Jennings: "Why Not" Apologize?; ABC Focused on "Deep Cuts" But FNC Noted They Amount to 0.02%; ABC Raised Bias Over Dirkhising
1) ABC's Mark Litke on Tuesday night pointed out how
China never apologized for "the brutality of the cultural
revolution" in which "many were tortured and killed." Peter
Jennings, however, soon put the burden back on the U.S. as he asserted
that "some Americans say if an apology would free the Navy crew, why
2) Geraldo Rivera expressed perfect Clintonian reasoning
on China: "Does that really matter? Right or wrong?"
3) CBS and NBC skipped the Bush budget on Tuesday morning,
but ABC's Antonio Mora bemoaned its "deep cuts" and
highlighted how an ABC News poll found 52 percent "prefer no tax cut
and more health services for the uninsured." FNC's Carl Cameron
noted how Bush's cuts amount to a mere 0.02 percent of the total budget.
4) ABC devoted its "A Closer Look" segment on
Tuesday night to charges of media bias in obsessing over Matthew Shepard
while ignoring the Jesse Dirkhising case. Naturally, ABC concluded there
was no bias. But in making that point reporter Aaron Brown reflected the
very bias conservatives see: "In Shepard, the issue was hate crime
laws and whether they should extend to gays. In Dirkhising, the media saw
a terrible crime but no larger issue."
Tuesday night became the first broadcast network, during the current
showdown with China, to inform its viewers of how China never apologized
for "the brutality of the cultural revolution" in which
"many were tortured and killed" as Mark Litke noted doing so
"might call into question the legitimacy of communist rule."
Seconds later, however, Peter Jennings put the burden back on the U.S. as
he asserted that "some Americans say if an apology would free the
Navy crew, why not?"
From Beijing, Litke provided a World News
Tonight story on various levels of apologies recognized in Chinese
society, but he also pointed out in the April 10 piece:
"While China claims to hold the moral high
ground in this confrontation, its communist officials actually have a
terrible record when it comes to apologizing for their own mistakes, such
as the brutality of the cultural revolution. Through the '60s and '70s
millions were painfully forced to apologize for crimes they never
committed. Many were tortured and killed. China's leaders have never
apologized for this, it might call into question the legitimacy of
Immediately after Litke's report aired,
anchor Peter Jennings turned to Terry Moran at the White House:
"Terry, I know the White House says the Navy jet did nothing wrong
and there's no reason to apologize, but some Americans say if an apology
would free the Navy crew, why not? What's the White House
Moran replied: "Well it is a fair question,
as they acknowledge. Their answer is two fold: First, that specific
reason, that the Navy plane was operating in international airspace,
perfectly legal and came down under legal emergency procedures. But the
general and broader reason is that an apology, they say, would set a bad,
formal precedent which could limit U.S. military maneuvers in
international airspace and international waters."
reasoning expressed by Geraldo Rivera on the China situation. Right or
wrong, "does that really matter?"
MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens caught this exchange on
CNBC's Rivera Live on Monday night, April 9, between Rivera and
Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, a former National Security Council staffer.
Soderberg: "And I think the Bush
administration has to stand firm, say, 'We're not going to apologize.
Return our plane. Return our men and women on that plane. They deserve to
be home. They've been there too long'. And ultimately the Chinese are
gonna have to blink first. And it's just a question of how to let them
Rivera: "Why, why, why, why would
Soderberg: "They're in the wrong. Because
they were in the wrong. We were in international waters."
Rivera: "Does that really matter? Right or
morning neither CBS's The Early Show or NBC's Today touched the
release of Bush's budget which had so animated the networks on Monday
night with concern about its many "cuts" in programs. ABC's
Good Morning America, however, did advance the liberal spin as news reader
Antonio Mora bemoaned "deep cuts" proposed by Bush and
highlighted how an ABC News poll found 52 percent "prefer no tax cut
and more health services for the uninsured."
