Today is the 5th anniversary of the U.S.-led coalition’s invasion of Iraq. To mark this occasion, the ever-vigilant Media Research Center has released their latest of several Special Reports documenting the mainstream media’s slanted coverage of the War on “Terror.”
As usual, the report exposes the MSM’s coverage as blatantly and undeniably anti-American, anti-military, and anti-victory. This, not surprisingly, echoes the blatantly and undeniably anti-American, anti-military, and anti-victory platform of the Democrat Party.
Below are highlights from seven Executive Summaries of the past five years of MRC special reports on the MSM’s war coverage. Prepare to be disgusted and enraged.
[All these summaries are abridged by me and all highlights are mine. Click on each title to link to the original summary text (from which you can also link to the full reports.)]
Charge #1:
The MSM – in lockstep with the Democrat Party – hates and mistrusts the Bush administration, but protects and trusts our “allies.”
The Proof:
World News Tonight’s Anti-War Agenda
Despite Pledge of Objectivity, ABC Spent Pre-War Period Undermining Support for Bush
March 18, 2003
MRC analysts reviewed 234 Iraq stories from World News Tonight between January 1 and March 7, plus ABC’s live coverage of breaking news during the same period. They found a pervasive pattern of bias on four fronts:
• Blaming Bush, not allies. Despite UN incompetence and French intransigence, ABC reporters insisted that the lack of a compromise was Bush’s fault … [Peter Jennings] charged “the administration is prepared to jeopardize its relations with several of its oldest and best friends in order to get its way about Iraq.” Jennings would not say that several of America’s “oldest and best friends” were jeopardizing relations with us to get their way about Iraq.
• No doubting the dictator. While ABC treated U.S. claims skeptically, comments from Saddam’s Iraq were usually relayed to American audiences without question. On February 28, ABC’s Baghdad reporter Dan Harris aired an Iraqi nurse’s claim that U.S.-led military action would be a disaster. “For sure there’ll be premature labors, and for sure there’ll be a high percentage of miscarriages.
• Sanitizing the radical “peace” movement. As with the last Gulf War a dozen years ago, organized protests against U.S. military action have been led by radical groups such as the Workers World Party, a Stalinist organization. But as they did in 1991, this year ABC went out of its way to show reasonable “peace activists,” who mainstream Americans could identify with … ABC omitted the radicalism of organizers and extremism of many anti-American speakers from sympathetic protest news.
• Playing with polls. ABC stressed polls finding reservations about Bush’s strategy, and downplayed surveys showing public support. On February 24, for example, ABC found support for war at 63%, steady from the previous period. But Jennings painted the public as anti-Bush: “We find that 56% of Americans want the administration to take it slower and try harder to get more UN support.” Astonishingly, the same poll revealed Americans’ low opinion of the UN — only 38% approved of its handling of Iraq, vs. 55% for Bush.
— Tim Graham and Rich Noyes
Charge #2:
The MSM – in lockstep with the Democrat Party – suppresses or dismisses successes in Iraq, while boosting or exaggerating every setback.
The Proof:
TV’s Bad News Brigade
ABC, CBS and NBC’s Defeatist Coverage of the War in Iraq
October 13, 2005
MRC analysts reviewed all 1,388 Iraq stories broadcast on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News from January 1 through September 30 … Among the key findings:
■ Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.
■ Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife — than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.
Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.
■ It’s not as if there was no “good news” to report. NBC’s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad’s business district, ABC showcased the coalition’s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded “Death Street,” and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services …
Charge #3:
The MSM – in lockstep with the Democrat Party – mistrusts and hates the Bush administration, but trusts and sympathizes with Saddam Hussein.
The Proof:
Covering Saddam's Shenanigans, Not His Crimes
ABC, CBS, and NBC’s Trial News Stresses Ex-Dictator’s Outbursts, Not Evidence or Victims’ Testimony
March 20, 2006
MRC analysts reviewed every mention of the trial on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news from October 16 (when the networks began previewing the trial) through March 15 (when Saddam himself took the stand).
MRC found the networks spent nearly three times as much airtime on Saddam’s courtroom antics as on the serious testimony of his victims and the documentary evidence that Saddam himself ordered the killing of more than 140 residents of the Shiite town of Dujail and the imprisonment and torture of hundreds more townspeople. Details:
■ He’s No O.J. Simpson. Saddam’s trial has been mentioned in just 64 stories (includeing brief anchor-read items) over the last 5 months. Total coverage amounted to just under 90 minutes … In contrast, the first six months of O.J. Simpson’s murder trial garnered 431 stories (824 minutes) from those same networks, a 1994 Center for Media and Public Affairs study found. Simpson was accused of killing two people; Saddam is thought responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.
