What Mark Halperin Really Thinks

Poynter Online - Mark Halperin and the Political Herd

Judging from Mr. Halperin's statements at the Harvard Institute of Politics in September, 2003, it's not difficult to understand why he would be biased against President Bush. Afterall, in Halperin's opinion, Bush has had it far too easy as regards press coverage, particularly as opposed to former President Clinton who was, in Halperin's view, held to "way too high a standard — (his) coverage was way too tough." He added that the ex-president "doesn't have a clue" about the media.

One can only picture an extremely media savvy Clinton laughing his way to recovery from his recent procedure were he to read that line right now.

It isn't too far a hop to draw the conclusion that he'd think it appropriate to help the Kerry campaign along.

He said a great weakness of political reporters is their unwillingness to let presidential candidates "grow and change" as they campaign for nomination. "Give them a chance."

It's incredibly ironic that just a week ago I was working on a posting to point out the significant bias I saw in ABC's the note. After the thing became too large to be practical (I was only addressing one day's coverage and it was already several pages long when I stopped) I left it to move on to something else. Now I understand ... they were / are only trying to help Kerry "grow." What about the notion that the American people might want an already "grown" president, as opposed to someone who needs the media's help to struggle through? I wonder, is Mr. Halperin planning on moving into the Whitehouse so that when it comes time to make a serious decision that could impact millions of lives he can be there to help Kerry "grow" through that experience, too? If Mr. Halperin's sense of his journalistic duty isn't the hallmark of liberal thinking, nothing is. In Halperin's world he is, apparently, the commissioner of affirmative action.

He said, "One of the biggest changes in the last two years is that Republicans used correctly to believe that the press was liberally biased. Now, the Democrats believe the press is biased against them."

If I read that correctly what Mr. Halperin is saying is that Republicans are right to feel the media is against them ... and that seems just fine with him.

Halperin, who covered Bill Clinton's presidential campaign and first 20 months in office, said Clinton was held to "way too high a standard — coverage was way too tough." He added that the ex-president "doesn't have a clue" about the media.

By contrast, he said, "Coverage of Bush has been disgraceful, weak by any objective standard. Bush is really smart about the media — a genius." As an example, he cited his preference for photo ops to full-length press conferences.

With photo ops, Halperin said, Bush can avoid follow-up and "gotcha" questions by leaving when he gets a tough query.

One can only wonder what further study of Mr. Halperin's views might reveal. From the current memo controversy and this address at Harvard, it is becoming increasingly difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt as regards his professed "objectivity." Here's an interesting list of the media he believes gets it right ... or is that "left." Though, to be fair, he does cite the WSJ. Still it's hardly a balanced group in my opinion.

Halperin said that only his own network, The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times completely succeed at what he called journalism's "core mission": to hold public figures accountable and to explain events' real meaning. He gave "half credit" to CNN and the Boston Globe and said that the rest of the media has succumbed to the pressure to make money.

Comments

[Terry Gain]

Way to go Dan. This is another great post. You are starting to be picked up by more and more blogs. Now get to work on that name change . How about a sub nom in the interim,.

The Carnivorous Conservative- a blog with an appetite for the truth

Best Regards.