Letters to ConWebWatch

The following letters orgitinally appeared in the letters section of the Poynter Institute's Romanesko media news weblog after the ConWebWatch story on the Media Research Center, Jake Tapper and George Galloway was posted there:

From TIM GRAHAM, Media Research Center:

I'm more than disappointed that the only way the MRC's work has been shared with the Romenesko audience recently is through the unreliable, error-riddled criticism of ConWebWatch. In the item you have posted, Terry Krepel criticizes me for a report on George Galloway, the radical Labor MP in Britain who the Daily Telegraph has reported was paid under the table by Saddam Hussein's regime. He criticizes me for failing to note the Christian Science Monitor has retracted its reporting on Galloway. But my report never mentions the Monitor, only the Telegraph, which is standing by its story. The wider point remains -- American networks publicized Galloway's harsh criticism of the coalition and warm words for Saddam, but never touched or seemingly sought to confirm or refute the Telegraph story. Anti-war politicians and groups operate absolutely free of "objective" media scrutiny.
As for the main item you're highlighted, Jake Tapper's relentless attempts with conservative critics to insist he's really not a liberal, despite his long affiliation with a liberal (and at times in our recent history, very partisan Democratic) Web site, Tapper's first story for ABC this weekend already highlighted how the conservatives are wrong to deny an income tax credit to poor Americans who pay no income taxes, loaded with a military family for maximum propaganda impact. Tapper protests too much. He should stop incessantly badgering his critics and start doing more balanced reporting if he wants to avoid charges of bias.

Subject: Pot Calls Kettle A Cooking Utensil. Tim Graham, of the Media Research Center writes of Jake Tapper: "As for the main item you've highlighted, Jake Tapper's relentless attempts with conservative critics to insist he's really not a liberal, despite his long affiliation with a liberal (and at times in our recent history, very partisan Democratic) Web site ... Tapper protests too much. He should stop incessantly badgering his critics and start doing more balanced reporting if he wants to avoid charges of bias."
I'm sure media researcher Graham will be happy to give us five examples from MRC's distinguished work, of instances in which it pointed out examples of overt conservative bias in the media. Possibly they relayed information about how one of their donors, Richard M. Scaife, ordered all mention and photographs of Al Gore from the front page of his Pittsburgh Tribune-Review the weekend before the 2000 election. Possibly there are some other examples. If not five, how about three examples of MRC's standards of
impartiality? Mr. Graham, the floor is yours.

Mr. Roddy, the MRC has never claimed "impartiality" as its objective or mission. Our mission is to be an ombudsman, a reader's or viewer's advocate, for the conservative movement. We identify, expose, and correct liberal bias. We do not labor to expose conservative bias, as there are FAIR and other leftist groups to do that, and I don't expect them to expose liberal bias for me. If Tapper were with FAIR, instead of "objective" ABC News, I would have not charge him with a lack of objectivity, since that is not in its mission or ours.

And there, Mr. Graham, we have in your own words the explanation for why the Media Research Center and FAIR lack the wider audience that media criticism should have if it is to serve the public. Both organizations are advocacy groups masquerading behind names that, of themselves, would imply some sort of non-partisanship. I would argue that the Media Research Center's goal is not to ensure balanced journalism but to eradicate liberal viewpoints and ensure or at least reward, conservative bias in news. Similarly, I have heard FAIR complain about middle-road coverage as if it emanated from Republican National Headquarters. The lesson is all of this is that balance is not achieved by opposing extremes. Noise is achieved. Partisanship is achieved. An unwillingness to entertain criticism out of suspicion of ulterior motives is achieved. And it is why your complaints about Jake Tapper, why so many of MRCs complaints, lack the authenticity needed in media criticism. Do we need a fair press? Always. But we will not get it through partisan bullying.

What Tim Graham calls "error-riddled" and "unreliable" is mostly just a matter of philosophical differences. I stand by my work and challenge anyone to compare ConWebWatch with the MRC on the issue of reliability. That said, to be scrupulously fair -- which puts me ahead of much of what appears on MRC -- I should have mentioned in my article that the Telegraph has not retracted its Galloway accusations.

However, Graham's taking refuge in the Telegraph report is a cop-out. Isn't it news when a major news organization (which most people would consider the Christian Science Monitor to be) retracts a story? Gee, the MRC was all over the Jayson Blair thing (not to mention having an entire web site solely dedicated to beating up on the New York Times). And, given that the Monitor's allegations were so similar to those of the Telegraph (and MRC subsidiary CNSNews.com does mention the Monitor's work in one story) and given the play the MRC and CNSNews.com gave the original allegations, doesn't the MRC have an obligation to report major developments in the story like this to its readers? Not to do so might make it look, um, unreliable.

Dennis Roddy is more correct than he may know. Not only does MRC give the Fox News Channel and other conservative outlets a free pass on bias, it overlooks more serious mistakes that would generate blistering MRC criticism if a "liberal" network did it. One example I documented recently (fourth item) shows that an MRC writer approvingly quoted FNC's Brit Hume's claim that Bill Clinton was "waving his wand at everyone who walked by" but failed to mention that Hume got a key fact wrong about Monicagate. Where's that MRC eagle eye for "error-riddled" copy?

Graham might want to reread the entry under "Bias by Omission" in MRC's own guide to media bias, since that's exactly what he and CNSNews.com are doing on the Galloway story.