I'm Back!

Hello all! I got back from a vacation to Sturgis, SD last week and I had a wonderful time. First, I am not a big time motorcycle person, but my parents are and they own a large bed and breakfast there. It was refreshing to be with people who were proud of their country and their president. It was also fascinating to read the local papers. We received the Rapid City Journal every day and the differences between this paper and the Seattle Times were startling. I mean it. We are not talking subtle differences here, folks. Just in the week I was there, there were many examples of these differences, but one in particular stands out in my mind. The headline was "prairie Dogs Taken off Protected List" and under that it said, "Relief in sight for embattled ranchers." I was shocked when I read the story. Can you believe it? The editors were worried about THE RANCHERS first! The people came first! Apparently, prairie dog holes cause cows to get stuck and break their legs and is a huge problem to ranchers. If the Seattle Times did this story you can bet it would be all about how cute and cuddly the prairie dogs are and how these evil ranchers can now indiscriminately murder these adorable creatures.

Then I reluctantly came back home. I will be totally honest. I haven't wanted to start writing in this blog because it makes me too damn mad. That's why I have been MIA so long. Perhaps seeing the Rapid City Journal has made me realize what an incredibly uphill battle this is. I mean, I feel like OF COURSE the Seattle Times is biased. Any rational person can see this. What's the point of documenting it? They certainly aren't going to change because of what I'm doing. And if you don't think the Seattle Times is biased, then I'm sure there's nothing I can write to convince you otherwise. If you do, then I'm simply preaching to the quire.

So, what am I saying here? Well, in the last three months I have collected countless examples of liberal bias exhibited by the Seattle Times. If you doubt the Times is biased, I suggest you review this information.

But going forward, this blog will more resemble editorial pieces than a day by day deconstruction of the bias in the Times. It will still be about the liberal bias at the Times, to be sure, but I no longer feel I need to document each and every example of liberal bias. I believe I have proven my case, and if you have read every single thing I have written in this blog and STILL don't feel like the Times is biased, well then, NOTHING I can say will convince you.

So, with that said, let me get right into it with a short discussion of the Times' coverage of the organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Basically, the only coverage the Times has given to this organization has been negative. In other words, when SBVT is brought up in a story, it always about how this person or that person is condemning the group and what they stand for. What SBVT is saying about Kerry is NEVER covered as a news story in it's own right. For instance, the first time SBVT was mentioned in the A section was when the Times reported that John McCain was condemning what the group was covering. Then yesterday, the Times reported on the fact that Bush will not come right out and condemn the organization. OF course, I don't remember the press ever asking Kerry if he condemned Move-on.org as they have compared Bush to Hitler. In fact, I don't recall the Times EVER covering the fact that Move-on.org compared Bush to Hitler. Where was the outrage then? I mean, Bush IS our president.

And speaking of Move-on.org, today the Times did a full page story on George Soros in their close-up section. They did mention the fact that Soros is a major sponsor of Move-on.org but failed to mention some of the things this organization has said about Bush.

The hypocrisy displayed here is monumental. Apparently, groups like Move-On.org can say anything about Bush with no media back-lash, and no connections with Kerry are assumed. However, when similar groups make anti-Kerry statements, all the backlash is directed at Bush, like he organized the whole thing.

I'm on Vacation!

I will be on vacation from 8/11 through 8/17. We are driving to Sturgis, South Dakota to visit the bed and breakfast my folks own and operate three weeks out of the year (my folks are big-time Harley Davidson fans and in case you didn't know, Sturgis is the Mecca for Harley owners in August). Now they make this drive all the time (from the Seattle area) and think it's no big deal. Of course, they aren't packing around an 11 year old.

I'm afraid my blog will be on hiatus until I return as I don't have a staff or assistant who can do it for me. But let me leave you with one thought: the liberal media and liberal pundits have been hammering those who criticize John Kerry's war record. Even Bill O'Reilly believes what he did in Vietnam is irrelevant to his being President. However, John Kerry himself has made his war record a central theme of his campaign. Therefore, what he says about this record (and if he lied ) is EXTREMELY relevant to his presidency. The job of President of the United States is all about character. We expect our president not to lie, exaggerate, fabricate, or otherwise distort the truth. It isn't what he actually did in Vietnam that is relevant (I frankly could care less), it is what he is saying NOW about that service and how that squares with the truth that speaks to his character and is DEFINITELY relevant. This subtle distinction, I fear, has been overlooked by many people, even conservatives. Take care, and see you next week!