■ Saddam Steals the Show. In spite of a record equal to some of the worst tyrants in human history, reporters found Saddam’s personal reactions and orchestrated antics more compelling than the witness testimony against him. The networks gave Saddam’s behavior more airtime than any other topic — nearly 30 minutes, one-third of the coverage.
In contrast, the networks allotted just 11½ minutes for witness testimony and evidence, just slightly below the nearly 12 minutes devoted to suggestions Saddam would not get a fair hearing. On the Oct. 18 World News Tonight, ABC’s Jim Sciutto pointed out how “human rights groups doubt the former dictator will get a fair trial.” On March 15, after Saddam’s testimony was cut off by the judge, ABC showed complaints from Ramsey Clark: “Look, he’s on trial for his life. A defendant has a right to give his background and his thoughts and his emotions.”
■ Hiding the Evidence. The networks provided merely sporadic coverage of the evidence. ABC was the only newscast to air a full report on Saddam’s admission on March 1 that he ordered the Dujail killings. (CBS and NBC gave that news just 11 and 18 seconds, respectively). Only CBS mentioned the December 21 testimony of Ali al-Haydari, who was 14 when he saw evidence of torture: “I heard screaming and shouting, then silence as a body came out in a blanket.” But that same night all of the networks mentioned Saddam’s claim that U.S. soldiers had beaten him.
Despite the severity of the crimes, reporters fixated on the villain. “Saddam seemed like he was still president,” claimed NBC’s Richard Engel (Oct. 19). To CBS’s Lara Logan, Saddam’s disruptive shenanigans were winning the day: “The appearance of credibility is what really matters in this trial, and that’s what’s missing at the moment.” (Feb. 2)
— Rich Noyes
Charge #4:
The MSM – in lockstep with the Democrat Party – hates the troops.
The Proof:
Touting Military Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes
ABC, CBS and NBC Broadcast Hours of Charges Against U.S. Marines But Ignored 14 Top U.S. Heroes
June 12, 2006
MRC analysts tallied all stories regarding charges of U.S. military misconduct that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC’s morning, evening, primetime and late night news shows from May 17 through June 7, before the networks’ pessimism was interrupted by the successful termination of terrorist menace Abu Musab al-Zarqawi … They found that none of America’s heroes received anywhere near as much attention from the broadcast networks as TV gave the latest allegations of military wrongdoing — and many received no coverage at all.
Pushing Hard on Haditha [T]he networks have presumed a guilty verdict and a blow to the overall American military’s reputation. “Will Haditha be the My Lai of the Middle East?” asked Nightline co-host Terry Moran on May 25 … Filling in as anchor of the May 31 CBS Evening News, Russ Mitchell pronounced that “if the allegations prove true, they’d be a huge new blow to the American military’s standing with Iraq’s government and it’s people.”
On the June 7 Today, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell similarly labeled Haditha a “black eye for American policy,” while her colleague Richard Engel seemed upset that Iraq’s television network wasn’t making more of the scandal. “It’s barely on the news,” Engel fretted on the June 5 Nightly News.
Where Have All the Heroes Gone? The highest award, the Medal of Honor, was given to the family of Army Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, who lost his life while protecting more than 100 fellow soldiers during the battle for Baghdad’s airport in April 2003. Nineteen servicemen received the second highest honors, all for “extraordinary heroism” in combat. The list includes two fallen members of the Air Force who were awarded the Air Force Cross; three soldiers who merited the Distinguished Service Cross; and three sailors and 11 Marines who received the Navy Cross, one posthumously.
Most of these men have never been recognized by ABC, CBS or NBC. None have been given more than a fraction of the attention that the latest allegations against the military have received. And while the networks have told of acts of heroism by others in the military — with Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester of the Kentucky National Guard getting the most coverage among those honored with a Silver Star — none of those other positive stories have interested the networks as much as news of possible military misconduct …
The most heavily-covered hero was Medal of Honor winner Paul Smith, who received 41 minutes of coverage during a 24-month period, 79 percent of the heroes’ total …
— Rich Noyes, with research assistance from MRC analysts Geoff Dickens, Brian Boyd, Michael Rule and Scott Whitlock.
Charge #5:
The MSM – in lockstep with the Democrat Party – accuses Fox News of slanted war coverage to benefit the Bush administration, whereas in reality it's the MSM that's slanting the news to damage the Bush administration.
