From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: FAIR: COUNTERSPIN #15
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:11:55 GMT

/** media.issues: 245.0 **/
** Topic: COUNTERSPIN #15 **
** Written 11:48 am  Oct 15, 1992 by fair in cdp:media.issues **
From: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting <fair>
Subject: COUNTERSPIN #15

-------------------------- COUNTERSPIN ------------------------
 
-------------A Memo on Campaign Coverage From FAIR-------------
  
--------------130 W. 25th St., New York, NY 10001-------------- 
 
-Phone: 212-633-6700 | Fax: 212-727-7668 | Email: fair@igc.org- 
 
No. 15: October 15, 1992
 
INTIMIDATION FACTOR: Nothing more clearly shows the impact of the
Bush campaign's efforts to intimidate journalists than the timid
response of much of the media to Dan Quayle's daring them to check
his facts. 
 
When Quayle treated "telling the truth" as the central issue in the
campaign, and responded to factual disagreements by saying that he
would provide the real facts to the press "if they're interested,"
one expects that journalists would do voters the favor of telling
them who, if anyone, was telling the truth.
 
Instead, the media mostly waffled.  Dan Quayle got mostly positive
reviews for a performance that included several extreme
distortions--some of which had already been debunked in the press. 
Even when reporters did take Quayle up on his taunts and look up
the record, the results were usually on back pages, and abounded in
euphemisms.
 
ELEMENTS OF TRUTH: Perhaps the wildest charge was that Gore's book
proposed that "the taxpayers of America spend $100 billion a year
on environmental projects in foreign countries." As the New York
Times pointed out the next day (10/14), what Gore said was that "an
effort comparable to the Marshall Plan...would mean the expenditure
of $100 billion a year.  Mr. Gore notes in the book that such
levels of spending would be impossible given the country's economic
distress and calls on the other industrialized countries to
contribute."  So far, so good. 
 
But the New York Times, apparently afraid of seeming to say that
the vice president was making up facts, included in its description
of the exchange over Gore's book this inexplicable disclaimer:
"There are elements of truth in the statements of both men." To
drive home the point, the passage that dealt with the question of
whether Gore advocated a $100 billion U.S. program--he hadn't, and
Quayle said he had--was labeled "Truth on Both Sides." (The review-
of-the-facts article had no byline, which sometimes indicates that
a reporter was unhappy with an edit.)
 
Another falsehood told by Quayle was the claim that 300,000 jobs
would be lost if auto mileage standards were raised.  As Michael
Kinsley pointed out in the New Republic (9/28), this figure
"assumes that anyone now involved in making cars that get less than
40 mpg will be unemployed ten years from now.  That is, it assumes
that neither customers nor manufacturers will make the slightest
effort to buy or manufacture more domestic cars meeting the higher
standard."  When translated into the more polite language of the
Washington Post by Michael Weisskopf (10/14), this became "Quayle's
projection of job losses is subject to debate." 
 
ON THE BASIS OF FACTS: As usual, CNN's Brooks Jackson was
forthright in his attempts to set the record straight.  He reported
(10/13) that "judging it just on the basis of facts, Dan Quayle is
the big loser here tonight."  Jackson also did a service by
pointing out some Gore distortions, like the fact that welfare
rolls in Arkansas have increased under Clinton, despite the half-
truth that 17,000 individuals had gone off welfare.
 
ABC's Jim Wooten also scrutinized the truthfulness of both Quayle
and Gore the next day (10/14)--but neither the CBS or NBC newscasts
made any attempt to do so, instead promoting the proposition that
Quayle's mendacious performance had made Clinton's truthfulness the
question of the day.
 
CROSS PURPOSES: George Will faced criticism when it was revealed
that he coached Reagan for the 1980 presidential debates and then
went on to praise his "thoroughbred performance" on Nightline--
critics called him a "lapdog" and a "political shill."  Yet there
have been few complaints that John Sununu is doing the same thing
in 1992 that Will did in 1980.  Sununu is coaching Bush, playing
the role of Ross Perot in mock debates, while continuing to co-host
Crossfire episodes that evaluate the real ones.
 
"We've invited spin doctors from all three campaigns," Sununu said
on the Oct. 12 Crossfire--failing to include himself, or even
acknowledge that he played any role in the debates other than
observer.  His questions about Clinton were straight out of the
Bush campaign playbook: "Is he ever going to expose himself to the
detailed questions on trust?"  "Gov. Clinton is talking about
increased spending, but he's hiding it behind his investment term."
 
"Last night Bill Clinton again claimed he's only going to tax folks
making $200,000 or more to raise $154 billion. All the analysis
shows that only raises one third of it."
 
Bush, on the other hand, was accused of "not arguing forcefully for
what he's accomplished."  In his wrap-up, Sununu predicted that "I
think you're going to see a tougher George Bush in the next two
debates, and I think it's going to be good entertainment and good
policy." In other words, maybe next time he'll pay more attention
to my coaching.
 
When CNN hired Sununu as a replacement for Buchanan, FAIR was
concerned that conflict-of-interest problems would arise.  But we
were assured by Crossfire executive Rick Davis, "When the
topic could be seen as a conflict of interest, we'll put a
substitute host on."  Crossfire has failed to follow that standard
-- or even to disclose Sununu's coaching role when the subject is
discussed.
 
REVISED DRAFT OF HISTORY: When it comes time to do the
retrospectives on how the media covered the campaign, journalists
should refer to Eric Alterman's "Sound and Fury," which ends with
a chapter on how the punditocracy began choosing Bill Clinton as
the Democratic frontrunner as early as September 1991--largely on
the basis of his hawkish military views. 
 
Counterspin is written by Jim Naureckas and edited by Jeff Cohen. 
** End of text from cdp:media.issues **
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism,soc.culture.latin-america