Terror Alert Or Bush Political Ploy

The Seattle Times went on the offensive today against the recent threat warnings the Bush administration has issued. Apparently, now that the organization "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" has been properly discredited and forgotten, the Times has gotten back to the usual business of attacking the Bush administration.

On page A8, we find the story "Democrats More Comfortable Challenging Bush on Terror". This story's title is truly misleading as it really only talks about the political ramifications of the recent terror warnings issued for the New York/New Jersey areas. Please note that there SHOULD NOT BE political ramifications when it comes to terror warnings. They're terror warnings, for Pete's sake!

The third paragraph of the story starts, "The timing provided fuel for skeptics who have suggested Bush has purposely used home-land-security announcements to change the nation's conversation during times of unsettling news for his administration". Who are these skeptics? Journalists? Seattle Times Journalists? The rest of the piece explores this "important" question.

The eighth paragraph states, "But it is apparent they [Democrats] must do so carefully, for fear that any challenge of a safety provision could have a disastrous backlash if a terrorist attack occurs". This is patently false! But I suppose points must be given to the Times for at least "trying" to appear objective. The truth is that attacking Bush on his handling of terror has become a win/win for Kerry, Democrats and the liberal media. If there is no attack, well then, Bush must have issued the warnings to simply boost his campaign footing. If there is an attack (God forbid), I predict the presidency will be handed to Kerry on a silver platter as Bush will have failed at his (post 9/11) MOST IMPORTANT duty, that of protecting the American public. If there is an attack, we will NEVER hear the end of it from liberals.

These days, Bush truly can't win when it comes to the handling of terror. This is unrelated to the Times, but I was listening to a Democratic pundit on TV this weekend criticize Bush's handling of the terror alert warnings and this person was asked what Bush should have done differently. Now his answer was so telling, and it really captures the attitude of Democrats (and the Seattle Times) these days. He basically said ANYTHING Bush does will be wrong (I kid you not) because Bush has lost the trust of the American people. You can basically add the words "and I hate his guts" to that response. I told this story because this seems to perfectly fit the perspective the Seattle Times has when covering any Bush news. There seems to be a tendency to dismiss ANYTHING Bush says or does.

Which leads us beautifully to the next story on the next page, "Dangers From Terrorism are Scant Compared to Other Risks, Experts Say". It's unneccesary to review the story, the title says it all.

Now, please notice how really slick this is. In case you're STILL thinking that the terror warnings are real and not a Bush political ploy, wham!, the Times hits you with this on the next page, A9. Even IF they are real, the dangers of terrorism are really not that important. Again, the Seattle Times has given us another reason to ignore Bush!

I have written this many times (it's in my introduction on the top of this blog), the Seattle Times believes that any news regarding the war on terror somehow helps Bush. Therefore, the Times will attempt to downplay and even dismiss any terror related news. Unfortunately, it is a safe gamble for the Times, because as I stated before, if there is an attack, the political heat will be on Bush, not those who dismissed the threat.

I'm Mad As Hell.....

Today was one of those bias-packed issues of the Seattle Times. First, on page A7, we have the story, "McCain Criticizes Ad Attacking Kerry". As most of you news-hounds already know, John McCain has come out and condemned the ads Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have made regarding John Kerry's war service. First, I think it's important to note that the Times did not cover the SBVT organization until they had something negative to say about them. This PROVES that this story was newsworthy in the first place.

Also, the Times does what the Times does best, distort, and prints a quote of McCain's out of context and says, "I can't believe the President would pull such a cheap stunt". This implies that this was all the President's idea. Nowhere in the piece does it say that SBVT is not affiliated to the Republican party. And yet, the Times goes out of it's way to try and suggest an association by comparing this ad campaign to what it considers a similar campaign Bush had used against McCain in 1990. Very sneaky! I could be wrong, but I recall that when the Times did stories on Move-On.org, they DID remind us that this organization has no ties to the Democratic party. You would expect the same consideration, right?