FNC's Carl Cameron reported a budget number
on Tuesday night ignored by the other networks as he pointed out how
Bush's $4.9 billion in cuts in a $1.96 trillion budget amount to a
piddling reduction of two tenths of one percent, hardly a "deep"
During the 7am newscast on the April 10 Good
Morning America, MRC analyst Jessica Anderson observed, ABC news reader
Antonio Mora announced: "The stage is set for a battle over President
Bush's budget. His plan calls for increased spending in education and
medical research, but deep cuts in scores of other programs has some
lawmakers preparing for a fight. The President seems ready for them.
Here's ABC's Terry Moran."
Moran's piece closely matched what aired the
night before on World News Tonight as Moran questioned only the proposed
cuts and not the proposed spending hikes. He began: "Meeting with his
Cabinet to roll out his budget, the President struck a combative
President Bush: "Washington's known for its
pork. This budget funds our needs without the fat. It also represents a
new way of doing business in Washington and a new way of thinking."
Moran: "But some of the President's cuts are
sure to run into fierce resistance from Democrats and some Republicans.
For instance, part of the COPS program, a favorite of President Clinton's,
which provides money to communities to hire police, faces a $270 million
or 46 percent cut; and cut by $25 million, or 15 percent, funding for
training pediatricians in children's hospitals. Democrats say the
President is cutting good programs for a bad reason."
Rep. John Spratt: "We found cuts in all of
these programs in order to make way for the President's tax cut."
Moran: "The administration counters it is
merely trying to restrain out of control government spending from the
Mitch Daniels, OMB director: "If that
behavior pattern were continued year on year through these 10 years, they
would spend about $3 trillion of the surplus."
Moran concluded: "Now the battle moves to
Congress where the President, to get what he wants, will have to convince
Republicans to cast some very unpopular votes."
An hour later, during the 8am news update,
Mora summarized Moran's piece before relaying how a poll found the
public prefers more spending to a tax cut:
"The battle of the budget is getting
underway. Democrats say the President's newly unveiled spending plan
shortchanges such priorities as education, health care and the
environment. They're promising a fight. Mr. Bush says it focuses on
programs that are working while eliminating wasteful spending, but a new
ABC News poll indicates the President has some selling to do. Fifty-two
percent of those surveyed prefer no tax cut and more health services for
the uninsured. Thirty percent favor cutting taxes without reducing health
care spending. Only ten percent favor cuts in both taxes and health
The poll commissioned by ABCNews.com, and so
not done with the Washington Post, was not mentioned Monday or Tuesday
night on World News Tonight but is featured on the ABCNews.com Web site
under the headline, "Health Trumps Taxes: Most Would Rather Insure
Poor Than Get Cash Back."
Gary Langer opened the April 9-posted
recitation of the poll results: "Most Americans would prefer to have
the federal government spend more on health care for the uninsured than to
see it cut their own income taxes, another sign of the relatively low
priority the public gives to tax reduction."
Those surveyed were apparently only asked one
question: "In an ABCNEWS.com poll, 52 percent say they'd rather have
the government spend more on health care for the uninsured than see it cut
their taxes. And only 10 percent favor reducing these health services in
order to pay for a tax cut."
Langer proceeded to lay out skewed facts about
Bush cuts without any context that his budget actually increases health
care spending, a set of facts to which respondents probably reacted:
"President Bush's budget, released today, would cut a $125 million
grant program that coordinates the development of community health centers
for the uninsured. At the same time, it would create a $2,000 per-year tax
credit to help uninsured people buy health insurance."
Langer was pleased with the
"altruism" of those who put more spending ahead of a tax cut:
"There's some altruism in this poll's result, since only about 15
percent of adults lack health insurance. But there's also some
self-interest: Spending more on health care for the uninsured is most
popular by far among low-income people, who are more likely to be
uninsured and less likely to get a big tax cut. And it's least popular in
top-income households, whose tax cut would be the fattest."
