Is this article an example of liberal media bias?

[Divinus Arma]

I want to hear your honest opinion of whether or not you think this article displays liberal bias. Please keep in mind that this is presented as news, not an editorial.

Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
Oct 13 11:14 PM US/Eastern

By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit _ the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering _ how often do we train with the Iraqi military _ who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit _ the hometown _ and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

Edit: Here is the original Article: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/13/D8D7I5C83.html

[English assassin]

I don't think the article is biased either way. IMHO it presents facts, a lot of facts, and little or no editorialising. A fact can't be biased.

[Geoffrey S]

Same here. By the looks of things it merely states the sequence of events, without speculating on why it happened or adding opinions. The only bit that could be considered biased is the final section, the quotes from Paul Rieckhoff, but it's hardly representative of the rest of the article as a whole.

[Ronin]

like it was allready said....facts are facts....if it´s real it can´t be biased.

[TinCow]

The very first paragraph is a slight bit iffy, but the rest is just clean descriptive facts. The Rieckhoff statements are just a counter to the White House statements inserted earlier. As such, I say no.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Some bias is present, but the bulk of the piece is simple fact.

Biased components:

Use of the term "choreographed" to imply song & dance or entertainment without real content. "Prepared in advance" or "coordinated" would have been more value neutral.

Expansion of the McClellan response by the reporter to note that most Presidential interactions are coordinated/prepared in advance, so that this episode is not particularly unique from that perspective. Failure to note this suggests McClellan's response to be a cover-up, as opposed to a statement of reality. Noting this norm would provide balance, and the QUALITY of information raised by any such "prepared" interaction are dealt with in the following Reickhoff quote anyway.

Reporter also failed to note the basic stance of Mr. Reickhoff's group regarding US involvement in Iraq. Adding this would have made for more complete reportage.

Note: I am referring to the "reporter" in these comments, but I must acknowledge that the reporter may well have done all of these things, only to have an editor remove them.

Overall:

Most conservatives object to the tone of such pieces, not the simple facts related. Mr. Reickhoff's comments, for example, whatever his motivations for them, are on target. Only a few changes and this piece would have been a good recitation of facts and quite cautionary as to the value of scripted events for any leader.

Seamus

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes. While they have cleverly managed to avoid editorialising, they have presented the facts in such a way to make it look as though the answers, along with the questions, had been pre-planned.

Along with the direct writing of how the soldiers gave an upbeat view after Bush said he wanted firsthand knowledge.

Crazed Rabbit

[Red Harvest]

This President considers the free press as being very high on his enemies list. He attacks them continuously. I have been shocked at the amount of restraint show in the past by the media. Consider his attacks on the free press, I think they should take the gloves off and go out of their way to present him like the fool he is, but they don't. They SHOULD be reporting things like this. Bill something as "spontaneous" then rehearse it? You deserve to get smacked around for that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This President considers the free press as being very high on his enemies list.

No just the mainstream liberal press as wel he should.

I have been shocked at the amount of restraint show in the past by the media.

Thats pretty funny.

Consider his attacks on the free press, I think they should take the gloves off and go out of their way to present him like the fool he is, but they don't.

They havent? Consider their attacks upon Bush. Oh thats right you think they treat him to kindly.

Bill something as "spontaneous" then rehearse it? You deserve to get smacked around for that.

Once more only the questions were announced the answers werent staged. This is standard operating procedure for the military. Heck when I was in bootcamp we had a show called operation entertainment come to the base. It was sort of a USO show that traveled around and entertained the troops and was broadcast weekly on tv. You wouldnt believe all the peperation they gave us just to watch.

PS did you think the same of all of Clintons staged events?


And if anything seems to be staged its the "free press's" response. How is it they all say the samething?

[Tribesman]

GAH ...wheres the GAH ?

[Red Harvest]

No just the mainstream liberal press as wel he should.



Thats pretty funny.



They havent? Consider their attacks upon Bush. Oh thats right you think they treat him to kindly.



Once more only the questions were announced the answers werent staged. This is standard operating procedure for the military. Heck when I was in bootcamp we had a show called operation entertainment come to the base. It was sort of a USO show that traveled around and entertained the troops and was broadcast weekly on tv. You wouldnt believe all the peperation they gave us just to watch.