And to top it all off, there is an inaccuracy in the story. I just sent this letter to the Times:

Dear Seattle Times:

McCain Criticizes Ad Attacking Kerry
There is an incorrect statement in that story. You state, "Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero". This is not a quote from an individual, this is the Times reporting on the story.

This is false. Gunner's Mate Steve Gardner served on Kerry's boat from Nov. - Jan. of Kerry's tour. He most certainly DOES NOT support Kerry.

I hope a retraction is forthcoming. I might add you didn't bother reporting on this story until you had something negative to say about the SBVT organization, proving it was, indeed newsworthy, however the Times simply did not want to cover it. Fine. It's your biased newspaper. But at least GET THE STORY RIGHT!

Sincerely,

Nicholas Tanner

Now, I know what you all are thinking: "Gee whiz Nick, this seems like an awful lot of bias for one day, right?" Actually, the Times is just getting started.
The Times puts "Fahrenheit 9/11" back in the spotlight on page A6 in the story, "Kerry Slams Bush's Actions on 9/11". Now this, my friends, is a non-story. I believe it is an outrage that the Times has turned that 5 minute interval after Bush was told about the attacks into an "issue" simply because of Moore's movie. You understand that the Seattle Times tried to completely ignore SBVT despite the fact that Kerry has made his Vietnam service the absolute CORNERSTONE of his campaign, and yet they have now focused on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE discussed in that stupid movie (Bin Laden/Bush ties, Saudi flights post 9/11, etc.)!

And wait, there's more! Why not throw in some Abu Ghraib for good measure? On page A9 we get a total rehash of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal in the story, "Interrogation Chief 'shocked' at Abuse". Come on, haven't we had enough of this one?

Do I seem mad? I actually am mad today. This is ridiculous. I actually thought that the Times was getting better lately, as the Republican convention approaches. Boy, oh boy, was I WRONG!

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth; Story MIA in Times

I just sent this letter to the Seattle Times. The letter says it all.

Dear Seattle Times Editors:

I have not seen any stories in the Seattle Times about the organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and any of the statements they have been making about Kerry (except for a negative reference in one of today's Op/Ed pieces). Unless it is buried in some other story (I admit I don't read every word of every story), I have seen no mention of it in the A sections of the Times.

This is patently unfair and reflects the blatant liberal bias of the Seattle Times. The Times has done several stories on "Fahrenheit 9/11", a movie that has proven inaccuracies regarding the Bush administration. The Times has done stories on Move-On.org, also a 527 political action organization. The Times reported on Seymour Hersh's charges that Rumsfeld authorized abusive interrogation techniques (despite the fact that he relied exclusively on anonymous sources). As Kerry may very possibly be the next president, this story is certainly newsworthy.

If a group of individuals got together and made disparaging statements about Bush's guard service, the Seattle Times would be all over it. Oh wait, I forgot, that already happened.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Tanner

Evil US Contractors Extort $1.9 Billion from Iraqis

Today's Seattle Times front-page headline is yet another text-book example of how the Times can present the news in such a way that subtly shades the story. The headline says, "$1.9 Billion in Iraqi Money Going to US Contractors". This story tells us simply that many US contractors involved in the rebuilding of Iraq were paid with proceeds from Iraqi oil sales. Big deal. In fact, I'm pleased that so much of the cost of rebuilding has been paid for by the Iraqis themselves.

But the fact that the very first word of the story is "Halliburton" tells you clearly the Times believes something fishy MUST be going on. This is reinforced by the fact that the story is front-page, above the fold with a big headline. This reminds me of the story the Times did about a month ago, "Bush Will Not Replace Cheney". By simply reporting the story as important news, certain conclusions will likely be drawn. In the case of the Iraq story, the Times is obviously suggesting some sort of impropriety on the part of the Bush administration.