To read all of Langer's article on the ABC
poll, go to:
Tuesday night, on FNC's Special Report with
Brit Hume, reporter Carl Cameron put the budget in some perspective.
Cameron explained that 65 percent of the budget goes to Medicaid, Medicare
and Social Security and is labeled "non-discretionary" since it
is set by law to follow payout formulas, which leaves 35 percent for all
the rest of the federal government. Of that 35 percent, nearly half goes
to defense, leaving just 19 percent for "discretionary" federal
spending and it is within that 19 percent that all of Bush's cuts occur,
though Bush's budget hikes discretionary spending overall by four
percent as 15 agencies would grow while 10 would face cuts.
Cameron put the cuts into context: "The
total dollar figure for the actual cuts that President Bush is proposing
is about $4.9 billion dollars. In the context of an overall $1.96 trillion
budget, that is two tenths of one percent. Critics, however, say that Bush
is planning to slow the rate of growth in a number of other projects,
effectively not keeping pace with inflation and, therefore, becoming the
equivalent of cuts, not the four percent increases that President Bush
Dirkhising, the 13-year-old Arkansas boy raped and murdered by two gay
men, finally made broadcast network news on Tuesday. ABC's World News
Tonight devoted its "A Closer Look" segment to his case and the
conservative complaint about how the major media decision to dedicate
massive coverage to the case of Matthew Shepard, the murdered gay college
student, while ignoring Dirkhising, reflected liberal media bias, though
ABC never uttered the phrase "liberal media bias."
ABC ran two pieces totaling a lengthy, by
evening news standards, nearly five-and-a-half minutes on the case until
now only covered by the Fox News Channel and AP. Naturally, it was not the
focus on the bias from conservatives which prompted ABC's story, but the
column a couple of weeks ago by gay writer Andrew Sullivan. In the New
Republic he conceded: "Difficult as it may be to admit, some of the
gay-baiting right's argument about media bias holds up....The Dirkhising
case was ignored for political reasons: squeamishness about reporting a
story that could feed anti-gay prejudice."
For an excerpt from Sullivan's column and
details of how the networks all ignored the conviction of one of the men
For more background on media coverage of the
case and links to the MRC's 1999 analysis of the lack of coverage when
the Dirkhising murder occurred, go to: http://archive.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb20010319.asp#6
On the April 10 World News Tonight, anchor
Peter Jennings admitted the obvious: "There are many journalists,
including people on this broadcast, who feel very strongly that this case
in itself did not merit national attention." Jennings then adopted
Sullivan's anti-conservative concern for "anti-gay prejudice"
as Jennings asked of the Dirkhising case: "Was it a case of bias? Was
it not reported lest it feed anti-gay prejudice?" How about lest it
damage the media's pro-liberal gay rights agenda prejudice?
While ABC News gave air time to conservative
columnist Don Feder to forward the media bias charge, not surprisingly,
ABC concluded there was no bias. But in making that point reporter Aaron
Brown reflected the very bias conservatives see. He declared: "In
Shepard, the issue was hate crime laws and whether they should extend to
gays. In Dirkhising, the media saw a terrible crime but no larger
Exactly. As if the media had no role in making
Shepard part of a larger topic. The media turned the vicious Shepard
murder into a martyr for a liberal cause which then in itself justified
Brown soon revealed how ingrained the bias is
as he called the controversy over the coverage "remarkable"
since "it centers on a news decision that for most of the national
media was easy and logical and routine."
