Media Bias Towards the Administration Memo - Case Study Example

Zhing Memo Vice-President of the United s of America, Richard Cheney Yingying Zhing 04/02/2007 Re: Media Bias Towards the Administration Mr. Vice President Cheney, After a dozen hours of extensive survey of news media organizations’ attitudes towards the Administration, as evidenced in the biases imbedded within their news reports and commentaries, and several more of critical analysis and consideration, I would like to seize this opportunity to present the results of my findings. Prior to doing so, however, I would like to cite the results of a number of media studies which were carried out in the period leading up to the Iraq War and the months following it. Following that, I will summarize my own findings regarding the respective positions of all of MSNBC, Fox and PBS on both the Iraq War and the Administration. The Initial Stages Given the tremendous influence which the media has over public opinion, during the period leading up to the Iraq War and the first months of the fighting, a number of studies were carried out on the position of news cable channels on the war. Four of these studies, independently reported that cable news channels were biased in favor of the war and reported it from an Administration-friendly, pro-war perspective. These studies and their findings are outlined below: Mortimer B. Zuckerman (2003): found that even though the media was transmitting live images of the war, it presented the event in an antiseptic manner, devoid of bloodshed and death. Instead, `smart’ bombs were pictured targeting strategic buildings and loss of life was objectively referred to as `collateral damage’ thereby ensuring against the evocation of images of death and destruction, human suffering and loss, in the minds of viewers. This method of presentation, or reporting, was biased in favor of the war and the Administration insofar as it portrayed the Iraq War is viewer-friendly terms, effectively divesting it of the violence which is commonly associating with such events. Seamus Conlan (2003): a People magazine reporter, independently confirms Zuckerman’s (2003) findings. Association for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (2003a): uncovered statistical evidence for pro-war and pro-Administration bias. Analyzing the Iraq War stories reported by five of the nation’s top new cable channels, the study found that 76% of all commentaries and remarks made about the war were supportive and over two-thirds of all guests were Iraq War supporters. Association for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (2003b): found that in the first months of the war, news media channels actively censored all news items and reports which could influence public opinion against the war and, throughout the first six months, rarely invited anti-war guests to speak and air their objections to the war. Perceiving of war criticisms as unpatriotic, the media was biased in favor of the war and, by association, the Administration. The identified pro-war bias, however, has not continued. At the present moment, the bias goes both ways and only one media channel was identified as objective. The Current Situation Three new media organizations were studied, their websites carefully reviewed, the articles on the Iraq War analyzed and comments about the Administration noted down. These organizations are Fox News, MSNBC and PBS. The results of the analysis are summarized below and the details of the analysis are included in the first and second appendices to this memo. Fox News A careful review of Foxnews.com indicates that both its anchors and its journalists, or those whose stories it selects for broadcast and publication, are extremely biased in favor of the war and, hence, very pro-Administration. This finding was determined through a review of published articles (analysis included in Appendix I) and the writings/transcripts of Fox News anchors, such as Hannity (analysis included in Appendix I). A review of three articles, written by Fox News correspondents and/or staff members, establishes the depth of the organization’s bias. In the first of these, written by Captain Dan Sukman, an army captain stationed in Iraq, argues in favor of the war and contends that participation in this war has taught both him, and other soldiers, the true meaning of America and the responsibility of being an American. America stands for freedom and democracy and Americans have a responsibility to liberate the oppressed and democratize countries whose populations are deprived of the right to political participation. The Iraq War, according to Sukman (2006) is not simply a war predicated on national security concerns but it is a war which expresses the best of what it is to be American, to be a liberator. The second and third articles reviewed are reflective of a similar bias, most especially the one titled, `Hasty US pullout in Iraq could spread Muslim extremism’ (2006). As the Administration is coming under increasingly intense pressure to name a pullout date for US troops from Iraq, similar to the Administration’s argument, the article warns that “A quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq could allow victorious Muslim extremists to fan out into other countries, with some militants going to Afghanistan to fight alongside a resurgent Taliban.” The article would not have been biased were it, however, not for the fact that it makes this claim without referring to any supporting evidence. Instead, it keeps insisting on a direct