As I stated above, I believe the fact that so much money came from Iraqi sources is clearly a good thing. In reading through the story, the Times states that there was little bidding before contracts were awarded. Also, the Times suggests that there was something wrong with the bulk of the contracts going to US firms (as opposed, for instance, to Iraqi companies). It seems to me that there was not time for a long bidding process as Iraq had a great many needs after the war. And as far as the companies being almost exclusively US, well, in the case of Halliburton, there just aren't a whole lot of companies that can do what they can do. Also, US occupation forces were certainly more comfortable doing business with US firms, many of whom they had likely done business with in the past. And lastly, what the heck is wrong with the victors of the war benefiting? US soldiers fought and died in Iraq, I frankly would be rather upset if French companies had made a bunch of money in rebuilding.

This story should be a small item in the Iraq digest section, not a headline. By presenting it in such a way, the Times is suggesting some sort of scandal or impropriety that does not exist. Though there does not appear to be any factual errors in the story, I believe this is clearly an example of liberal bias.

School Performance and Diversity

I'm frankly getting a little burned out on all the Kerry/Bush stuff in the Times. To be fair, now that the Democratic convention has concluded, the Times appears to be toning down it's campaign coverage. And after reading through today's A section, I didn't see anything that screamed bias.

But then I opened the Op/Ed section and saw The Newspaper's View piece "Beyond Race Toward Equally Good Schools", and I knew I had my topic for the day. Now, before I start in, I think I should state for the record that I believe what is said in "The Newspaper's View" column should be bias free (in an ideal world, that is). This column ideally should represent the collective view of the Seattle Times' staff, not an individual. Therefore, I would expect to see the views expressed represent the collective will of Seattle citizens and not contain extreme political ideology. I understand that the point of this section is for the Times to take a point of view and/or to make an argument, however when I see liberal bias entering the realm of the Newspaper's View, I will document it in this blog. I feel extreme liberal ideology has no place in a column intended to improve the lives of Seattle and it's citizens.

That being said, I truly believe the Seattle Times crossed that line with today's piece. Namely, my contention revolves around the notion of "diversity" and the great importance the Times places on the concept of diversity. The piece deals with the federal court's decision not to allow racial "tiebreakers" to be used, however, instead of laying the groundwork and making the case as to why diversity is important in the first place, the Seattle Times has written this piece assuming the reader also believe that the notion of diversity is very important. Certainly, no one questions the importance of a good education, but I for one certainly question the importance of diversity in achieving that good education. In fact, I tend to believe diversity is about the least important thing a school can provide it's students, and I have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise.

Now, of course, anytime someone like me writes something like this I am IMMEDIATELY branded as a racist by the liberal left. Unfortunately, it is this very fear of talking about this issue that has led to so many problems. Before I go on, I just want to say that I am not a racist or a bigot, in fact my best friend is gay. But I am not afraid to talk bluntly about race and the serious problems we face today. The Seattle Times, on the other hand, is consumed by fear and political correctness and therefore ultimately fails to get to the root of the real problem.

The piece starts, "Seattle's public schools should have a diverse student body excelling at quality schools." The Times reminds us all of the importance of diversity by saying, "This page ranks diversity in the public schools at the top of the priority list, alongside school quality". The Times goes on to basically suggest that the performance gaps between whites and blacks could be closed if diversity were made more of a priority. The Times states, "But the student achievement gap remains a troubling sign of the lack of quality and equality in our schools." Lack of equality?

This is the biggest cop-out I have ever seen. While schools are certainly important, factors such as family stability, family involvement, and peer-pressure in a child's education are far, far more important. But clearly, this is an area where the Seattle Times does not want to go. So they blame the problems on the school, stating that if blacks aren't doing well, then the school must be failing in a given area (diversity being just one of many).

Bill Cosby came the closest to identifying the real problems with the performance gaps we see today. It is such a pity he was vilified for it. In a nutshell, inner-city youth culture places virtually no importance on education. THAT'S THE PROBLEM, FOLKS! I'm not afraid to say it. You shouldn't be afraid to say it. And someday, I hope we hear the Seattle Times say it. Maybe then, we can begin addressing the real problems that will bring real change.

