Jul 22 2006
Netritus: Jamison Foser Edition
by Vermonter under MINE |Just, do yourself a favor…
Read this latest Media Matters weekly column by Jamison Foser, and re-read it once a month until November 2008.
And make sure everyone you know reads it too. So they can understand exactly how the “liberal” Washington Post and New York Times were, in many ways, central to the defeat of Al Gore.
And why confronting the brutal facts about our current national discourse is absolutely crucial.
Some people like to mock Bob Somerby for constantly harping on the treatment of Gore. But, that’s only because it is so easy to forget… Fading into the past, it seems harder and harder to believe.
Thankfully Foser provides excellent context for the recent misquoting of Hillary Clinton, and ties it into the important efforts of Bob Somerby.
He writes, in part…
So, in 2004, Ifill brought up Mary Cheney; Edwards responded by speaking very favorably of the Cheney family’s relationship and of the vice president’s comments about it. In 2006, Ifill misstated her own role in the exchange, falsely claiming that she hadn’t brought up the topic and that Edwards’s comments were “apropos of nothing.”
Once upon a time, Ifill obviously knew that wasn’t true. That’s how powerful these anti-Democrat, anti-progressive media narratives that have dominated public discourse for years are: Ifill told a tale that conformed to the storyline that Edwards and Sen. John Kerry somehow did something wrong in speaking of Mary Cheney — even though doing so required her to speak falsely about her own role in the matter!
When will it end? Alterman noted that the immediate online reaction to The New York Times‘ false Clinton story this week hastened a correction — a good sign, indeed.
But it’s worth remembering that when the Gore-Love Canal saga played out in 1999, there was contemporaneous online refutation of the bogus story. Throughout the mess, Somerby did the hard work, every day, of explaining in great detail and in real time how the media were getting it wrong — and yet the damage was done anyway.
Regular readers know where we’re going with this: It isn’t enough for Somerby and Alterman and Media Matters and Eschaton and Americablog and Daily Kos to keep a close eye on the media and insist that they get it right. Every progressive — every person who cares about the truth — has to do so.
Even though Clinton’s office asked for a correction the day the Kornblut story was published, even though bloggers posted the correct transcript the same day, and even though Media Matters posted the audio the next day — despite all that, The New York Times still took more than two days to correct the mistake.
With your help, the next time something like this happens — and it will, sooner rather than later — we can stop the false story more quickly. And speed is important: As the Love Canal incident reminds us, a mistake in The New York Times is one thing; a mistake in The New York Times that the rest of the media spends weeks repeating can change the course of history.
One Response to “Netritus: Jamison Foser Edition”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.








July 23rd, 2006 at 7:55 pm
As always Vermonter, I appreciate your focus & attention on the important role of media an why this matters to us all- hence the name Media Matters for America!
Thank God for the bloggers. Just think of all these kinds of situtations (i.e. Clinton & Gore)that have happened in the past and bloggers weren’t there to catch them. I’m sure some of the MSM must of gotten away with some misinformation and have affected the dynamics of campaigns, issues, policy battles, whatever. I think situations like the Clinton v. Democrats-or Gore & Internet-happen everywhere, even in the alternative media and I think it’s more important now to pay attentionto these things especially after the 2000 election disaster, the falsification of evidence to go into Iraq, the 2004 election, the NSA wiretaping scandal, etc. So many surreal things have happened in the last 6 years under the Bush Administration that it’s more important than ever that we watch the press so that they don’t give the wrong impression and the public gives Bush approval for whatever he does next.
Which reminds me of one other similar situations and I’ll leave it at that. James Risen’s book, “State of War”-I think that’s what it’s called- was released AFTER the 2004 election. The Bush Admin said don’t relase the information in this book until AFTER the election becuase it could affect the outcomes of this particular election. The NYT concured. So basically the NYT refuses to publish critical information the public is entitled to know, but the Times were kowtowed into believing that it was innappropriate to release this information just before the 2004 election because it would affect the outcome.
Do you follow?
I think this sorta falls into the Love Canal/Internet/ and Clinton bashing the Dems delimna as well. How it fits I don’t know- I’m just writing what I’m thinking off the top of my head. But I guess there’s more to it that the media misinterpreting what happened and then taking their time correcting it. I think it also has to do with printing accuarate information ASAP even though it may come out at critical times during critical events. To not do so would be a diservice.
Agree? Hope this was relavant to the discussion and made some sense!