I need some help replying to Eason Jordan at CNN

As some may know, i sent an email to CNN today regarding their coverage of Kerry's speech, and received a reply from Eason Jordan stating "there is no anti-Kerry bias at CNN."

I will be sending him (tomorrow) a lengthy response stating why I believe this is an untrue statement. There are many shadings and slightings of Kerry - I have several examples - but I'm sure I've missed several more.

If anyone out there has actual examples of bias towards Kerry, or to Dems in general (panel discussions, commentator responses, etc) PLEASE put them in this post, and I'll try and work them into the response.

I'll post the response letter tomorrow, after I finish it.

Thanks everyone!

DB

they are biased. I would also ask them to put that up as a poll.

Kerry. Isn't that just parroting Repug talking points? Then tell him to go cheney himself

That's a perfect example.

Mediamatters.org is an excellent source:

"Woodruff and Gergen agree: Bush may not have a plan for Iraq, but that's Kerry's problem" http://mediamatters.org/items/200409160003

and

"Media obsesses over CBS documents, ignores uncontested evidence that Bush didn't meet his Guard obligations" http://mediamatters.org/items/200409150002

and

"Woodruff fell for Bush spin about honorable discharge" Woodruff fell for Bush spin about honorable discharge" http://mediamatters.org/items/200409080010



"CNN's Blitzer continued to rely on irrelevant honorable discharge to suggest Bush didn't skip out on Guard duty" http://mediamatters.org/items/200409110001

"CNN's Schneider referred to Kerry response as 'name-calling'" http://mediamatters.org/items/200409030017

cover the forgery aspect but not the content?

and who was arrested for standing outside Laura Bush's talk speaking to reporters.

Ask them why that scumbag traitor works there.

most of the on-air "talent" and newswriters there. If so, tell him to ask each of them confidentially whom they would like to see win the election. I think most will say Bush, if they really trust him. And if they say Kerry, whether they ever feel any pressure to make sure they are "balanced" on the air or in their writing--as opposed to truthful. There is no way that these shared views do not influence what is said on the air, consciously or unconsciously, as evidenced by the FAIR and other organizations' studies.

Ask him what steps CNN takes to make sure that the politics of the people they hire are representative of that of the American people? (the answer is of course none) And how much training the staff receives on how to ensure they are being fair and telling the truth? How many hours do they spend reviewing material each week to ensure fairness and truthfulness?

I see it as more of a "pro-Bush" bias myself.

Woodruff and Gergen agree: Bush may not have a plan for Iraq, but that's Kerry's problem


http://mediamatters.org/items/200409160003


On September 15, CNN host Judy Woodruff and pundit David Gergen both suggested that, while President George W. Bush appears to lack a clear plan for Iraq, the Iraq situation is more of a problem for Senator John Kerry than it is for Bush.


Gergen is a U.S. News & World Report editor-at-large and a former adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.


Woodruff and Gergen -- appearing on separate CNN programs -- stipulated that Bush has no clear plan for Iraq, but then both made a curious leap of logic. Apparently ignoring Bush's responsibility for the U.S. war in Iraq -- and his attendant responsibility for creating a climate in which terrorism can thrive, where civil war is a possibility, and where conditions for Iraqis and coalition troops alike are generally disastrous -- they chose to emphasize instead what they consider Kerry's "weakness" on Iraq.


On CNN's Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics, Woodruff reported that only 17 percent of persuadable voters think Bush has a "clear plan" for Iraq. She then added, "And the numbers are no better for John Kerry. But that's more of a worry for Kerry, isn't it?"


Appearing as a guest on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Gergen extensively criticized Kerry's position on Iraq, saying: "is rhetoric and his votes on Iraq have struck many, many voters as being incoherent, and they don't understand what he thinks about Iraq or what he thinks ought to happen in the future, and I think the absence of a framework for a -- the war on terrorism and what to do about Iraq is coming back to plague this campaign. ... He needs a strategy for the war on terrorism, and it has to include Iraq."


When Dobbs asked if Gergen had a "clear understanding of the Bush administration's strategy on Iraq," Gergen admitted: "No. And you've got a good point there." But Gergen then claimed that Bush is "clearer about his overall strategy" and is "at least clear about what he wants to create at least as a stable Iraq and, hopefully, a Democratic Iraq." As though Kerry doesn't want a "stable Iraq" -- and as though Bush's hope counts as an "overall strategy."