on Redwood City, Calif. on March 6 where regular gasoline cost $3.99, according to the photograph NBC aired. The national average for gas that day was $3.19 a gallon. [Reporter] Ann Curry also failed to tell viewers that California has the highest state gasoline tax in the nation – 45.5 cents a gallon at that time. …
But now, in 2012, gas prices stories are very different. “[W]e’re seeing gas prices creep up every single week,” said one ABC reporter after delivering a positive economic report about the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing in on 13,000 for the first time since 2008. One CBS story just pointed out that if certain steps are taken against Iran, gas prices everywhere could move sharply higher.
Although the time periods BMI analyzed were the same length and ended with the same national average price for gasoline, due to price fluctuations they were not identical. In 2008, prices rose from $3.26 to $3.56 in the month we examined. In 2012, prices were already higher ($3.38 on Jan. 20). Although the national average climbed to $3.56 on Feb. 20 [2012], setting a February record after going up nearly a month straight, there was far less coverage than in 2008.
(Read a previous analysis on media reports on rising gas prices at: mrc.org)
February 22, 2012
From a post by OpinionJournal.com’s editor James Taranto (original post date 2/21/12):
Wow, the Associated Press has outdone itself. Check out the latest “fact check” by Calvin Woodward and Tom Krisher:
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NEWT GINGRICH WROTE: “Having become deeply involved in GM’s operation, the federal government has a vested interest in the company’s success. So what is stopping it from requiring all Americans–under threat of penalty–to buy a GM car?”–from his book “A Nation Like No Other,” published last summer.
THE FACTS: This is called Newt being Newt.
There was a time when one could describe the AP’s work as “news being news.”
February 15, 2012
From a post by OpinionJournal.com’s editor James Taranto (original post date 2/9/12):
From the San Francisco Chronicle comes a subtler example of a reporter, Joe Garofoli, inserting his opinion into what is ostensibly a news story. The subject is the Obama administration’s abortifacient and sterilization mandate:
The battle is over how to frame this issue–as an example of a government mandate trampling on “religious liberty,” as conservatives believe, or as a health policy concern vital for women, as liberals contend.
Conservatives believe one thing, liberals contend another–that’s nicely balanced. But note that only “religious liberty” gets the scare quotes. Why aren’t they also around “health policy concern” or “vital”?
February 8, 2012
from a report by Ken Shepherd posted at newsbusters.org on Feb. 2:
The passage of “controversial” right-to-work legislation in Indiana is a “blow to organized labor.” That’s the spin by Reuters reporter Susan Guyett, who front-loaded her coverage of the bill’s passage by focusing on anger from liberals and labor unions over the new legislation (emphases mine):
Indiana became the 23rd state to pass anti-union “right-to-work” legislation on Wednesday and the first in the nation’s manufacturing heartland, dealing a blow to organized labor by allowing workers to opt out of paying union dues.
Indiana’s Republican governor Mitch Daniels signed the legislation into law immediately after it was given final approval in the state Senate, making Indiana the first state to adopt such a measure since Oklahoma did so a decade ago.
Daniels, governor since 2005 and a prominent spokesman for Republicans nationally, said he decided Indiana needed the controversial new law after several businesses decided to locate elsewhere.
“Seven years of evidence and experience ultimately demonstrated that Indiana did need a right-to-work law to capture jobs for which, despite our highly rated business climate, we are not currently being considered,” he said in a statement after signing the bill.
Indiana is being closely watched by both major political parties in the presidential election debate over job creation and reviving the U.S. economy.
The Indiana state Senate vote of 28 to 22 was followed by calls of “shame, shame” from members of the public outside the chamber. Opponents of right-to-work call it “union busting” and say it will lower the wages of workers.
It wasn’t until the 10th paragraph that Reuters reporter Guyett quoted one of the bill’s sponsors who explained what exactly the bill does (emphases mine):
Republican state Senator Carlin Yoder, the bill’s main sponsor, said it would not prevent anyone from joining a union.
“It is simply allowing those individuals to decide for themselves if they want to pay union dues or not,” Yoder said during the floor debate on Wednesday.
The Reuters piece provided liberal newspapers with a quick opportunity for copy-and-pasting a drive-by hit on Indiana’s conservatives. For example, today’s Washington Post excerpted from [the] Reuters story, but failed to include Yoder’s defense of the bill and presented readers of its page A3 national news digest a thoroughly-skewed presentation of the issue. …
While right-to-work is fundamentally about empowering individual’s rights in the labor market, the liberal media are busy coloring the issue in ways that downplay or negate the issue as one of personal liberty.
