Does anyone see the bias in this piece that I do?
Piling on the negative about how President Bush's foreign
policy is ruining the world. On Friday's Morning Edition, NPR
anchor Bob Edwards, who in a speech last April denounced Bush
policies from the left and decried the media for being too soft on
Bush, put his personal views into NPR news coverage as he
delivered this loaded set-up to an eight-and-a-half-minute-long
piece on the Bush administration's foreign policy:
"Increasingly it seems the Bush administration's foreign
policy is running into trouble. The post-war picture in Iraq and
Afghanistan is highly unstable. The road map to peace in the
Middle East is in tatters. There's growing unease over the
possibility that North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear
weapons. Friends of the United States are not supportive. Overall,
the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around
the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military
action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under
scrutiny more than ever."
NPR reporter Mike Shuster's piece, matched Edwards and was
nearly all negative, ranging from the derogatory to the
condescending, as Shuster recited a litany of complaints from
liberal analysts.
Twice, Shuster conceded possible up sides to the Bush policy,
but then quickly added a caveat to undermine any positive
achievements. Shuster reported at one point: "Ivo Daalder finds
much to admire, especially the President's bold vision and
decisiveness. But, says Daalder, those policies are failing."
Later, Shuster asserted: "Despite all this, Michael Mandelbaum
believes that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, as with the
destruction of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, has made the U.S. safer,
even if it has alienated allies and friends."
Some highlights from the October 17 story, which Shuster
began: "President Bush's approach to foreign policy has been
nothing less than groundbreaking. That is the view of many experts
including Ivo Daalder, co-author of the just published America
Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. The President's
preferences for unfettered and, when necessary, preemptive
American action, the use of America's military might, and the
daring to change foreign governments viewed as dangerous to the
United States. In that, Ivo Daalder finds much to admire,
especially the President's bold vision and decisiveness. But, says
Daalder, those policies are failing."
Ivo Daalder, on phone: "The problem with the Bush revolution
is that it has misunderstood the world we live in, and it is the
reality of that world that is now coming foursquare in contact,
and, in some sense, overwhelming that very revolution."
Shuster: "In the recent weeks, the President and his
administration seemed to acknowledge that when they chose to
return to the United Nations to seek international support and the
Security Council's seal of approval for the American occupation in
Iraq. But the compromises the U.S. was willing to make have been
minimal, and although the Security Council voted unanimously
yesterday to support another U.S. resolution in Iraq, it appears
that little will change. Recently the President and key advisors
made public speeches that seem to underscore they are sticking to
the principles that have gotten them this far, despite a chorus of
criticism from around the world."
After clips of Bush and Vice President Cheney, Shuster
continued: "One of the key assumptions of the Bush foreign policy
is that if the U.S. believes it is right and uses its strength to
carry out policies, other nations, both friends and enemies, will
be forced to follow even if they disagree. That is a misreading of
how nations act, says John Mearsheimer, author of The Tragedy of
Great Power Politics....The Bush administration believes that
other nations, even adversaries, would be forced to jump on the
American bandwagon. Mearsheimer says, instead foreign nations have
joined forces to balance against the U.S....
After a second Mearsheimer soundbite, Shuster explained: "At
least some leaders in both North Korea and Iran appear to have
decided that the way to avoid Iraq's fate is to acquire nuclear
weapons as a deterrent against possible attack. In order to
confront these challenges, the Bush administration has been
forced, unwillingly it seems, to seek help from other nations and
try the multilateral route through six party talks on North Korea
and pressure from the much maligned International Atomic Energy
Agency on Iran. It is an approach that many in the administration,
including Vice President Cheney, view with obvious distaste."
Following a Cheney bite, Shuster continued: "Although much has
been made of the Bush administration's endorsement of preemptive
action to thwart imminent threats toward the security of the
United States, it seems safe to say now, that without the presence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that was not the nature of
the U.S. war there. Johns Hopkins professor Michael Mandelbaum
agrees. He's the author of The Ideas that Conquered the World:
Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the 21st Century. But the
threat was not imminent he says. Public support for the ongoing
U.S. operation in Iraq may not last....