Heart of the Party: Sharpton Vs. Obama

Again, the Seattle Times is consumed with Democratic convention news, it begins with the huge front-page headline, "Kerry: 'We Can Do Better'". As I have said before, it is difficult to judge whether this heavy coverage can be considered liberal bias. Until the Republican convention is covered, I will not be able to reach any conclusions on the subject. I have been reassured personally by Times' staff that there will be equal coverage given to Republicans.

However, I suspect the coverage will be qualitatively different, if not quantitatively so. What do I mean by this? Unlike the glowing coverage given to the Democrats, I expect the Times to fall into it's old pattern of taking cheap shots at the Bush administration (see my June piece on "cheap shots" for a further explanation). For instance, expect to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" referenced from time to time, as well as a few Abu Ghraib references thrown in for good measure. This is the kind of bias the Times is FAMOUS for.

Anyway, instead of talking about today's paper, I want to share my perceptions of the Democratic convention, namely what stands out in my mind from the last four days.

First, it ain't John Kerry's speech. Well, one thing about that speech does stand out in my mind, and it actually has to do with the Seattle Times (you see how I can always tie everything back to the theme of this blog)! In Thursday's Op/Ed pages, there was a HILARIOUS political cartoon of Kerry giving his acceptance speech with a huge banner exclaiming "I served in Vietnam" as well as over-sized medals in the background, a swift-boat behind him, he is toting two M-16's, and (my favorite part) a huge knife in his mouth a la Rambo style. A reporter is speaking to a TV camera saying, "A theme is beginning to emerge, Dan...". It was funny when I saw it Thursday morning, it was DAMN funny after I heard Kerry's speech.

No, what ultimately came to define this convention for me was two speeches I heard from two African Americans, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. These two speeches were so different, it was hard to believe the two men belonged to the same political party, and therein lies the problem with the Democrats (well, one of the problems). Namely, the wacko fringes of the political left have now become mainstream Democratic ideology. The problem with this, of course, is that you get conflicting messages, and (more importantly) the likelihood that huge numbers of constituents will feel disenfranchised and may consider switching parties.

I have no doubt that Democratic party bosses were not happy about the prospect of letting Al Sharpton speak on national TV. If Bush was way ahead in the polls and there was not this unity-of-hate that seems to bind all Democrats, I guarantee Sharpton would not have been allowed to speak. But he did, and what he said was no surprise. I will get to his attacks on the President in a moment, but I thought one of his most telling lines was his now famous reference to the Civil War era promise of "forty acres and a mule". He said, "We didn't get the 40 acres. We didn't get the mule so we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us". This line is interesting because it speaks to the notion of government entitlements, and that extreme left-wing view that the government should provide all things for it's citizens. It's clear what Sharpton really means is, "riding this donkey as far as it would GIVE us". I mean, is anybody really still angry about not receiving their mule? Well, yes if you happen to believe that your lot in life is somehow due to the government, and you believe the government has an obligation to take good care of you. This type of rhetoric is not going to resonate, or perhaps even offend many hard working Democrats, many of whom believe they are taxed too much already.

Sharpton railed against the President with the tired claims that the decision to go to war was based on lies and distortions. He attacked the President's civil rights record claiming that Clarence Thomas would never have been allowed to go to law school had Bush been in power in the 50's. I'm a pretty even-tempered guy, but this was the one thing said throughout the entire convention that made me mad. In fact, it actually made me REAL mad. Like comparisons to Hitler, this falls under the category of loony, hate-filled accusations. What has Bush done (other than being a white male) to make Sharpton believe he would act in a bigoted manner if given the chance? Apparently, this imagined bigotry didn't stop Bush from elevating Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to their lofty positions of power. The point is, this type of rhetoric is likely going to inflame not just conservatives, but many moderate Democrats as well.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise smoky, choking affair. His positive, hope filled message inspired me and I must say I liked the guy. He also said something that I believe is so important, he said "black parents must eradicate the slander that a black youth with a book is acting white". Bravo! It takes guts to say this sort of thing (look how Bill Cosby has been vilified by the African American community). I don't believe I have ever spoken on this topic in my blog, but I have studied this my entire adult life. I believe that this country's BIGGEST social problems could be solved if education became the focus of ALL Americans. This would take a huge paradigm shift in the thinking of inner-city youth culture. But I'll tell you something, right here and now, if Barack Obama runs for President and promises to make this the cornerstone of his administration, Democrat or not, he has my vote.

