Ever Doubt Bias in Mainsteam Media?

1 minute read

Now you can’t. I read this out of CNN:

During the committee hearings, Boxer said the Bush administration had changed its rationale for the Iraq war from eradicating weapons of mass destruction after no such weapons were found.

In response, Rice asked Boxer to “refrain from impugning my integrity.”

That sounds pretty damning for Rice. It also seems very clear cut that she was avoiding a question. However, it doesn’t seem so when we examine the actual question posed (or at least what appears to be what Rice was responding to).

When Senator Voinovich mentioned the issue of tsunami relief, you said — your first words were The tsunami was a wonderful opportunity for us. Now, the tsunami was one of the worst tragedies of our lifetime, one of the worst, and it’s going to have a 10-year impact on rebuilding that area. I was very disappointed in your statement. I think you blew the opportunity. You mentioned it as part of one sentence. And I would hope to work with you on this, because children are suffering; we’re worried they’re going to get in the sex trade. This thing is a disaster — a true natural disaster and a human disaster of great proportions.

Note, according to the transcript, Rice said no such thing. Also worthy of note is that Boxer didn’t so much as interview Rice as lecture her for untold minutes. According to Word, the speech leading up to Rice’s initial response was 2,109 words long. My application essay to U-Mass was capped at a fourth of that. Rice’s response wasn’t limited to that simple phrase either. It was 626 words long.

If CNN’s misleading, oversimplified version of Boxer and Rice’s extended exchange isn’t bias, I don’t know what is. Before you make any decisions about Rice’s answers, read the transcript. It paints quite a different picture than the one that Boxer has been trotting in front of the media.