PS did you think the same of all of Clintons staged events?


And if anything seems to be staged its the "free press's" response. How is it they all say the samething?

I'm sure Bush would be much happier in an autocratic state where he controls the press. The rest of us are not.

The press has given the guy far too much leeway. They have been TOO OBJECTIVE in the face of his continuous attacks on what is a very fundamental part of our freedom. Where the media has erred is in not taking him on directly in this regard. Show him for exactly what he is, dispense with his soundbites. He wants war with the press? Give him what he wants. Go out out of the way to balance every one of his propaganda events with a countering gaffe or embarassing behind-the-scenes look. The press has been too timid, when they should have been confrontational.

Despite your attempts to gloss over it, this is just another example of Dubya's team staging something while claiming it is spontaneous. Everyone knows nearly all of these Q&A events are staged. What differs here is the billing. Unfortunately, in a Whitehouse that has less credibility than Nixon, I'm not surprised that they don't get it. This is a case of the press pulling back the curtain, to show the "Wizard" in action.

The danger to our country is not the press, it is those that want to squelch dissent.

P.S. By the way, congrats on getting the Clinton reference in there, you are dependable in that regard. Good luck "fighting the last war" in a political sense--I don't think running against Clinton is going to work any longer, his popularity is likely greater than Dubyas.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm sure Bush would be much happier in an autocratic state where he controls the press. The rest of us are not.

Im sure every president would feel the same way.

The press has given the guy far too much leeway. They have been TOO OBJECTIVE in the face of his continuous attacks on what is a very fundamental part of our freedom. Where the media has erred is in not taking him on directly in this regard.

Again you have to be joking.

By the way, congrats on getting the Clinton reference in there, you are dependable in that regard. Good luck "fighting the last war" in a political sense--I don't think running against Clinton is going to work any longer, his popularity is likely greater than Dubyas.

Maybe it hasnt occured to you and other liberals that Bush isnt going to run again either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Presidents involved in staged media opportunities and pre-prepared interactions is old news. Some are more deft at it (Reagan, Clinton, JFK, FDR) while others look dumb trying (Nixon, Ford, Hoover) but its par for the course. I can't think of a President who did not do such things at least since Coolidge. Roman and Greek politicians probably planted questions from the crowd too.

As to the article, I think GC and myself are on track. It has its bias, but a competent reader can still draw the pertinent facts.

Seamus

[Red Harvest]

Im sure every president would feel the same way.

No, I don't think they would. It is mostly those who have something or a lot of things to hide that villify the press.

Maybe it hasnt occured to you and other liberals that Bush isnt going to run again either.

First, I'm not a liberal. (Nor are you a libertarian, that much is obvious.)

Second, it probably hasn't occurred to you that Bush is still in office. Therefore he is fair game. His policies and the GOP leadership that passed his requests over "Democratic obstructionists" (as they were called) have brought us to the mess we are now in. Afterall, he has yet to veto anything they sent him--something that hasn't happened for 176 years. So you can claim that he and the GOP/conservatives are different animals, but the record shows they behave the same.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

First, I'm not a liberal

Me think thou dost protest too much. If your not a liberal im not a conservative.

Nor are you a libertarian, that much is obvious

Yeah right. Again back that up if you dare.

So you can claim that he and the GOP/conservatives are different animals, but the record shows they behave the same.

Wait a minute. In aanother thread your speaking of a conservative crack up and here your saying their in lockstep.

Second, it probably hasn't occurred to you that Bush is still in office. Therefore he is fair game.

Well Bill is in the news everday. Again why is it you all try to make it seem like hes gone? The guy never misses an opportunity to get some press. Plus he maybe the nations first Firstman. Perish the thought.

[Hurin_Rules]

I would have to say there is a bit too obvious a bias in that article.

I agree mostly with Seamus. I would add that the use of the adjective 'gushed' is unwarranted and polemical. Also, the juxtaposition of Bush's statements that there is massive support for the troops at home with the statistics about Bush's handling of the war. Bush was right here: there IS massive support for the troops themselves. Many people disagree with Bush's policies and handling of the war and still support the troops.

So yes, IMHO, the article does show too much liberal bias. I wouldn't use it as an example to show a left-wing media conspiracy, however; many articles by Fox 'News' are just as or even more biased towards the right. But fair is fair, and this article isn't.