correlation between US troop pullout and the spread of extremism throughout the Middle East but, refers to no facts or authoritative opinions for support of the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, readers and viewers may be left with the impression that the channel is simply functioning as an unthinking mouthpiece for the Administration. That viewers may perceive of Foxnews.com as unduly biased, is only confirmed through the results of a review of Sean Hannity’s commentaries. Hannity, one of the channels primary anchormen, is avowedly pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war, anti-Democrats and anti-liberals. His personal political and moral convictions and ideological stand on issues determine a biased take on news issues. For example, in reaction to the recent furor surrounding the firing of several U.S Attorneys: First claims that the scandal is completely fabricated by Liberals consequent to the fact that they can find nothing of value to criticize the Administration over. Then says David Iglesias “was replaced because there was someone else that the administration wanted to give that job. None of that was illegal, but you wouldnt know it listening to the liberal virile this week. Their hatred of all things George Bush runs so deep that they even have to manufacturer scandals where there arent any” (Hannity, 2007, “Sean’s State of America.”). Hannity ultimately emerges as self-contradictory, first denying the incident and then defending it in the same breath. As evident in the above, Fox News is biased in favor of the Administration, and it is consistently so, whether as regards the Iraq War, concerns over Iran or the US Attorneys incident. This, however, does not necessarily work in the best interest of the Administration as blatant bias, evidenced in the proliferation of unsupported claims, renders Fox’s credibility quite suspect and can lead to the assumption that pro-Administration claims are not supported because they cannot be. Consequently, as pertains to Fox News the findings suggest that evident pro-Administration bias can negatively reflect upon the Administration itself. MSNBC A careful review of MSNBC’s website and news items, articles and transcripts, indicates that the organization is biased against the Administration. This is perfectly evidenced in the commentaries of its two leading anchors, Chris Mathews (Appendix I) and Keith Olberman (Appendix II). In direct comparison, however, to Fox News, MSNBC’s biases may not prejudice viewers against it as, ultimately, its expressed anti-Administration position, while often bordering on the personal, is usually supported by facts. MSNBC is biased against the Administration and against the Iraq War but it supports its biases through reference to concrete facts or, if they are opinions, they are the opinions of respected statesmen. One of the articles published on its website, entitled “War in Iraq a Calamity” (2007) is inarguably biased against the Administration but the fact is that the anti-Administration views expressed happen to be Brzezinski’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In this article, the Administration’s justifications for war are repeatedly denounced as outright lies and the Bush Administration’s foreign policy s presented as being motivated by “imperial hubris.” Apart from that, the administration is denounced as ignorant, uninformed and a threat to America’s national security. Needless to say, this is quite biased but, the important point here is that these opinions are ascribed to one of the nation’s most respected statesmen. Accordingly, it will resonate with readers. Even in instances were the biases expressed are spoken by MSNBC anchormen and border on the personal, criticism are anchored in facts. For example, in an article entitled “Lessons from the Vietnam War,” Olberman (2006) writes the following in response to President Bush’s comparison of the Iraq War to the Vietnam War: “It is a shame and it is embarrassing to us all when President Bush travels 8,000 miles only to wind up avoiding reality again.” Olberman then proceeds to highlight the differences between the two wars, ultimately projecting them as incomparable. Certainly, in order to do so, he carefully selects his facts but, the important thing here is that not all readers will see this and, accordingly, will interpret Olberman’s criticism as factually justified. The fact is that MSNBC is thoroughly opposed to the Administration and tends towards liberal sympathies. Unlike Fox news, however, its biases are not as overt and, therefore, are more likely to attract than to repel public opinion. The reason lies in that its anti-war and anti-Administration claims and criticisms are supported (if only seemingly and through a careful sifting through of the facts) by facts. Consequently, it negatively influences public opinion against the Administration. PBS A review of the PBS website indicated that it was neutral and, indeed, objective. As the data collected and included in Appendix I establishes, PBS’ stories report on both the negative and the positive tone of reporting is objective conclusions are drawn strictly on the basis of available facts. The above is supported through reference to an article by PBS anchorwoman, Gwen Iffil (2007), entitled “Congress Investigates Private Military Contracts in Iraq.” Although the article presents a very disturbing picture of private security contracts in Iraq and indicates that the war is being thoroughly mismanaged, the fact is that it allows both