Now to the top of ABC's April 10 stories for a
more thorough rundown. Jennings introduced the segment, as transcribed by
MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth:
"Our subject tonight is the media, and
murder, and accusations of bias. There has been quite a furor recently,
among conservatives particularly, that the gruesome killing of a teenage
boy in Arkansas didn't get national attention because the two men
accused of the murder were gay. The complaint has been, and it's been
quite persistent, that much of the media ignored the case in which the
accused were gay but paid enormous attention to the case of a young gay
man named Matthew Shepard who was murdered in 1998, you may remember, in
Wyoming. Now, news coverage is not a science, but in this case we were
struck by the accusations of bias. And so we decided to take A Closer
First, from Arkansas, reporter Erin Hayes
filled in viewers about the 1999 crime for which Joshua Brown and Davis
Carpenter were charged and for which Brown recently received a life
sentence. Carpenter's trial starts in May. Hayes noted how feces were
found on the floor of the house, how Dirkhising was bound and raped for
five hours and was drugged before he choked to death. She added:
"Prosecutors also say Carpenter had his eye on other children. In
Carpenter's apartment they discovered handwritten short stories,
explicit, horrifying writings envisioning future rapes and torture."
Next, Jennings set up a look at the charge of
media bias: "And the case, as we said, was not widely reported. There
are many journalists, including people on this broadcast, who feel very
strongly that this case in itself did not merit national attention. We
don't report many gruesome crimes. But was it a case of bias? Was it not
reported lest it feed anti-gay prejudice? Here's ABC's Aaron
Brown began: "To the protesters gathered
outside the courthouse in Bentonville, Arkansas, it is simple: The
national media, sympathetic to gays, will not report on any evil gays
Don Feder, Boston Herald columnist: "The
media doesn't want the public to think about homosexuality and
pedophilia and torture and, you know, the murder of children."
Brown: "In their columns and on their Web
sites, many, including some of the most anti-gay groups in the country,
have been making this argument for months, but it was given more weight
when it was embraced by one of the country's most provocative gay
Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic: "I think
that there is clearly evidence that many people in the media decided well,
we're not going to go there because we know it will feed anti-gay
Brown over shots of New York Times articles, a
Time cover, Dateline and 20/20 logos: "The fuel propelling this
argument is the massive coverage Matthew Shepard's death received.
Shepard, who was gay, was beaten and hung on a fence post to die by two
straight men. It was the subject of thousands of stories in the papers and
on TV. Why so much coverage for Shepard and so little for Dirkhising? For
most of the national press, the Washington Post, USA Today, World News
Tonight, the counter-argument is simple:"
Martha Moore, USA Today: "For a crime story
or a murder story, even a horrific and sad one like Jesse Dirkhising, to
be covered by the national press, I think there has to be an issue of
larger social significance attached to it."
Brown concluded by dismissing the bias
accusation: "In Shepard, the issue was hate crime laws and whether
they should extend to gays. In Dirkhising, the media saw a terrible crime
but no larger issue. That may seem cold, but countless rapes and murders,
gay and straight, go unreported all the time for exactly that reason,
which is part of what's so remarkable about this debate, that it centers
on a news decision that for most of the national media was easy and
logical and routine."
Yes indeed. "What's so remarkable about
this debate" is that it demonstrates how liberal media bias is
"easy and logical and routine" for the national media.
ABC's message board forum for World News
Tonight is focused today on Dirkhising coverage. Go to:
That's it for today's nearly all ABC News
issue. --Brent Baker
Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions
which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-deductible
donation. Use the secure donations page set up for CyberAlert
readers and subscribers:
>>>To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a
blank e-mail to:
@topica.com. Or, you can go to:
Either way you will receive a confirmation message titled: "RESPONSE
REQUIRED: Confirm your subscription to firstname.lastname@example.org."
After you reply, either by going to the listed Web page link or by simply
hitting reply, you will receive a message confirming that you have been
added to the MRC CyberAlert list. If you confirm by using the Web page
link you will be given a chance to "register" with Topica. You DO
NOT have to do this; at that point you are already subscribed to
To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to:
Send problems and comments to: email@example.com.
can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by
subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday
afternoon. To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Or, go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters.<<<
Home | News Division
| Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact
the MRC | Subscribe