After a clip of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and
of Daalder asserting that, "If it turns out that you fight a war
and launch a war of choice and the intelligence information that
you were using publicly and privately to justify that war was
wrong, as it appears to be the case in Iraq, our ability to
justify preemptive action in the next case when, perhaps the
intelligence information is better or more accurate, will be
undermined," Shuster acknowledged: "Despite all this, Michael
Mandelbaum believes that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, as with
the destruction of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, has made the U.S.
safer, even if it has alienated allies and friends."
Mandelbaum opined: "The international community as a whole was
never going to endorse a war against Iraq. Moreover, I think that
the international community was never going to send troops in
serious numbers or money in serious amounts because they didn't
regard it as being as grave a threat as the United States did."
Shuster managed to find yet another line of attack: "There is
one other factor that experts point to in faulting the Bush
administration's foreign policy, especially in Iraq. Because the
Bush team insisted on the benevolence of the U.S. war in Iraq
because they see the current phase as liberation and not
occupation. John Mearsheimer who teaches at the University of
Chicago says they underestimated the role of nationalism in
Iraq...."
Shuster worried: "The U.S. may not be able to make the
corrections necessary to turn a troubled post-war Iraq into an
American success. That's why, according to Ivo Daalder, UN
involvement and a broader international role are not just fig
leaves, but necessary conditions for turning Iraq around.
Daalder: "To the extent that the occupation is regarded by
Iraqis as an American occupation which lacks international
legitimacy, opposition to that occupation, and therefore the
difficulty of staying the course, will increase. Because it is us
acting alone, it is becoming more difficult for us to achieve the
objectives that we try to achieve in Iraq and elsewhere."
Shuster concluded his lengthy polemic: "To be sure, much can
still happen in Iraq, the Middle East, and in the war against
terrorism. The administration may well succeed in the long run
where its current policies look like they are in trouble. If it
doesn't succeed, the revolution in foreign policy that President
Bush brought about will almost certainly be seen as, in large
part, the cause of the failure. Mike Shuster, NPR News, Los
Angeles."
NPR's page for the October 17 Morning Edition, with a link to
Shuster's story, which you can hear via either RealPlayer or
Windows Media Player:
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3&prgDate=17-Oct-2003
>The Czech reports of meeting between Al Qaeda and an Iraqi intel officer are
>pretty damned near perfect and the reports about the Czechs denying them
>were false. Their government has said that the meet happened. It's that
>simple. Remember also, Al Qaeda isn't the only game in town. Iraqi support
>of terrorism was a fact. Did they have a hand in 9/11, probably not, but
>they had plenty to do with supporting groups with funds and training
>worldwide.
>
>Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:55 AM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: fair and balanced more on the Fox Survey
>
>
>
>Actually, our esteemed VP Dick Cheney, as recently as two weeks ago, again
>said there was overwhelming proof of Saddam-Al Qaeda links.
>
>Don't you watch Fox News?
>
>=)
>
>Jerry Johnson
>
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/17/03 05:02PM >>>
>Don't blame it all on the outlet; you also have to blame the person.
>
>We know there were relationships between Saddam and terrorists, not al
>Qaeda, mind you, but we all knew Saddam gave 20k to the family of any
>Palestinian bomber.
>
>They have found things that would allow Iraq to create chemical weapons, and
>they did find some chemical stuff at a terror camp in northern Iraq, some
>ricen IIRC.
>
>I don't know where the idea that people in other countries agreed with the
>war, but again, I would place the blame on the person, not the news outlet.
>
>My point is, people hear bits and pieces of the story, and they finish the
>rest in their head. Long before we went into Iraq Bush and the rest of the
>government said there was no connection between Iraq and the Sept 11th
>attacks, and there never seemed to be a connection between Iraq and al
>Qaeda.
>
>These guys almost all report the same stuff, some of them do manage to show
>it in a different light than, however the news the report is almost always
>the same. I can't speak for the commentators these different networks have,
>but if we accept what these guys say as fact, then shame on us.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:54 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: fair and balanced more on the Fox Survey
>
>More from the Post Op-Ed piece:
>
>In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers
>discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly
>fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent
>of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence
>demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and
>al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of
>mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in
>other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein.
>Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these
>bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.
>
>The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went
>to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey
>concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most
>misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one
>of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71
>percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15
>percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts
>of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of
>these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html>
>
>I knew there were some positive reasons why I listen to NPR news.
>
>larry
>--
>
>Larry C. Lyons
>
>========================================================
>Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
>========================================================
>Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
>
>
> _____
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