It is truly difficult to say who better represents today's Democratic party, Sharpton or Obama. The Democrats would like to think it's Obama, but I believe just under that optimistic veneer we saw for four days, the angry, hate filled rhetoric of Sharpton better exemplifies what's in the heart of most Democrats. How these two faces reconcile with one another still remains to be seen.

Two Points for the Seattle Times

First off, I have the flu. It came from my 4 year old nephew at a family get-together. First my mom caught it, then I caught it, and as I write this my father is likely puking his guts out. Last night was NOT a good night for me, but today I feel well enough to write.

Anyway, enough about my personal problems. I had a staff person from the Times write to me in regards to my last posting. I had doubted the Times would give equal coverage to the Republican Convention. This person promised me that the Times would, indeed, give equal coverage. While that remains to be seen, I suppose the prudent thing to do is not to complain about the huge amount of coverage given to the Democratic Convention this week. As it truly is an important story (and an otherwise slow news-week) I will refrain from criticism until, of course, the Republican Convention starts.

So after reading through the Times, nothing else jumped out at me as particularly biased. In fact, I was very surprised to read today's "The Newspaper's View" in the Op/Ed section. The Times challenged John Kerry to explain where the money would come from for all his proposed programs including a $4,000 tax credit to pay for college, $5,000 tax credit for day care, tax credits for buying health care as well as several other programs. The Times is skeptical that, by simply repealing the tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 a year, there will be enough money to pay for these programs. Of course, the suggestion here is that either more tax hikes will be necessary or those programs will simply have to go by the way-side. Bravo to the Seattle Times for asking these kinds of extremely relevant questions. I hope we see more of this.

However, on the downside, I have noticed in the last few months fewer and fewer conservative Op/Ed pieces. I'm afraid I haven't been keeping any sort of tally so this is a very unscientific observation, but it seems to me that every day the Bush administration is attacked mercilessly in the Op/Ed pages with very few pro-Bush editorials. Four months ago there was always at least one conservative piece, at a minimum, every two days. This is certainly not the case now. If the Seattle Times was your only source of news (God help you!), you would get the impression that everyone in the country was now angry at George Bush. Could this be a plan?

The Seattle Times: Newspaper/Democratic Advertisement

As I am writing these words (about 7:30pm) Hillary Clinton is speaking at the Democratic Convention. My God, it's like fingernails on a chalk-board.

Anyway, that's not what I want to write about (oh, geez, she just introduced her husband and they're playing "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow", good God!), sorry, what I want to write about is today's Seattle Times. Half of the entire A section is taken up by the Democratic convention, it is one enormous political advertisement for John Kerry. I could go through every story, one by one, and pick them apart, but it would take thousands of words and more time than I have.

But, to give you an idea of the tenor of today's paper, the front-page headline (presumably the most important story of the day) is called, "McDermott Rides Fame as Democrats Get Started". The piece is about how Washington State House Representative Jim McDermott is apparently now a "big star" because of his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11". This story speaks volumes. First, is this REALLY the biggest news item of the day? I sincerely doubt it. Second, this story (like many others) illustrates the Times' cozy relationship with Moore's movie. As I said two days ago, the Times is going to keep the "buzz" going on this movie as long as it possibly can (right now, Bill Clinton is speaking and trying to create a new Kerry tag line "Send Me", I say "Gag Me").

It will be interesting to see how much the Times devotes to the Democratic convention the rest of this week. But, of course, the true test will be how the Seattle Times covers the Republican convention. Will they give equal coverage? I doubt it.

OK, I'm Confused (Again)

I had a very busy day today and I could not devote much time to reading the Sunday paper or writing in this blog. But, I did come across something and I have a question and I HONESTLY want someone to try and answer it. I don't really know how many, if any, folks read this blog but if someone could help decipher the following sentence, I would really appreciate it.

