Mark Halperin, ABC News’ political director, in an interview by Hugh Hewitt, wants consumers to judge the news media solely on their results, but is unwilling to provide the information necessary to evaluate. Give your MP3 player a break from music to listen to the three-hour interview (it’s shorter without the ads).
If you liked this post, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Additional info on subscribing can be found here. Thanks for visiting!
All posts
During Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Mark Halperin, Political Director of ABC News, Mr. Halperin repeatedly asserts that as long as he refuses to answer “litmus test” questions, his political leanings will remain unknown.
However, political positions are apparent from much more than answers to specific questions. Emotion, vocabulary, nuance, emphasis, context, omission, selection, timing, and numerous other variables can be equally dispositive.
Mr. Halperin asserts that his infamous pro-Kerry anti-Bush memo during the 2004 campaign was objective, and that its seeming bias was purely an artifact of timing: He claims that he wrote it at a time when, to him, the exaggerations and distortions of the Bushies were much more egregious and “central” than those of the Kerry-ites. He then added that, two weeks after he wrote his memo, the Kerry campaign produced propaganda which, in Mr. Halperin’s judgment, equalled or exceeded in significance that from the President’s campaign. He implied that had he written a memo at that time, he would have implored his media colleagues to “truth squad” (his verb) the Kerry campaign more than Bush’s.
But he did not write a second memo at this time. Therefore, his claim to ojectivity is false and his bias laid bare.
Quod erat demonstrandum (QED).
Mark Halparin wants us to believe that his opinions don’t cloud the objectivity of his reporting, but also that he doesn’t even have opinions in some cases. One prime example:
How could you not have an opinion on your father’s political views, especially if you’ve gone into the business of reporting on politics?
Unconvincing dissembling.