🚀 go-pugleaf

[Via misc.activism.progressive from PeaceNet's media.issues]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Inquiries by email, please, to harelb@math.cornell.edu, for more
information about PeaceNet/EcoNet or about misc.activism.progressive]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/* Written  2:21 pm  Sep 22, 1992 by fair in cdp:media.issues */ 
/* ---------- "COUNTERSPIN #13" ---------- */ 
From: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting <fair@igc.org>


-------------------------- COUNTERSPIN ------------------------ 

-------------A Memo on Campaign Coverage from FAIR------------- 

--------------(Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)--------------- 
   
--------------130 W. 25th St., New York, NY 10001--------------  

-Phone: 212-633-6700 | Fax: 212-727-7668 | Email: fair@igc.org-

No. 13: September 22, 1992 

DEBATE EVASION: Bush's debate-avoiding strategy extends to public  
television--and PBS is letting him get away with it. Last night, PBS ran 
the second part of an innovative two-part special called "Voices of the 
Electorate," based on town meetings in black and Latino communities, 
where voters indicated the issues they wished candidates would address.  
The producers of the program then presented these concerns to the two 
major candidates, and offered them a chance to respond.  Clinton took 
them up on the offer, and was taped in two segments totaling seven 
minutes; Bush declined the offer to participate. 

From a journalistic perspective, "Voices of the Electorate" had done its 
job in trying to provide balance, and if Bush turned down the chance for 
exposure, that's his misfortune and not the producers'.  However, PBS 
has been under constant attack from the Republican Party for the past 
year, and is currently having its biases evaluated by a largely Bush- 
appointed Corporation for Public Broadcasting board, which funds PBS.  
So it's unsurprising that PBS executives caved in, saying that it would 
be "inappropriate" for the program to "offer a platform for Gov. 
Clinton" when Bush had turned down a chance to have the same platform.  

The same choice was announced by the producers of "Word! Teens Speak 
Out," a PBS program that was to feature ethnically diverse teens 
discussing issues with the candidates.  When Clinton and Gore said 
they'd participate, and Bush and Quayle said no, the program was 
canceled.  Not only is PBS teaching politicians that they can avoid 
debate without cost, but in these two specific cases it is depriving 
minority communities of a rare opportunity to have their concerns 
addressed by national candidates. 

THE HIGH ROAD: "You can say anything you want during a debate, and 80 
million people hear it. [If newspapers later correct the record,] so 
what? Maybe 200 people read it or 2,000 or 20,000." 
--Peter Teeley, press secretary to then-Vice President Bush (New York 
Times, 10/19/84) 

CREDIBILITY GAP: Some journalists seem to be offering excuses for why 
they haven't covered George Bush's credibility problem as aggressively 
as Bill Clinton's. In a Time magazine essay (9/21), Michael Kramer 
writes that "Clinton's obfuscations demand greater attention," arguing 
that Bush "has a first-term record voters can consider," while Clinton 
"has yet to serve." 

One problem with this argument is Kramer's insistence that the main 
issues Bush and Clinton seem to be dishonest about--Iran-contra for 
Bush, the draft for Clinton--are "less troublesome than the dissembling 
designed to conceal them."  Iran-contra, of course, was a secret foreign 
policy conducted while Bush was the No. 2 U.S. official; lying about it 
would be a matter of covering up illegal or unconstitutional actions.  
Clinton's Vietnam-era draft status has no such intrinsic importance. 

But the larger problem is that if voters are to judge whether Clinton is 
honest, the media need to provide information on the question, "Compared 
to what?"  Scrutinizing the credibility of one candidate and not the 
other doesn't do the electorate any favors.  

PLAGUE ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES: Other reporters have gone out of their way 
to equate the two campaigns--reminiscent of journalists in 1988 who 
couldn't bring themselves to say which candidate was responsible for 
negative campaigning. The New York Times' Michael Kelly (9/1/92) found 
moral equivalence between Bush's blatant distortions about Clinton's tax 
policies and Clinton's charges that Bush would cut Medicare.  

On Medicare, Kelly wrote, Clinton was "playing around with facts," 
"pretty much the same kind of thing" Bush was doing, because he "made it 
sound as if these [Medicare cuts] were official figures" when they 
actually "were based on the administration's mid-year budget review, a 
document that has not been approved by the administration as a formal 
proposal to Congress." This hardly seems like outrageous dishonesty, 
particularly when Bush has said that the budget document "tells exactly 
and specifically how to get this budget deficit down." (AP, 9/7) 

MOCK SOPHISTICATION: Some commentators have pointed out how reluctant 
reporters are to charge a candidate with lying. Michael Kinsley, in a 
column debunking Bush's tax claims (Washington Post, 9/3), noted: "Keep 
the phony dispute going long enough and eventually the press throws up 
its hands and declares wearily that both sides have called the other 
dishonest long enough and it's time to move on." 

Even a conservative like George Will was disgusted with Bush's campaign 
techniques, and with the media's response (Washington Post, 8/26): "Bush 
operatives constantly whine about the media, but Bush is benefitting 
from the mock sophistication of journalists who, striking a world-weary 
stance, say of his campaign dishonesty, 'It was ever thus in American 
politics.' Even if that were true, it would be no excuse, and it isn't 
true. This is extraordinary." 

WEDGING MINORITIES: While trumpeting 1992 as "the Year of the Woman," 
commentators have generally underplayed the significance of districts 
being redrawn under the Voting Rights Act, which will bring minority 
representation much closer to parity in the next Congress. (African 
Americans, for instance, are 12 percent of the U.S. population but less 
than 6 percent of the House; in the next Congress, it will be closer to 
9 percent.) 

Newsweek, however, didn't ignore this phenomenon--it condemned it.  In 
the Sept. 21 issue, Jay Mathews calls the Voting Rights Act a "racial 
gerrymandering machine" that tries to "wedge more minorities into 
Congress." As proof of the unfairness of "color-coded congressmen," 
Mathews notes that despite attacks on Steven Solarz for running in a 
Latino-majority district, "Solarz found some Hispanics rallying to him."  
Not many, however--Solarz got 26 percent of the vote in a district that 
was 14 percent white, losing by a wide margin to Nydia Valasquez, who 
had a small fraction of Solarz's funding.  

Counterspin is written by Jim Naureckas and edited by Jeff Cohen.