February 1, 2012
From a post by OpinionJournal.com’s editor James Taranto (original post date 1/5/12):
Two Papers in One!
(Read the original post at opinionjournal.com – scroll halfway down to “Two Papers in One”)
January 25, 2012
From a post by OpinionJournal.com’s editor James Taranto (original post date 1/24/12):
The Associated Press “fact checks” Jan. 23′s debate, and again shows how ridiculous the whole genre is:
Romney: “I don’t think we can possibly retake the White House if the person who’s leading our party is the person who was working for the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was paying Speaker Gingrich $1.6 million at the same time Freddie Mac was costing the people of Florida millions upon millions of dollars.”
The facts: While going after Gingrich forcefully on the issue, Romney did not mention his own earnings from the government-backed lender and its sister entity, Fannie Mae, which came to light in his most recent financial disclosure report.
The report shows he has as much as $500,000 invested in the two lenders. GOP presidential hopefuls almost across the board have blamed the two institutions for contributing to the housing crisis that helped to drag the nation into recession. Among Romney’s ties: a mutual fund worth up to $500,000 that includes assets from both lenders among other government income, and separate investments in each of the lenders in Romney’s individual retirement account, each worth between $100,000 and $250,000.
Romney campaign officials said Monday the investments were handled by a trustee with no direction by the candidate.
The AP not only does not refute Romney’s factual assertions, it doesn’t even evaluate them. Instead, it responds to Romney’s criticism of Gingrich by offering its own criticism of Romney. That’s fine in a commentary by a Gingrich partisan, or a Democratic partisan seeking to spread the dirt as widely as possible. But the AP is supposed to be in the business of news.
January 18, 2012
from a report by Tom Blumer posted at newsbusters.org on Jan. 15:
…Another [news item] from the totalitarian nation of North Korea that is getting under reported in most of the world’s press, is its “criticism sessions” (i.e., rat out your neighbor, coworker, etc.) identifying North Koreans who allegedly weren’t sufficiently grief-stricken over the December death of Kim Jong Il, weren’t sufficiently demonstrative about it, or didn’t attend enough mourning events, as well as the punishments for such transgressions which have reportedly followed.
The source of this news story is the Daily NK, a South Korea-based web site described by AFP (Agence France-Presse) as “an Internet website run by opponents of North Korea.” The opening paragraphs from Wednesday’s Daily NK report read as follows:
Harsh Punishments for Poor Mourning
The North Korean authorities have completed the criticism sessions which began after the mourning period for Kim Jong Il and begun to punish those who transgressed during the highly orchestrated mourning events.
Daily NK learned from a source from North Hamkyung Province on January 10th, “The authorities are handing down at least six months in a labor-training camp to anybody who didn’t participate in the organized gatherings during the mourning period [for dictator Kim Jong-il], or who did participate but didn’t cry and didn’t seem genuine.”
Furthermore, the source added that people who are accused of circulating rumors criticizing the country’s 3rd generation [rule of the country] are also being sent to re-education camps or being banished with their families to remote rural areas.
Daily NK earlier reported news that criticism sessions were being held at all levels of industry, in enterprises and by local people’s units starting on December 29th, the last day of the mourning period. A source said at the time that the central authorities had ordered the sessions to be completed by January 8th.
The North Hamkyung source commented of the sessions that they “created a vicious atmosphere of fear, causing people to accuse (Kim Jong Un, the son of Kim Jong Il) of preying on the people now that he has taken power.”
The AFP report on North Korea’s…denial fails to mention the “criticism sessions” which give the Daily NK story’s credibility, especially since the Daily NK reported the existence of those sessions nine days earlier, before it knew the specifics of what might result from them….
Internet searches for news stories about the “criticism sessions” and punishments indicate that there hasn’t been anything about either in stories about “North Korea” at the Associated Press or the New York Times. …
(Adapted and excerpted from: newsbusters.org.)
January 11, 2012
From a report by Julia Seymour at businessandmedia.org (original post date 1/9/12):
In November 2011 it became public knowledge that the Chevy Volt could possibly catch fire weeks after a serious accident. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened its investigation into the matter on Nov. 25. Now General Motors is trying to recall all of the Volts for “enhancements,” all while attempting to avoid the word recall. ABC and NBC are also avoiding the topic.
On Jan. 5 Associated Press reported that GM “will ask Volt owners to return the cars to dealers for structural modifications.” NPR reported that “GM is fixing the cars under a customer service campaign. That’s kind of like a recall, but it comes without the bad publicity or the federal scrutiny of a safety recall.”