sides to express their views and opinions. Accordingly, even though it presents the facts which indicate the inherently flawed nature of private security contracts in a war zone, two of the speakers are supportive of this practice and are given the opportunity to counter criticisms. The implication here is that PBS ultimately allows viewers and readers to arrive at their own conclusions. It is objective. Final Thoughts In closing, one might confirm that the Administration’s policies have incited a great deal of emotions on either side of the political spectrum and the media is responding as emotively as is the general public. In the process, however, it is affecting public opinion and, more often than not, against the Administration. Certainly, Fox news is pro-Administration but its position and the manner in which it expresses itself casts suspicions on its credibility and, by association, on the Administration’s credibility. In comparison, the anti-Administration MSNBC, although as biased as Fox News, emerges as more credible as it supports its claims through reference to facts. Ultimately only PBS emerges as neutral, or objective. References Anon (n.d.) Media distortions about Kosovo, Iraq, Mid-East, China. Americans Against World Empire. Retrieved March 28 from http://www.iraqwar.org/med-distortions.htm Anon (2003a, March 18) In Iraq crisis, networks Are megaphones for official views. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved March 28 from http://www.fair.org/reports/iraq-sources.html Anon (2003b, April 3) Some critical media voices face censorship. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved March 28 from http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-censorship.html Anon (2006, Feb. 26) Largest cache of weapons discovered in Iraq traceable to Iran. Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254600,00.html Anon (2006, March 2) Hasty US pullout in Iraq could spread Muslim extremism. Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256020,00.html Anon (2007, Feb 1). War in Iraq a calamity. MSNBC. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16934081 Cave, D. (2007, Feb. 8). New security plans aim to stabilize Baghdad. PBS. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/iraq_02-08.html Conlan, S. (2003, 7 April). Eyewitness in Baghdad. People, 59(13), 58-61 Retrieved March 28, 2007 from Academic Search Premier. Iffil, G. (2007, Feb. 7) Congress investigates private military contracts in Iraq. PBS. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/outsourcing_02-07.html Mathews, C. (2006, Feb. 24) Civil war may threaten unification of Iraq. MSNBC Hardball. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11541484 Miller, T. (2007, Feb. 2) Iraq in transition. PBS. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iraq/index.html Olbermann, K. (2006, Oct 16). World’s worst; A five-way tie. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15252736/ Olbermann, K. (2006, Oct. 19). Beginning of the end of America. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17483030/ Olbermann, K. (2006, Nov 3). Worst person in the world: Tom DeLay. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15545559/ Olbermann, K. (2006, Nov. 7). Where are the checks and balances? MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15595139/ Olbermann, K. (2006, Nov. 20) Lessons from the Vietnam war. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15821138 Olbermann, K. (2007, March 7). Worst person in the world: Ann Coulter. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17483030/ Olbermann, K. (2007, Jan. 3). Worst person in the world: Pat Robertson. MSNBC Countdown. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16469531/ Hannity, S. (2007, March 20) Sean’s state of America. Fox News State of America. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259978,00.html Hannity, S. (2007, March 12) Viscous double standards. Fox News State of America. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258334,00.html Hannity, S. (2007, March 5) The state of America is one viscous double standards. Fox News State of America. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256625,00.html Sukman, D. (2006, Sep. 6) Becoming an American while in Iraq. Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212227,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iraq Zuckerman, M. B. (2003, April 14) The latest in reality T.V. U.S. News and World Report, 134(12), 80-81. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from Academic Search Premier. Appendix I Data Collection Method To determine the attitude or biases of different news stations towards the Iraq war and the Administration’s handling of it, three stories were selected from all of Fox News PBS MSNBC Overview of Websites Each of the websites has its own search engine. Iraq war and bush Administration were the terms entered into the search engines for the location of stories (editorials, feature stories and news items) which deal with the Iraq war and the manner in which the Bush Administration is handling it. Briefly looking over the titles for these stories, it was determined that: Fox News is highly biased in favor of the war and the Bush Administration MSNBC, although it is not overtly biased, sides against the war and the Bush Administration. It bases criticisms on facts. PBS attempts to be objective but the facts lead it towards, or at least the facts that they report, to take a position against the war and the Administration. However, it is