The Proof:
The Iraq War on Cable TV
CNN and MSNBC vs. The Fox News Channel
December, 2006
MRC analysts reviewed all three cable news networks’ reporting on Iraq during a crucial ten weeks this year, from May 15 through July 21, a period that included heavy news coverage of allegations of U.S. military misconduct at Haditha as well as the successful air strike that eliminated al-Qaeda terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Analysts looked at weekday coverage during the 10am EDT and 2pm EDT hours, a time of day when FNC, CNN and MSNBC all emphasize traditional news reporting from field correspondents, not opinionated talk show-style debate.
The results show clear editorial differences between the three cable networks. CNN and MSNBC resemble the big broadcast networks, emphasizing a bad news agenda of U.S. misdeeds and mistakes, while FNC was better able to balance the bad news with news of U.S. achievements in Iraq. Key findings:
• FNC was the most balanced network. All three cable news networks ran more stories reflecting bad news about the situation in Iraq than stories about coalition achievements. But FNC was the most balanced, with 20 percent of stories emphasizing optimism, compared with 30 percent that stressed pessimism.
• CNN was the most pessimistic network. Fully three-fifths (60%) of all CNN stories on the war emphasized setbacks, misdeeds or pessimism about progress in Iraq, compared to just 10 percent that reported on achievements or victories. MSNBC’s tilt was closer to CNN, with four times more bad news stories (48%) than reports stressing good news (12%).
• CNN and MSNBC sensationalized charges of U.S. wrongdoing. While FNC provided significant coverage to unproven claims of U.S. military misconduct in Iraq (12 stories), the other networks took a much more sensational approach to the story. MSNBC aired three times as much coverage of alleged misconduct as FNC (36 stories), while CNN aired a whopping 59 stories — nearly five times the coverage of FNC.
• Fox News Channel aired more stories about coalition success in Iraq. FNC aired a total of 81 stories announcing coalition victories in Iraq, nearly as many as MSNBC (47 stories) and CNN (41 stories) combined. During the ten weeks of our study, most coverage of Iraq’s political process reflected optimism about the democratically-elected government, a topic that FNC also showcased more than either MSNBC or CNN (63 stories vs. 34 and 38 respectively).
• Even on the best day, CNN and MSNBC found negative themes to promote. While all three networks presented news of Zarqawi’s death as a victory for the U.S. coalition, CNN chose that day to interview a Middle East journalist who complained, “There’s no good news in Iraq. There’s no corner that’s been turned, there’s no milestone....I just feel very depressed and hopeless.” Over on MSNBC, the network took time away from covering the breaking news of Zarqawi’s death to feature positive profiles of United States military deserters.
Charge #6:
The MSM – in lockstep with the Democrat Party – is hoping for and rooting for U.S. defeat in Iraq.
The Proof:
TV's Pre-Emptive War Against Iraq
Before Iraq Plan Unveiled, Reporters Said It Was Unpopular, Wouldn’t Work & War Was “Lost Cause”
January 11, 2007
The media’s air war against the plan to try to actually win the Iraq war assured that most of Bush’s audience would have already heard journalists claiming the new mission is wrong-headed and doomed to failure.
■ “Like a folly.” Last Tuesday on NBC’s Today, anchor emeritus Tom Brokaw argued that the way Saddam Hussein was executed revealed Iraq as “a deeply divided country along tribal lines,” and that sending more troops would “seem to most people...like a folly.” Brokaw added: “I think a lot of people who are raising their hands to join the armed services are wondering, ‘I’m giving my life for that?’”
■ “Wrong Way Corrigan.” The next morning on Today, political analyst Chris Matthews declared the President’s plan dead on arrival: “I expect it will be treated the way Richard Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia was reacted to. The American people aren’t gonna like it.” Matthews insisted that the voters wanted to end, not mend, Bush’s Iraq policies and “for the President to go Wrong Way Corrigan on this thing and to increase the number of troops, take us deeper into Iraq, would be to reject the opinion of the American people.”
■ “Absolutely no difference.” This week, as more details of the President’s plan were revealed, the anti-surge drum-beat got louder. On CBS’s Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked Baghdad reporter Lara Logan if extra troops would make a difference. “The best thing we have is to look at what has happened already. When the U.S. brought in 12,000 more troops into Baghdad last summer, it made absolutely no difference,” Logan replied. “In fact, security here in Baghdad got even worse.”