[Redleg]

I would have to say there is a bit too obvious a bias in that article.

I agree mostly with Seamus. I would add that the use of the adjective 'gushed' is unwarranted and polemical. Also, the juxtaposition of Bush's statements that there is massive support for the troops at home with the statistics about Bush's handling of the war. Bush was right here: there IS massive support for the troops themselves. Many people disagree with Bush's policies and handling of the war and still support the troops.

So yes, IMHO, the article does show too much liberal bias. I wouldn't use it as an example to show a left-wing media conspiracy, however; many articles by Fox 'News' are just as or even more biased towards the right. But fair is fair, and this article isn't.

Well for another time - I agree with Hurin.

[Red Harvest]

Me think thou dost protest too much. If your not a liberal im not a conservative.

Yeah right. Again back that up if you dare.

I don't need to, you've already done it for me with the above. Thanks for that. You line right up on the conservative bench, ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation. It isn't libertarian, it is a case of conservatives masquerading as liberatians. I've been referring to the ilk for at least a decade now as "kneejerk conservatives."

Wait a minute. In aanother thread your speaking of a conservative crack up and here your saying their in lockstep.

Nice try, Rush. I've been pointing out that there is a fracture occuring among the elements, but it was these same conservatives that fed Bush his/their agenda in the way of legislation. Many want to abandon him now that he has become damaged goods.

Claim what you like, but the House and GOP leadership were working tightly with the President to work in lockstep. The GOP conventions were a farce. Now they want to show dissenting views. Too late, they sold out and the nation is finally catching on.

I'll tell you one thing: While I've had a mix of views that have kept me firmly in the "independent" camp in the past. I'm so disgusted with where the conservatives have led this country, that I have become more "anti-conservative" than anything else in my political leanings. Moderate or independent are not dirty words, despite conservative attempts to paint them so. (Yes, I've seen MANY examples of that here.)

[Aurelian]

This isn't an example of liberal media bias.

I've seen the video with the soldiers being coached. It's real. The event was staged. The soldiers knew the type of questions that would be asked beforehand, and they knew who was to answer each question, and in what order.

That being said, where is the bias? If you read bias into the piece, it's likely to be because your own bias for the Bush team leads you to be defensive when an article suggests that his team "staged" an event. It's an accurate description of what happened, but "staged" carries an implicit negative connotation for most people.

However, Bush's events are usually staged. What would be the purpose otherwise? His PR team uses these events to create an image that they hope will resonate with the viewing public. They don't take chances and randomly pick people to ask him questions (or answer his questions). If somebody asked him a tough question, or gave a negative answer, the coverage of their 'media event' would be dominated by the slip-up. Their job is to keep on message, so they make sure all the participants keep on message.

As an example of just how staged and calculated these events are, Bush's people cancelled a Texas appearance that he had scheduled a few weeks ago during hurricane Rita because the venue was too sunny. You see, they didn't want sunny because their message was that he was in Texas to deal with the hurricane. Sun does not equal hurricane in a visual image. So, they cancelled the event.

President Bush doesn't communicate through town hall meetings, his team prefers to operate under controlled conditions where they can ensure that the people who interact with him are loyalists.

If you don't like that, then your problem should be with the Bush team and not with a reporter who accurately portrays their methods.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Just because conservatives are going out of style doesn't mean the media is bias

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL!!! I remember when General Hugh Shelton (former Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Clinton Administration) came to my Airman Leadership class back in 1999. All of our questions were screened before hand. I was not allowed to ask him, "Sir, as a veteran of the Vietnam War and a military man for most of your adult life, is it hard to take orders from a draft dodger?". In fact when my teacher read my question I was told to not even say a word. Its always staged. I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...

[Vykke]

Just for the record, I'd like to point out that an article can contain no falsehoods, yet still be biased. Bias can be shown in which facts are presented, and where, and how.

In addition to some of the word choices mentioned already, it's interesting to note that they spent about 1/3 of the article emphasizing the choreographed nature of the "conversation," even including that little excerpt of the preparations. This seems to imply that it's exceptional and newsworthy that a political leader planned an event like this ahead of time (after all, articles don't usually spend that much space discussing the planned nature of such an event). But it's not exceptional at all, they do it all the time.