improper to draw conclusions on the basis of a brief overview of story titles. Therefore, three articles from each were carefully read and analysed. Foxnews.com Article 1: Written by a Captain in the US Army, stationed in Iraq. Name is Dan Sukman. Title of article betrays bias: “Becoming an American While in Iraq.” Sukan writes a diary for Fox news on the war and this is the entry for 6 Sept. 2006. Evidence of Bias: 1. Title: expresses belief that war in Iraq represents the values upon which the United States is founded and that he came into closer touch with these values and arrived at a better appreciation of them while serving in Iraq. 2. Talks about the soldiers, presents them, not as fighting machines but courageous human beings who, besides serving their country and the people of Iraq are pursuing their own dreams and ambitions, finishing college, etc. 3. Writes: “If you ever wonder what makes our military so strong, its not the equipment we ride in, its not the weapons we fire — its soldiers like this.” 4. Army is composed of heroes and as they are heroes, they are not that eager to go back home – they want to serve their country, spread its values and bring the Iraqis the benefit of those values. Article extremely biased and presents only the positive. Importantly, it presents no death and suffering and no image of soldiers as reluctant to pursue the war. Article 2: Written on 26th February, 2007, the article has no author. Presented in form of breaking news item and its title is “Largest Cache of Weapons Discovered in Iraq Traceable to Iran.” Evidence of bias: 1. Opening sentence: “U.S. and Iraqi forces have seized a large weapons cache that includes parts for sophisticated roadside bombs that are believed to originate in Iran, U.S. military investigators said.” 2. Two sentences later: “The U.S. military has said elite Iranian corps are funneling EFPs to Shiite militias in Iraq for use against American troops.” 3. Article continues to make claims regarding Iran’s participation with Iraqi militants against the United States. 4. No evidence presented for the claim that Iran is behind the weapons caught. Article uses term “believed,” but as it repeatedly insists that Iran is behind it, tries to influence readers against Iran, irrespective of evidence. Article appears to indirectly argue in favor of continuing Iraq war and prepares the readers for the possibility of war against Iran by depicting it as an aggressive US enemy. Article 3: Published 2 March 2006, article has no author. Titled, “Hasty US Pullout in Iraq Could Spread Muslim Extremism. Evidence of Bias: 1) Title of article is, essentially, a threat and warning of the consequences of listening to the anti-war group. 2) Title of article emphasizes that the war in Iraq is part of war on terror, recalling in this way September 11, 2001. 3) Title of article suggests that withdrawal would be a defeat, allowing extremism to spread. 4) “A quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq could allow victorious Muslim extremists to fan out into other countries, with some militants going to Afghanistan to fight alongside a resurgent Taliban.’ 5) Bias is also established by the fact that the article does not support the claim that it makes – extremism will spread 6) Bias evidenced in the fact that article relies solely on Cheney’s claims and presents them as facts. 7) Counter-claims are not mentioned at all. Article biased completely in favor of Administration and presents its stance on the war, not only as the correct one but as being based on irrefutable facts. MSNBC.com Article 1: Written by MSNBC’s “Countdown” anchorman, Keith Olbermann. Written 20th November 2006 in response to statement made by Bush, in which he compared the Iraq and Vietnam wars. Article called “Lessons from the Vietnam War.’ Article completely biased against war and against Bush. Presents a highly emotional argument. Evidence of Bias: 1. In response to a statement made by Bush regarding the Iraq war when he was on a state visit in Europe, Olbermann writes: “It is a shame and it is embarrassing to us all when President Bush travels 8,000 miles only to wind up avoiding reality again.” 2. Suggests that Bush knows nothing about either wars 3. Mentions that history will not be kind to either bush or the Iraq war. 4. Suggests that Bush is destroying America 5. Admits that there is something in common with Iraq and Vietnam – both are disastrous wars which the united States should not have been involved in 6. Holds Bush responsible for the deaths of thousand American soldiers in a war which cannot be defended or justified 7. Insists that Bush knows nothing of the reality of the Iraq War 8. Insists that it is absolutely intolerable that the administration establish a relationship between the war on terror and Iraq: “Your war machine of 2006 has this nonsense about Iraq as `the central front in the war on terror’. “ Entirely biased against war and Bush administration. Supports claims and accusations through facts. Article 2: Transcript of an interview held by MSNBC anchorman or Hardball, Chris Mathews. Dated 24th Feb., 2006 article titled “Civil war may threaten unification of Iraq.” Article against war and completely intolerant of Bush Administration. Interview with former US president to Iraq, Rend Rahim Franke who was there from Nov. 2003 to Jan 2005. Article discusses events in Iraq – the infighting/civil war. Evidence of Bias: 1) In response to whether or not the US should stay on to end the developing civil war, Mathews says : “It’s not our country.” 