■ “Lost Cause?” On Tuesday’s Today, NBC’s White House reporter David Gregory suggested even White House insiders have lost faith. “As the President prepares to start a new phase of the war in Iraq, the White House is fending off charges that key figures in the administration have concluded the war is lost.” NBC’s graphic headline read “Lost Cause? Can U.S. Win the War In Iraq?” Gregory also cited unnamed “critics” to suggest Bush’s motives were psychological: “U.S. commanders who opposed adding troops to Iraq have been replaced, prompting critics to charge the President’s resolve has become stubbornness.”
■ “Roll Call of Critics” On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer confronted White House aide Dan Bartlett: “I just want to run through a partial roll call of the number of people who have either opposed what the President is going to do, or expressed serious reservations.” As she read off names such as Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel, their names and faces scrolled over her right shoulder. “I could go on and on,” Sawyer told Bartlett. “What don’t they get? What don’t they understand?” Bartlett objected, saying some of the generals she listed as critics “helped devise this plan.”
■ “Breaking Point.” On yesterday’s Today, co-host Meredith Vieira doubted that the U.S. military could meet the challenge: “The cornerstone of his plan is sending around 20,000 additional U.S. troops into the war zone. But is the military stretched to the breaking point already?” Reporter Jim Miklaszewski suggested it was: “The pace of two wars has left two-thirds of the Army’s combat brigades rated ‘Not Ready to Fight.’”
■ “The cost has been enormous.” Uniquely last night, CBS’s Katie Couric decided to introduce Bush’s speech by repeating the war’s terrible toll: “Four years into the war, the cost has been enormous. More than 3,000 American military killed, more than 22,000 wounded. The dollar cost, close to $400 billion.” Emphasizing her point, CBS posted each demoralizing statistic as a full-screen graphic.
The new plan may succeed, or it may fail. But the media’s mantra these past few days has been that failure seems inevitable, so we shouldn’t even try.
— Rich Noyes
Charge #7:
The MSM – in lockstep with the Democrat Party – is hoping for and rooting for the 2007 surge to fail.
The Proof:
Fewer U.S. Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq
Networks Minimize Good News From Iraq, Don’t Press Democrats on “Wrong-Headed” Predictions
February 28, 2008
One year ago, liberal journalists depicted the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq as a certain failure. “A lot of people are going to go to bed tonight terrified,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews opined just minutes after President Bush announced the policy on January 10, 2007. Other journalists were only slightly more subtle. “Many experts warn, it’s too little, too late,” NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski argued on the January 8, 2007 Nightly News. The next morning on NBC’s Today, the network’s graphic describing Iraq was “Lost Cause?” …
MRC intern Lyndsi Thomas helped tabulate all ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Iraq since the beginning of 2007, just as the surge strategy was being implemented. After heavy coverage of the shift to a new Iraq policy in January and February 2007, the TV coverage began to closely track the rising and falling death rates for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. When the number of U.S. fatalities jumped in May, TV coverage jumped, too. When U.S. casualties began to steadily decline, TV coverage of Iraq dramatically decreased. …
While the amount of coverage has shriveled, the tone remains more negative than positive. So far this month, the three evening newscasts have aired just 41 items on Iraq, most (23) just brief items read by the anchor. A mere seven stories were field reports from Iraq. Only ABC’s World News (February 13) noted the passage of key legislation by the Iraqi parliament, followed by a unique story the next evening on the success of the surge. The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News offered no such stories in February, but NBC did find time to report a visit to Iraq by actress Angelina Jolie.
Back in December, NBC’s Tim Russert conceded that the media were less interested in covering a successful U.S. mission in Iraq, telling anchor Brian Williams that “with the surge in Iraq and the level of American deaths declining, it is off the front pages.”
This is not neutral news judgment, but a great favor to anti-surge Democrats, since TV’s lack of interest in Iraq spares them the chore of defending their now-discredited opposition to the surge. Does anyone think the media would have let John McCain off the hook had the surge failed as spectacularly as it has succeeded?
— Rich Noyes
Well, there you have it. Five years of MSM Bush-bashing, America-bashing, and military-bashing. Instead of doing their job (i.e., reporting the news), members of the MSM have instead regressed back to their anti-Vietnam bash-America youth and have abused their positions by selling American defeat in Iraq.
All to obstruct the Bush administration and the U.S. military, whom they despise.
All to prop up the Democrats, with whom they align and want back in power.
And all at the expense of your life, as well as the lives of your family, the troops, the American people, the Iraqi people, and future victims of radical Islamic terrorism worldwide.
But don't fret: Obama wants you to vote for change in November!
Recent Comments