GM certainly isn’t getting much scrutiny from the mainstream news media over the recall of the heavily subsidized autos. Two of the three broadcast networks have so far avoided sharing this story about the Volt, a gas-electric plug-in hybrid vehicle that they have hyped since January 2007.
Many network stories have touted the gas mileage of the vehicle, some even claimed the Volt could go hundreds of miles without gas. Yes, but only if you stop to charge it roughly every 35-40 miles (depending on driving conditions) since the car switches to its gasoline motor after the initial electric charge runs out. That could take four hours, according to one CBS report.
[As of Jan. 9] Neither ABC, nor NBC have mentioned GM’s decision to fix the roughly 8,000 Chevy Volts by reinforcing the area around the batteries since that news came out Jan. 5, 2012. Only CBS mentioned it on the “Evening News” that night and again on CBS “Morning News” Jan. 6, according to a Nexis search.
January 4, 2012
From a post by OpinionJournal.com’s editor James Taranto (original post date 12/8/11):
Thomas Beaumont of the Associated Press describes a new Mitt Romney campaign ad:
“I’m a man of steadiness and constancy. I don’t think you’re going to find somebody who has more of those attributes than I do,” the former Massachusetts governor said in a new TV ad that included grainy home videos of his wife and five sons. There was no mention of equivocations and policy reversals that his critics have pointed out.
Note what Beaumont did in that last sentence. Just as “some say” is journalese for “I think,” “There was no mention of” means “In my opinion, someone should mention.”
(Read the original post at opinionjournal.com – scroll halfway down to “Reporter Tricks”)
December 14, 2011
From a post by OpinionJournal.com’s editor James Taranto (original post date 12/9/11).
At [a debate recently, Republican presidential candidate] Newt Gingrich declared: “So in a Gingrich administration, the opening day, there will be an executive order about two hours after the inaugural address; we will send the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as of that day.”
The presence of the U.S. Embassy in Israel’s largest metropolitan area rather than its capital has long been a sore point for Americans who sympathize with the Jewish state. But Gingrich is far from the first presidential candidate to promise such a move, a history that leads the Associated Press to produce one of its “fact check” articles. The dispatch…is titled “Fact Check: Israel Embassy Promise May Be Empty.” It exemplifies what is wrong with the “fact check” genre, so much so that it shows the AP literally doesn’t know the meaning of the word “fact.”
The trouble here is that there isn’t a fact to check. Gingrich’s statement is one of intent, not fact. To the extent that the headline is true, it is because it is trivial. Any promise by any politician “may be empty.”
Here is the most persuasive part of [the AP] rebuttal:
THE FACTS: A promise to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has become a standard part of pro-Israel political rhetoric. Similar pledges were made during their campaigns by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. But no administration has ever acted on such a promise once in office. . . .
A 1995 U.S. law recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and ordered the U.S. embassy to move to Jerusalem from a neutral site in nearby Tel Aviv. Using their presidential power, Clinton, Bush and Obama have routinely suspended the relocation of the embassy while saying the U.S. is still committed to doing it.
Apart from the bizarre reference to Tel Aviv as “a neutral site”–most Arab and Muslim countries refuse to recognize Israeli sovereignty at all, not just in Jerusalem and the West Bank–these paragraphs are factual.
These facts lend support to the conclusion that, as the headline puts it, Gingrich’s promise to move the embassy is “empty”–or, to put it in more neutral terms, that it is unlikely that a President Gingrich would actually move the embassy. And we agree with that conclusion: It is unlikely. But that is a conjecture, an educated guess about the future, not a fact. …
But the idea that Gingrich’s pledge is contrary to fact because other politicians have failed to keep the same promise is beyond ludicrous. Did the AP in 2008 run a “fact check” rebutting Barack Obama’s promise to enact “heath-care reform” because so many previous presidents have futilely attempted to do so? …..
It would not have been hard to recast this story to make it journalistically sound, though it would have entailed a bit more work. [The AP reporter] could have begun by reporting the Gingrich promise, then put it in historical context by noting the record of other presidents. The arguments for why such a move is a bad idea could have been aired, too–not in [the reporter's] own voice, but by interviewing diplomats or scholars who think it’s a bad idea. It might also have been worthwhile to seek a follow-up interview with Gingrich or a spokesman to ask why voters should expect him to keep this promise when past presidents haven’t.
Instead, the AP published what is essentially an opinion piece, and a rather lazy one at that. …To label that a “fact check”–as if it had some greater authority than actual reporting–is fundamentally dishonest.