The sentence is in a piece on page A10 of today's Sunday paper called, "9/11 Commission discounts Conspiriacy Theories Regarding bin Laden Family's Departure". The story is about how the 9/11 Commission's report shows there was nothing improper about Saudi nationals leaving after 9/11. The Saudis (including members of the bin Laden family) were properly questioned and were allowed to leave AFTER the air traffic grounding had ended (seven days after the grounding had ended, in fact).

Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" is mentioned in the piece as Moore contends that the bin Laden family got some kind of "special treatment" from the Bush family. What's interesting about this story is that the author never says that Moore's film is in error or factually incorrect, just that the film and the 9/11 report seem to purport different things. I guess the author just wants to leave it up to the reader to decide who is telling the truth (the 9/11 Commission or Michael Moore).

Anyway, the question I have is regarding a statement made near the end of the piece by Moore's associate producer, Joanne Doroshow. Please read the following carefully: "Moore did not intend to suggest that the bin Ladens flew away while civilian flights were grounded, only that they left after the grounding occurred." Would someone PLEASE explain to me what the second part of that sentence means. Clearly, the Seattle Times must understand, otherwise they would not have printed the quote.

Perhaps this is the kind of logic that only liberals can comprehend.

Wait, Who Committed the Crime Here?

I don't mean to keep going on about this whole Sandy Berger affair, Zippergate, as it is being called by some. Frankly, I'm tired of the story and I'm ready to move on. But today's Seattle Times piece on the story on page A6 is so incredibly, monumentaly, stupendously biased I just HAVE to say something. It is truly the worst of several stories on the affair that over the course of five days have progressively gotten worse. Tomorrow's paper will no doubt suggest Bush resign or be impeached.

I suppose I should be pleased that more details of the theft have finally been printed in the Times; namely that Archive staff had suspected Berger of stealing documents in the past and they had devised a coding system to detect if anything went missing. But the Times even turns this clever, pro-active plan around to make it sound sinister. The fourth paragraph starts (and this is NOT a quote from an individual), "The notion of one of Washington's most respected foreign-policy figures being subjected to treatment that had at least a faint odor of a sting operation is a strange one."

A sting operation!?!?!? They were simply trying to enforce the rules and protect the documents. I guess the Seattle Times would have preferred that the Archive staff just turn a blind eye to the thefts and let Berger have all the documents he pleased. This is the only conclusion one can draw from the above statement based on the fact that the Times offers no alternative methodology for detecting the theft. Don't criticize a plan unless you have a better plan.

But this is only a warm-up for the attacks that follow later in the piece. Former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart said, "I think he feels a sense of injustice that after building a reputation as a tireless defender of his country that many Republicans would try to assassinate his character to pursue their own ends". I had to read that twice because I frankly just couldn't believe my eyes. How many times have Democrats attempted to assassinate Bush's character? Off the top of my head, I can think of his National Guard service record being attacked, prominent Democrats have compared him to Hitler, he has been characterized over and over again as dumb, Democrats claim he could have prevented 9/11, others claim he's a bible-thumping zealot, many believe he's in the pocket of big oil, and I could go on and on. Of course, the itty bitty difference that Mr. Lockhart appears to be forgetting is that Sandy Berger, unlike Bush, ACTUALLY COMMITTED A CRIME! Call me crazy, but I'd have to say that, yes, when a crime is committed by an individual, I do begin to question that individual's character. I know, I'm weird that way.

But the real heavy artillery is brought to bare towards the end of the piece when Mr. Lockhart utters those famous words that have come to symbolize every high-level scandal since Watergate, "I think it's time for them [the Bush Administration] to come clean, say WHAT THEY KNEW, [and] WHEN THEY KNEW IT...".

From reading this, it is now obvious to me that the focus of the story should now be on the Bush White House. Forget "Zippergate", this has now turned into "Leakergate". How dare we know about this story! We should have NEVER known about this story! I mean, this is completely different than Richard Clarke's leaks because he...no wait a minute....it's different because he's not reporting a crime...no, wait a second...

