http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/08/20/karl-rove-rupert-murdoch-and-media-biasKarl Rove, Rupert Murdoch and Media BiasAugust 20th, 2009
Guest Column
by Rep. John Conyers
In the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove says that I — and others — owe him an apology for allegations that have been made about him during the course of the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the dismissal of United States Attorneys and related issues about the politicization of the Department of Justice.
Mr. Rove’s self-serving assertions on this subject are simply inconsistent with the documents that the Judiciary Committee recently released and his claims have been discredited by the analysis of the documents and reporting on these matters by credible news outlets across the country. Anyone interested in the truth can read the documents for themselves (here) or the reporting on these matters from the top papers in the U.S. — The Washington Post (here) and The New York Times (here) — as well as alternative, independent news sites such as The Locust Fork News-Journal (here).
Mr. Rove’s points are largely a repeat of his prior discredited statements, and the purpose of this post is not to rehash Mr. Rove’s rehash.
What may be of broader interest is the apparent editorial decision of the Wall Street Journal to prominently feature Mr. Rove’s self-serving assertions in its editorial pages, while burying and redacting the original story documenting the facts contained in these documents in the news pages.
On the day after the documents were released, the Journal’s print edition relegated the story to its “News in Brief” section, running an item of six sentences — 193 words (by way of contrast, the next story in the same section about a college basketball coach impregnating a woman was eight paragraphs and 248 words).
Nothing in the Journal’s print coverage of the Committee’s release quotes from any of the documents or from any Democrat or investigator about the specific evidence contained therein, even though the Journal used its apparently precious space to report that the Justice Department and White House declined to comment. (To be fair to the reporter, a longer piece appeared in the online edition).
At the same time, the print piece helpfully includes Mr. Rove’s full day-is-night quote asserting that the documents “show politics played no role in the Bush administration’s removal of U.S. attorneys” and other false assertions. And — in lieu of any quotes — it includes the assertion (also helpful to Mr. Rove) that “it remains far from certain whether the… documents released… contain information that would help prosecutors” without any further support or explanation, while omitting the reporter’s online analysis of the numerous specific documents and facts that, in the reporter’s words posted only online “appeared to bolster allegations that David Iglesias . . . was fired for partisan reasons.”
MORE
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
