My recent blog post about CNN and false claims about the Jones Act: CNN Is Not The Liberal Media That Right Wing Nuts Tag It To Be Submitted by Jim Weeks on Sun, 07/04/2010 - 21:44 It seems that, whenever a media outlet runs a story criticizing conservatives or a conservative idea, that particular media outlet is labeled "the liberal media" by FOX News and right wing talk radio. If the same outlet runs a positive story about conservatives, those same right wing talking heads praise the story and hold it up as evidence of their self perceived superiority.
When CNN runs a positive story about conservatives or a conservative candidate, the right wing nut media uses it to advance their delusional sense of superiority but they never encourage their listeners and viewers to become consumers of CNN. They will hold up a news piece or editorial from CNN and use it to advance their agenda but in the next sentence they will call CNN "the liberal media." Saying that CNN is "the liberal media" is like saying that BP is a responsible steward of the environment all of the evidence points that the opposite is true. In fact, the so-called "liberal media" is often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures. Sarah Palin is a good example here with her incessant blaming of the so-called "liberal media" for hers and John McCain's failure never considering that perhaps the campaign was lacking any ideas and just seemed like a bunch of bumper sticker slogans strung together designed to appeal to the worst among us. CNN is not the liberal media that the right wing thinks it is... * In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting published a piece <http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067> about FOX News' Roger Ailes claims of CNN liberal media bias: Ailes and his colleagues have trouble backing up these claims with actual facts. He's fond of calling Bob Novak the only conservative on CNN--"that's the only guy they hired that was to the right!" (Charlie Rose, 5/22/01) --but he ignores Tucker Carlson, Kate O'Beirne and Mary Matalin (who recently left for the White House), not to mention past conservative stars such as Lynne Cheney, Mona Charen, John Sununu and, of course, Pat Buchanan, perhaps the most right-wing figure in national politics and an 18-year veteran of Crossfire (minus the occasional hiatus to run for president). According to Bill O'Reilly, Fox "gives voice to people who can't get on other networks. When was the last time you saw pro-life people [on other networks] unless they shot somebody?" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/10/01). O'Reilly's question is easily answered; in the last three years, the National Right to Life Committee's spokespeople have appeared on CNN 21 times (compared with 16 appearances for their main counterpart, the National Abortion Rights Action League). In a 1999 Washington Post profile (3/26/99), Ailes offered another example. He said he was particularly proud of a three-part series on education that Fox had recently aired, which reported that "many educators believe self-esteem teaching is harmful" to students. "The mainstream media will never cover that story," Ailes told the Post. "I've seen 10,000 stories on education and I've never seen one that didn't say the federal government needed to spend more money on education." But just weeks prior to Ailes' interview, CNN's weekly Newsstand series (2/28/99) aired a glowing profile of an upstate New York business executive who had turned around a troubled inner-city elementary school "by bringing the lessons of the boardroom into the classroom." CNN's report came complete with soundbites from a conservative education advocate ("the unions are a major impediment to education reform") and lines from host Jeff Greenfield like, "Critics have said that for decades, the public education system has behaved like an entrenched monopoly with little or no incentive to improve its performance." The piece would have warmed the heart of any conservative education reformer. The difference between the two networks is that while such conservative-friendly fare airs on CNN some of the time, Fox has oriented its whole network around it. Contrary to what Ailes and other right-wing media critics say, the agenda of CNN and its fellow mainstream outlets is not liberal or conservative, but staunchly centrist * Leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, American's misperceptions about the Iraq situation were closely tied to the media they consumed and CNN viewers somewhat misled by a pro war drumbeat with little or no fact checking or accurate investigative reporting. A study based on a series of seven US polls <http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_\ bt/102.php> conducted from January through September of 2003 reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq. The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely. An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September of 2003 found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions. Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war. Among those with one of these misperceptions, 53% support the war, rising to 78% for those who have two of the misperceptions, and to 86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news. 80% of FOX News viewers had one or more misperceptions and the so-called "liberal media" viewers over at CNN came in at 55% Overall, CNN repeated the misperceptions and failed to provide equal coverage to those who were disputing the Bush allegations about Iraq...allegations proven to be false to this day. CNN rarely had a opposing viewpoint on the invasion and occupation of Iraq with the exception of Alan Colmes of Crossfire who shared a panel stacked with conservative commentators. * For the second inauguration of President George W Bush, Media Matters for America <http://mediamatters.org/research/200501210001> inventoried all guests who appeared on FOX News, CNN, and MSNBC during the channels' January 20 inauguration coverage. Between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Republican and conservative guests and commentators outnumbered Democrats and progressives 19 to 7 on FOX*, 10 to 1 on CNN (not including a Republican-skewed panel featuring Ohio voters), and 13 to 2 on MSNBC... * Recently, Newsvine reports <http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_\ bt/102.php> that CNN ran 11 stories on Democrat Blumenthal's military service claim scandal and ran zero on Republican Mark Kirk's service claim scandal... * Also recently, CNN was reporting that Obama blocked foreign help with the Gulf oil spill because he refused to waive the Jones Act, which requires all boats to be American made and crewed by Americans to work in U.S. Waters, even though it had been routinely waived by the Bush administration. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Charles Djou, both Republicans, have said that the 1920 Jones Act is standing in the way of foreign ships that could otherwise assist in the cleanup and that Obama could waive its requirements but hasn't. But that's false. No waiver has been needed. The Jones Act requires goods carried between U.S. ports to be shipped aboard U.S.-flagged vessels built in the U.S. and owned by American citizens. The law doesn't apply to ships operating far from the U.S. coastline, skimming oil or performing other such chores and not hauling cargo from one American port to another. In the case of the BP oil spill, the Jones Act hasn't prevented several foreign-flagged ships from delivering resources and skimming oil. And the administration says it's prepared to expedite requests for waivers, should any be needed. According to Factcheck <http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-a\ ct/> : In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts. The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a June 15 press release <http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/660195/> that there are 15 foreign flagged ships currently participating in the oil spill cleanup. None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply. The Jones Act is a trade and commerce law that was enacted in 1920 as part of a larger Marine Merchant Act. It requires all trade delivered between U.S. ports to be carried in U.S. flagged vessels constructed in the United States and owned by American citizens. The law states its purpose is to develop a merchant marine for national defense and commerce. Why was the Jones Act waived as part of the Hurricane Katrina response, and why hasn't it been waived now? Katrina inflicted massive infrastructure damage, which restricted the availability of key resources. According to the Deepwater Horizon response team <http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/MARAD_revised_Jones\ _Act_Fact_Sheet.670991.pdf> : "A Jones Act waiver was granted during Hurricane Katrina due to the significant disruption in the production and transportation of petroleum and/or refined petroleum products in the region during that emergency and the impact this had on national defense." The Deepwater Horizon spill has yet to affect infrastructure or oil and gas availability; the damage is environmental, and foreign vessels are approved for delivering resources and conducting offshore skimming. Although the Jones Act is currently not applicable, the federal government has taken steps <http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/660195/> to expedite the waiver process should the oil spill response require a Jones Act waiver for trade and commerce. Also, contrary to reports such as the one on "Fox & Friends," international assistance has been accepted. To date, 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others. A chart <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143488.pdf> provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 offers from six foreign countries or entities had been accepted. Fifty more offers were under consideration including multiple offers from a single country or entity. One offer had been declined: France offered a chemical dispersant that is not approved for use in the United States. President Barack Obama described this process in his May 27 press conference <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gulf-oil-s\ pill> . A couple of weeks ago, Anderson Cooper made the claim. The claim was debunked and after much pressure from the me and others who follow media accuracy, a sort of correction was made. A couple of evenings after the false claim, Cooper stated that one vessel was denied but he gave no explanation of why, and he did not make it clear that the denial of service was not due to the Jones Act. After the false reporting about the Jones Act and a Dutch offer to help, a CNN viewer accurately pointed out that (1)The Jones Act already has an exemption for oil spill response vessels so why would Obama have to suspend it? (2) The Dutch offer was to sell skimmers, it wasn't an offer to help at "no charge." To the credit of CNN, they did not appear to repeat the false claims that a Tiawan flagged skimmer <http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/04/gulf.oil.disaster/?hpt=T1> had been denied entry because of the Jones Act. CNN reported that the ship, which swallows water with oil then separates it, can skim about 21 million gallons of oil a day. That's at least 250 times the amount that modified fishing vessels currently conducting skimming operations have been able to contain, according to Taiwanese company TMT shipping, which owns the vessel. To the credit of the Obama administration, they aren't letting anyone and everyone get involved. We can't have boats going out there and doing what they want. These boats have to be inspected, tested, and deployed in an organized manner. Just letting foreign vessels cruise around our shoreline without finding out about them is just plain nonsense and could threaten the security of this nation. Do you really want uninspected, untested, unsafe vessels which could be smuggling people or weapons floating around off shore? Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, Fox and Friends, along with right wing talk radio, keeps repeating the false claims about the Jones Act. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, conservatives prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand, relying on rumor mongering fake outrage. Evidence does show that CNN is more factual than it's competitor over at FOX, but reporting of facts does not equate with "liberal media." Facts are just that, facts. CNN does still report the rumor most of the time and then sort of, half way, reports the facts later. But to claim that CNN is "the liberal media" is just plain backward thinking. Just look at their advertisers, the bread and butter of CNN. CNN is not about to upset the apple cart driven by their big energy industry advertisers. Posted On Site: Bottom Line Radio Jim Weeks <http://ongoliard.dreamhosters.com/node/32> Posted On Open Salon <http://open.salon.com/blog/jim_weeks/2010/07/04/cnn_is_not_the_liberal_\ media_right_wing_nuts_tag_it_to_be>
