ABC Slants Soldiers’ Support for Presidential Candidates
By Deb Cupples on April 9, 2008 at 4:55 PM in ABC News, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Media, Media Bias, Obamedia, Soldiers/Veterans
Apparently, it’s media-bias week at BN-Politics. Some media outlets don’t even try to hide the fact that they’ve unofficially joined the Obama campaign. Some are more subtle: instead of worshiping Obama or trashing Hillary, they merely present or omit "facts" in a way that gives a vague impression.
Case in point: On Monday night, a segment on ABC News discussed which presidential candidate some soldiers in Iraq are supporting. The segment started with a soldier who supports Barack Obama then showed a few brief comments from other soldiers: as I recall, more than one support Obama, and more than one support Hillary.
Tuesday morning, ABC’s Internet version of the story gives a different impression.
On the first page of ABC’s two-page story, three Obama-supporting soldiers are mentioned. Anyone who’s too busy (or bored) to click onto the second page might get the false impression that none of the soldiers support Hillary Clinton.
Those who click to the second page would see mention of only one soldier who supports Hillary (though last night’s video shows two or three). To see honorable mention of Hillary, one must go half way down the second page.
The final words of the article are another pro-Obama statement:
“When asked if he was concerned about criticism that Obama had less political experience than some of the other candidates, the battle-weary soldier replied, ‘No, I think being a decent leader doesn’t have to do anything with experience much.’” (ABC)
At one point, interviewer Martha Raddatz asked a soldier why he supports Obama. He said that Obama wants to stop the war. Raddatz added:
"He wants to pull out of Iraq right away." (ABC video)
Perhaps Ms. Raddatz hadn’t heard that Obama’s ex-foreign policy adviser Samantha Power had told British media that Obama wasn’t even committed to the withdraw-in-16-months plan that he has discussed during the campaign.
Perhaps Ms. Raddatz simply defines "right away" differently than many of her fellow English speakers.
Perhaps Ms. Raddatz hadn’t heard that Obama’s response to the uproar over Ms. Power’s statement was to affirm what Ms. Power had said.
The campaigning of Raddatz (or an ABC editor) is subtle, to be sure — not anywhere near MSNBC’s overt, pro-Obama or anti-Hillary campaigning.
But whoever edited ABC’s Internet article certainly does leave out and re-organize some of the "facts" that were in last night’s video.
Memeorandum has commentary.
_____________________________
Originally posted at Buck Naked Politics.
_____________________________
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Media Bias Bigger than Presidential Race: Smack Down Overdue
* Anti-Media Bias Protest in NYC this Friday
* Who checks the Fact Checkers? Media’s Clinton Story Revealed
* Studies Show Pro-Obama (or Anti-Hillary) Media Bias
* The Media & Obama: Good Intentions Paving Rough Road
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Sorry for the slightly OT, but now even the astrologers are piling on Hillary:
False Attacks: Hillary Clinton and the Astrology of Victimhood
SusanUnPc
Hi!
I’ve lurked around here ant TM’s blog for some time without feeling able to post. Your post about the astrologer caught my eye.
Not all astrologers are anti-Hillary. I’m not a professional, but I try to keep HRC’s end up when I can.
Also this astrologer blogger is fairly pro-Hillary, and reasonable in his view
http://modernvedicastrology.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillarys-back-to-wall.html
We Clinton supporters are everywhere!
Ugh, I used to love that site because it gave me confidence. I know, it’s silly, I don’t even really believe in astrology, but the guy just seemed SO confident…that has now changed:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8221366&postID=2277165104814792408
But I will not give up.
I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you!
Oh you. What’s goin’ on? Did you just fall off the proverbial turnip truck?
LOL.
The ABC story doesn’t show how many soldiers were interviewed either.
For all we know, they interviewed 15 and the first 10 were Nader supporters.
off topic but I want to post this:
if you are not convinced that Pelosi is in the tank for Obama, check this out. All are in Pelosi’s district.
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/
Fun hah. The fix is in.
I am not sure the reason why ABC is being so incomplete in their coverage. Assuming that ABC is being deliberately deceptive is not possible based on the evidence presented.
However, I thought it was worth mentioning another point of view. As a active duty officer, here is my insight. It is very unpopular to be a service member who supports Hillary, this can even lead to ridicule. The military tends to recruit like minded individuals, and tends to lean conservative.
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2007activepoll_politics.php
Politics is not something that is often discussed freely in the military for various reasons. As an officer, it is unethical for me to discuss my political beliefs with subordinates to avoid any undue “command influence.”