Now I'm confused. Who committed the crime here, again, I forgot? Oh, yeah. That's the idea.

Hurry! There's Still Time to See Moore's Film!

It is astounding the lengths the Seattle Times has gone to keep Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", in the headlines. Besides numerous pieces on the film itself, it is frequently referenced in political news story's. The one that really sticks out in my mind is a story from a couple weeks back about Dick Cheney's strengths and weaknesses from the standpoint of the upcoming election. In that piece, those Saudi flights that occurred just after 9/11 were brought up. What was so infuriating was that the Times referenced Moore's film, as though it were a credible news source, in relation to the flights. If there's one thing Moore's film is not, it's a credible news source.

But several weeks have now passed and it appears the Times is trying to keep the Fahrenheit 9/11 "buzz" alive. On page A5 of today's paper, we have the story, "Moore Film's Success Stirs GOP Unease". This is nothing more than an advertisement for the film, pure and simple.

It's a total fluff piece; there is absolutely nothing newsworthy as far as I can tell. Apparently, we Republicans are terrified of the film and the effect it will have on the upcoming elections in November. This is about the time it's due to comes out on video. Some polls are cited and the data shows that everyone and their dog "plans" on seeing the film eventually. And then there are quotes from moviegoers like, "Moore forces you to think about the role of oil in the politics of American life", blah, blah, blah.

Of course, what's missing from the piece is even a cursory discussion of the accuracy and truthfulness of the film's assertions. The ONLY hint of a reference to the truthfulness of the film comes in a quote from a women who says, "I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate....[but] I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect." Well then, it must all be true.

Bottom line, this is an extremely biased piece as there are only positive references to the film (unless you count the above quote as skepticism). If the Times was really fair and balanced, as it claims to be, there would be a least some mention of the proven falsehoods the film contains. The love affair the Seattle Times has with this movie is utterly transparent.

Berger Affair: Textbook Example of Bias

As I wrote Tuesday, the Seattle Times is trying the best it can to both minimize the significance of Sandy Berger's classified document theft, as well as attempt to shift the blame to the Bush administration. I challenge anyone who doubts that liberal bias exists at the Seattle Times to simply look at the coverage of this incident over the last three days.

Yesterday's story on page A4, "Berger Quits Kerry Role as Document Investigation Generates Political Fallout", is really just a repeat of Tuesday's story. We get more apologies and explanations as to why this was an "innocent" mistake. The second paragraph starts, "Berger expressed regret over the incident, which he called an 'honest mistake'." And there are a number of quotes from prominent individuals including Bill Clinton claiming Berger is innocent. Details of the crime itself are glossed over. I'll get back to that in a minute.

While Tuesday's story only hinted at a political motivation for making this issue public, yesterday's story was more overt. "'So is this about sandy Berger or is this about politics?' asked Sen. Barbara Mikuslki, D-Md."

Today, however, the Seattle Times let the Bush Administration have it with both barrels. On page A5, we get the story, "White House Criticized Over Berger Leak". This is truly terrible journalism, even for the Seattle Times. The story is simply accusations from the Kerry team that Bush was involved in leaking the story. There is absolutely no evidence to back this up. I'm sure the Times would defend itself by saying, "Hey, we're just reporting what Kerry's team is telling us", but this is NO EXCUSE for printing absolutely factless accusations. The Times should NEVER have printed this piece and I am forwarding this letter to the Times.

What the Times SHOULD have printed, however, is some more background on the crime itself. The New York Post reports:
After Berger's previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some disappeared, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case. . . . The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it. At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.

None of this information appears in any of the Seattle Times stories. The fact that Archive staff had suspected him of taking documents in the past is pretty damn relevant to the story, it seems to me. Instead of all those quotes from folks telling us what a wonderful guy Sandy Berger is, perhaps the Times could have included these key details.

I said it Tuesday and I'll say it again, had this happened to a Bush staffer, you can bet your bottom dollar the Times would have presented this story COMPLETELY differently. In fact, I have NO DOUBT there would be Democratic lawmakers (and perhaps the Seattle Times) calling on Bush to resign. I can just hear the mock outrage. Can't you?