2) Mathews holds Bush responsible for the civil war 3) Iraq war did not liberate Iraqis but led to division of country 4) Mathews holds this as an unnecessary war which has had disastrous results 5) Mathews appears on side of Iraqi resistance – says that the US should get out and give them their country back 6) Mathews completely intolerant of Bush Administration and very anti war in Iraq. Article biased against bush and the war. Sees it as unjustified war which was handled incorrectly. Article 3: article reports on the testimony of former US security Advisor Brezinski on the US war in Iraq. Article published on 1st Feb 2007. It is titled, “War in Iraq a Calamity,” and takes the form of a news piece. Article biased, presents only one opinion on the war on Iraq and does not give a voice to supporters of the war: Evidence of Bias: 1. “Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Brzezinski skewered Bush administration policy as driven by "imperial hubris" and as a disaster on historic, strategic and moral grounds.” 2. Bush Administration’s reasons for Iraq war were based on lies 3. Bush Administration does not know why it is in Iraq, what it can accomplish there and how it can best handle the war. 4. Bush Administration is leading the United States into war with all Muslim countries 5. bush Administration is aggressive and uninformed, jeopardising the international status of the united states. Article looks at the negative aspect of war and strongly attacks Bush administration. Even though based on facts, choose the facts that it will cite in order to support its attack. Very biased. PBS.com Article 1: Written by Talea Miller and published on 2 Feb, 2007. Reviews the state of healthcare in Iraq following US invasion. Titled “Iraq in Transition.” Title gives reader impression that article will talk about a transition as in a new beginning, a better state. This is not the case. Shows healthcare system collapsing. Shows that Iraqis are paying a very high price for the US invasion of their country. Country is collapsing. Although article depicts negative consequences o war it is not biased. It is objectively reporting on healthcare through a review of the facts and all its statements are based on statistics and figures. It establishes immediate relationship between collapsing healthcare system and Iraq war. Evidence for objectivity: 1. The first sentence is: “The violence engulfing Iraq is creating more patients than the country’s strained healthcare system can handle, and causing doctors to flee for their lives.” Sounds biased but the fact that it is subsequently supported by facts and figures removes the suspicion of bias. 2. facts are shocking, 2000 doctors reported kidnapped since 2003. Doctors killed. Doctors fleeing. 3. Iraqis wounded. Hospitals overcrowded. No doctors. 4. War has completely eliminated anything resembling a healthcare system. The subject of the article us the healthcare system and the facts regarding the healthcare system are bad. Therefore, even though the article displays a highly negative outcome of the war, it is not biased. It is not biased because it is referring to the facts pertaining to its topic and these facts spell out the breakdown of a system. Hence, article is objective. Article 2: Article by Gwen Iffil, published 7 Feb. 2007 and discusses private security/military contracts in Iraq. It is titled “Congress Investigates Private Military Contracts in Iraq.” Article presents a very disturbing situation and its key theme is the way in which the US military is outsourcing the war to private security companies and is leaving the guards hired, American youth, to die. They are not being offered backup, support or any form of aid. The situation is so serious that Congress is investigating it. Indicates that the Bush Administration handling the war in an unbelievably bad way. War completely mismanaged. Again, however, article is not biased but objective. Evidence for Objectivity: 1. PBS reporter has two men, private military contractors defend the practice. She allows the other point of view to be heard. 2. one of the contractors says: “Blackwater professionals, most of whom are military veterans, voluntarily go in harms way at the request, direction, and control of the United States government.” The reporter presents evidence that this is not the case because the soldiers were not told that they will be left unprotected. 3. presents statistics on the death figures for soldiers hired by private contractors 4. Explains the role of contractors and shows that it is a fundamentally flawed concept where war is involved. Article does show mismanagement of the war but it shows it on the basis of facts and as it affects Americans not Iraqis. It does not state a position for or against the war but demonstrates the mishandling of the war. It is objective. Article 3: by Damien Cave, PBC reporter in Baghdad and Judy Woodruff a PBS anchorwoman. Article published on 8 Feb. 2007 and called “New Security Plans Aim to Stabilise Baghdad.” Begins by discussing and defining security plan and then explains the state in Baghdad to show that there is a need for stabilisation. As the article is simply reporting the facts on the ground, without the reporters stating their opinion, it can be considered objective. Yes – it reports a very negative situation but it is backed up by facts. Evidence for Objectivity: 1. Says that Iraqis are frustrated with United States and then explains that these people are not extremists, insurgents or rebels but ordinary citizens voicing their opinion. Provides proof of frustration. 