With those disclaimers, I find it very believable that service members who are asked openly who they support will likely lean more towards Obama or McCain as compared to Hillary. She is very unpopular with a large majority in the military ranks. Of course this is an unscientific observation, but so is this blog’s critique of the ABC alleged deception.
God..Yep..This is more good exposure..Sure…Its manipulation..why are they running the story..American troops know better than to endorse a candidate..FACT is…GWB…put them there..McCain wants to keep hem there indcefinately..Thiewr sense of Duty is being abused..they need to come home..and we need a new Plan..hillary assured taht she would find ways to start Bring troops home..managing the war in a way that would be considerate of our Military..and thier needs..and Reorganize..
Was sdomeone ordered to do tape on troops supporting obama..??
Lets remember that 32 Flag Officers ENDORSE HILLARY
Patrick, how many of the 32 flag officers endorsing Hillary were appointed while her husband was in office? (just for full disclosure). I am willing to bet a fair percentage where because active duty Flag officers would NEVER endorse a candidate, which means they should all be retired.
Also, what % is 32? 32, is that a big number, small number, what does it mean? Last I checked there were literally hundreds of retired Flag Officers in American. Without some context, one might consider it to be a deceptive statement designed to imply that a larger % of flag officers support Hillary than reality.
They are all retired, otherwise they would be in violation of the UCMJ
Hillary has been endorsed by 32 flag officers. That is a fact. There is absolutely nothing deceptive in that statement, despite your effort to spin it that way.
If you want “context,” ask how many have endorsed her opponent.
Yes, and I think that Obama has, at best, about seven or eight retired flag officers endorsing him. Clinton has at least four times as many endorsing her.
Including Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the joint chiefs … and Taguba, whose career was ruined after he stood up to Donald Rumsfeld by doing his job of preparing an honest report on Abu Ghraib. (And Taguba, in his endorsement, said specifically that he was moved to endorse her because of her clear opposition to the use of torture.)
myiq and Susan,
Comparing 32 for Hillary and 7-8 or for Obama does do a much better job of putting the statement in context, thanks. I still would like to know how many of the 32 were appointed under her husband, I think that is a potential bias worth mentioning. Both GEN Shelton and MG Tagubu were appointed as flag officers while Clinton was in office. I respect both of them, but the potential bias should be stated.
ABC has always been after Hillary just check out the Political Punch blog, that man Jake looks like he eats, sleeps and drink Hillary. It does not have a day that he is not putting up some dirt on her. I really don’t know what he has with her but for every discussion blog he starts I bet there and three against the Clinton’s and maybe one at times on Obama.
Give me a break - again, because you disagree w/ how ABC lined up the quotes… you’ve decided that the story unfairly gives the impression that none of the soldiers quoted support Hillary. Yet, as you note - the story does in fact include Hillary supporters?
What, sending comments to the editor is not enough? That’s right, this fits in w/ the whole “media bias” meme - which I’ve alreayd acknowledged there’s nothing wrong with it - but I find it amazing that you only can support and report things that reflect and magnify your own biased views of things… You know the whole “private club” concept.
Kevin,
What are you, a masochist? Every damn time you come onto this site and complain about how pathetic, stupid, or crazy we are. Why then don’t you leave?
What great sin have they committed in pointing out how ABC has given the impression more soldiers support Obama than Clinton? The media does it all the time. It’s sloppy journalism–at best.
You ought to know about Private Clubs Kevin..you and Cee..”See..See” Hussein..If this was a private Club…You would have been Banished a long time ago..You are lucky..Larry actally likes you..
I don’t know why..but..maybe He thinks you can be saved..
Actually I was initially and Susan and Larry had a little talk about it sport. What’s your point realted directly to the content of my poste, since you haven’t made one actually?
If the Obamedia actually had any shame i would call what they do shameful. But what they do definitely skirts the truth in such a manner as to come across severely biased.
The soldier quoted in this story probably should come home right anyway. He has one of those brain trauma injuries. That’s for certain.
Guess Reuters is biased too, just like ABC, NBC, CNN,and everybody else…
Traders bet Obama will win Democratic nomination
Tue Apr 8, 2008 8:03pm EDT powered by Sphere
By David Alexander
EXCERPT See http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0835754620080409?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Reporting opinion isn’t biased. You know that. You’re just trying to stir people up. What nonsense.
And if you honestly think that the media–as a whole–are not biased against Clinton than what the hell is your definition of bias?
Soldier support doesn’t even seem to be equally divided among the Democratic candidates to me. Hillary gets the lion’s share of soldier support where I live. Some of the soldiers who were talking Obama were mostly conservative and now that McCain is the Republican nominee they have ceased to talk of Obama and are now waiting for the general election where they will cast their vote for McCain.