So, I'd have to say that this article is biased, though I agree with Hurin that there's plenty of examples of conservative bias too.

[Idaho]

The US media is probably the most stayed, tame and controlled media in the western world. US politicians are the most controlling, rehearsed and closed in the western world.

The US people are a lovely bunch* who deserve better


*exceptions exist

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Why thank you. I'm more like an englishman like yourself, but I still live in America

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't need to, you've already done it for me with the above. Thanks for that. You line right up on the conservative bench, ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation.

Where am I ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation?

I've been referring to the ilk for at least a decade now as "kneejerk conservatives."

Well that aint me. I guess ill call you a kneejerk liberal from now on. Come on tell what libertarian principles I dont like?

Nice try, Rush. I've been pointing out that there is a fracture occuring among the elements, but it was these same conservatives that fed Bush his/their agenda in the way of legislation. Many want to abandon him now that he has become damaged goods.

More BS. Weve had pretty much the same complaints about Bush for the last 4 or 5 years.

I'm so disgusted with where the conservatives have led this country, that I have become more "anti-conservative" than anything else in my political leanings

The truth is coming out. Your not a liberal just an anti conservative LOL.

One more time I hate both parties. I have never voted republican though in my youth I did vote democratic. You can believe what you like but i know where I stand.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

You've never voted republican and you've voted democratic?

Hey, I'm liking you more and more!

EDIT: I actually don't know if I'd even vote Kerry. I just want to be free of anything. I need to move to 'utopia'...

[Tribesman]

I have never voted republican
Despite all the Bush is great rubbish and GOP is the RIGHT way , you can never bring yourself to vote for the muppets .
Fair play to ya Gawain

[Xiahou]

I have never voted republican
Despite all the Bush is great rubbish and GOP is the RIGHT way , you can never bring yourself to vote for the muppets .

Not great- just better than the alternative.

As to the article, it shows some bias- but I've certainly read better examples of biased reporting before.

[econ21]

Gawain is a man of hidden depths, IMO. I believe he has said he opposed the US invasion of Iraq although you'd have to follow his 11,000+ posts rather closely to have picked that up. I sometimes think he plays devil's advocate as much as you do, Tribesman.

[Red Harvest]

Where am I ignoring the individual freedom side of the equation?

Oh please...I've yet to see you take anything other than the conservative approach, and that includes the private matters side of things.

The truth is coming out. Your not a liberal just an anti conservative LOL.

And it is folks like you that have made this change in my thinking over the past two years. I don't embrace the liberal or the conservative dogma, and have a scattering of views. One thing I have figured out, I don't have much to fear from the weakened liberals, but I do have a lot to fear from an out-of-control conservative movement tearing down decades of progress. The "conservative" business leaders went after pensions and health care, the conservative govt. is going after Social Security, and the conservative business leaders have stagnated and stalled their industries, while a conservative president hasn't shown any vision toward preparing this country for the economic future.

One more time I hate both parties.

Yes, Gawain, I've noticed you hate a lot of things. Something to be proud of I suppose.

I have never voted republican though in my youth I did vote democratic. You can believe what you like but i know where I stand.

I have gotten the distinct impression that you actually have no idea where you stand. It became very clear during the "club" formation craze a few months back. You were seeking to belong to all clubs, or control all discussion--it was a Gawain frenzy.

I've seen the same in religious threads, where one minute you are siding completely with the religious conservative view, then the next you are saying something about not being sure you believe in God, but still supporting their view.

Until the last few weeks you've been downright worshipful of Bush and the GOP, while at the same time claiming you don't vote for them. So I'm left with the conclusion that either you just like to play devil's advocate, or you are way out on the GOP right wing.

You seem to enjoy lumping everyone as either conservative or liberal, with no one in the middle or being split. Folks like McCain and anyone moderate are dismissed as being weak because they don't have extreme views, therefore in your mind they lack conviction.

By the way, I would much rather be called a liberal than a conservative anymore. Liberal was made into a dirty word during the Reagan era as the result of Carter, but right now the same is being done with "conservative." This is inevitable whenever one extreme is pushed too far, a backlash develops. What I still find doubly funny is conservatives spitting out "moderate" with the same tone used for liberal.