2. Says that Baghdad extremely insecure and shows that the American army is loosing control over Baghdad. Supports this through reference to bombings, helicopters shot down, number of killed and wounded. 3. Article says: “What is clear is that there are more helicopters being shot at and more shot down. And as senior military commanders in the States have said, its a question of whether or not its just the numbers going against them or whether its a significantly stronger effort to fire at American aircraft.” So it is supporting claim through words of US Army personnel. Article not for or against the war – no opinion is stated – but facts show that the war is going very badly – bush Administration does not know what it is doing. Objective. Appendix II MSNBC Focus: Keith Olberman Position: Anti-Administration Keith Olberman, the host of MSNBC’s “Countdown,” is uncompromisingly against both the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. This is amply evidenced in both his closing commentaries and some of his weekly features, such as “Worst Person in the World.” In order to illustrate this, it is necessary to discuss both of the mentioned and provide evidence, both in the form of quotes and figures. Worst Person in the World Were we to look at those selected for the position of Worst person in the World since 2007, we will find that besides naming every member of the Bush Administration and bush family members such as the former first lady, Barbara Bush, Olberman has named a host of Republican senators and numerous Conservatives and pro-Bush reporters and media personalities, such as Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. He has, furthermore, repeatedly included Fox New Channel, which he dubs, Fox Nothing Channel and Fox Noise Channel, in his worst person of the world list, as well as conservative pro-Bush preachers, such as Pat Robertson. The above-stated, which was concluded after thorough review of Countdown transcripts at MSNBC, is indicative of an overt bias against the Bush Administration, Republicans and neoconservatives. Further solidifying this claim of bias is that rarely, if ever, is a Democrat included in that list, unless they have voted in support of the Iraq War, or who have expressed any type of support for Bush’s policies, such as Hilary Clinton. The fact that the number of Republicans, Conservatives and Bush Administration members included in the Worst Person in the World spot overwhelms the number of Democrats and Iraq war opponents included, may reflect bias but it does not reflect the extent of the bias involved. Bias is best determined through quotes: 1. Anne Coulter (Conservative, Pro-War Activist, Republican, Bush supporter); When awarding Coulter the Worst Person in the World Award just last week, for having called John Edwards feminine, Olberman said: “Calling John Edwards that name, I mean, Annie, just because you’re more mannish looking, hell, you’re more mannish looking than every man on the planet” (Olberman, 2007, “Ann Coulter”). What should be emphasised about this quote is that it descends into personal and subjective attacks; it is not an objective and critical response to Coulter’s statements, or her political position but, an attack upon her own person. In so doing, Olberman does not just reveal his own personal bias but, seems to suggest that Coulter’s remarks are not worthy of any thinking person’s response. 2. Tom DeLay (former majority house leader, republican, pro-war, Bush supporter): When awarding DeLay the Worst Persin in the World Award, Olbermann, said: `DeLay told a small audience at a community college on Long Island New York, “I don’t think waterboarding is torture... My definition of torture is you physically harm someone by cutting them, by cutting their fingers, and sticking things in their eyes, sticking their fingers in electric sockets.  Waterboard is a frightening experience, but the person does not have any physical damage.’  Well, there it is, he is the bug killer after all”  (Olberman, 2006, “DeLay”). Again, and as the case with Coulter, Olberman descends into personal attacks; he does not respond to what DeLay said but, rather, goes beyond ht to present DeLay as a `bug-killer,’ for having said what he said. The suggestion here is that DeLay is not worthy of an intellectual and reasoned response. An analysis therefore of his Worst person in the World spot, reveals the following: Winner are invariably Republicans, members of te Bush Administration, members of the Bush family, Bush Administration supporters, pro-Iraq war activist and neoconservatives. Olberman reengages in such personal attacks as which portray the person in question as unthinking, unfeeling and unworthy of being taken seriously. Indeed, he portrays them as jokes. Olberman is uncompromisingly and consistently anti-Administration Special Commentary At the closure of his shows, Olberman quite often makes a Special Commentary. These commentaries, very well-thought out and effective, are invariably directed against members of the Bush administration and/or their policies. Rarely, if ever, was a commentary directed against a Democrat, unless that Democrat favored the War In Iraq. 1. In reaction to he Military Commission Act, Olberman said of the Bush Administration, “a government more dangerous to our liberty than is the enemy it seeks to protect us from” (Olberman, 2006, `Beginning of the End of America.”). Without being qualified, or the claim it makes fully supported, Olberman’s remark emerges as unadulterated bias. 2. In one of his numerous Special commentaries on Bush, Olberman asked the following questions: “Is the conviction of Saddam Hussein the reason you went to war in Iraq? Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction that did not exist? Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the connection between Iraq and al-Qaida that did not exist? Or did you go to war in Iraq to break the bonds of tyranny there, while installing the mechanisms of tyranny here? Or did you go to war in Iraq because you felt the need to wreak vengeance against somebody, anybody? Or did you go to war in Iraq to contain a rogue state which, months earlier, your own administration had declared had been fully contained by sanctions? Or did you go to war in Iraq to keep gas prices down?” (Olberman, 2006, “Where are the Checks”). Few can argue that these questions are unreasonable or that all Americans, not just Olberman, have a very valid reason to ask them. The way, however, they are said – the manner in which these questions are strung together, one after the other, is intended to provoke antagonism towards the President who “lied,” the President who sacrificed American live for nothing other than oil. Bias is further established by the fact that he allows for no concession, no acknowledgement of the possibility that Bush ma have acted out of national security interests. Following the analysis of Keith Olberman’s Special Commentary, the findings arrived at so far are: Keith Olberman is uncompromisingly opposed to Bush, his Administration and policies and is completely unwilling to concede to any positive effects/consequences their policies may have had; Keith Olberman portrays Bush, not simply as a liar but, worse, an unthinking liar; Bush and members of his Administration ultimately emerge as men and women who have led the country to war to serve their own nefarious purposes and, more so, to profit (oil). Fox Focus: Sean Hannity Position: Pro-Administration Sean Hannity is a Conservative, pro-Bush, pro Iraq war Fox news caster. He has been awarded the Worst Person in the World title by Olberman numerous times. Hannity’s weekday commentary, “The State of America,” indicates not only a pro-Administration stance but a deep-set adversity to Democrats and Liberals, compounded with a refusal to admit that they Bush Administration could ever be wrong and the Democrats and Liberals ever right. Examples and quotes from his “The State of America,” amply evidences this: 1. In reaction to the recent scandal over the firing of U.S. Attorneys, Hannity first claims that the scandal is completely fabricated by Liberals consequent to the fact that they can find nothing of value to criticise the Administration over and then, quite ironically, he concedes to the factual nature of the scandal. As he says: David Iglesias “was replaced because there was someone else that the administration wanted to give that job. None of that was illegal, but you wouldnt know it listening to the liberal virile this week. Their hatred of all things George Bush runs so deep that they even have to manufacturer scandals where there arent any” (Hannity, 2007, “Sean’s State of America.”). There is something so blatantly self-contradictory in this quote so as to give the impression of unmitigated bias. On the one hand, he admits that Attorney Generals were fired, not because they performed badly n the job but because the Administration wanted to replace them with their own people. On the other hand, however, and without offering any explanations or justifications, he insists that there is nothing wrong with their doing so and, subsequently accuses the Liberals of lying for saying precisely he same thing (Attorney Generals were replaced in favour of others), but critically. 2. In reaction to the criticisms which Ann Coulter generated from among the Democrats and Liberals, Hannity insists that this is just another example of liberal bias and their determination to misrepresent the Conservative stance, even if it includes fabrication (Hannity, “Vicious Double Standards,” 2007). The point here is that Hannity does not tell his audience precisely what it is that Coulter said nor does he attempts the rational defence of her statement. Indeed, he completely leaves her comments out but, nevertheless, attacks liberals for criticising her. There is no logic to this and, in fact, it is expressive of a mindset which is thoroughly anti-Liberal and pro-Conservative. It is, in other words, expressive of a prejudiced and biased mindset. Findings On the basis of a review of Hannity’s webpage and articles on Fox.com, two of which were held as examples in the preceding, one can confirm the extent of his bias. 1. Completely supportive of the war on Iraq and maintains belief in Weapons of mass Destruction and Liberation/Freedom justifications of the war 2. Believes that the united States is winning the war 3. Completely opposed to any and all liberals and Democrats. 4. Intolerant of criticisms against the war, the Bush Administration or any conservatives. Hannity is, in a word, utterly biased in favour of the war, Conservatives, Bush and the Bush Administration. Conclusion Indeed, both Hannity and Olberman occupying completely opposite ends of the political spectrum and in their inability to see the middle position, ultimately loose rationality. In other words, their criticisms are often not rational responses to facts on the ground but well-designed in order to provoke either pro-Bush or anti-Bush sentiments, Read More