I always find it interesting to note the obvious bias of some reporting. I mean, at it’s foundation it’s no body’s fault, really, it’s simply human nature to write based upon your own observations and conclusions, all shaped by your own personal views and opinions. But the media likes to hype itself as impartial and delivering the straight facts, no bias here, nope.

So, yeah, it’s neat when it’s right there smacking you in the face.

Let’s go back to this past Friday, May 24th.

The Washington Post reported:

White House-Enron Ties Detailed

Papers Show Aides Seeking to Limit Bankruptcy’s Damage

On the same issue, the Washington Times said:

White House Aids Weighed Enron End

No action taken to save failing firm

This is all just going on the headlines, but it seems the Post wants to highlight what the administration tried to do to help Enron while the Times wants to focus on what the administration didn’t do.

But they focus on different aspects.

The Washington Post speaks of the public relations push for damage control on the eve of Enron’s bankrupcy more than anything, but also spends time on all of the administration’s efforts to help Enron while giving only one line that reflects well on the White House:

Nothing in the report refutes the White House’s contention that no official did anything or suggested doing anything to bail out Enron.

It’s almost as if they’re grudgingly giving the administration that much.

Ultimately, the Post is trying to convey that the Bush administration was closer to Enron than they admit, a stance that could greatly help the Democratic party come November as they try to find something, ANYTHING to make a significant dent in President Bush’s popularity.

The Washington Times, on the other hand, wants the world to see that, yeah, sure Bush knew Kenneth Lay and other Enron folks, but the administration wasn’t run by them. They take what the Post gave one sentence and write their whole article on it. Though, the times does point out:

Mr. Lay had more luck getting the White House to look favorably on nominees he supported for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the principal regulator of Enron’s natural gas pipelines and energy trading activities, the documents show.

Mr. Bush not only appointed Mr. Lay’s top choice, Pat Wood, as chairman, but he also heeded the Enron founder’s advice in appointing a second commissioner, Nora Brownell.

But they’re very quick to also say:

Even so, within weeks of joining the commission, the Bush appointees voted to put caps on wholesale power prices in California, defying Enron’s wishes and dealing the company a third major blow.

All of this comes “according to a chronology the White House provided to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) on Wednesday evening after he subpoenaed the White House for a broader array of Enron-related documents” says the Post and “documents, released hours after the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee issued subpoenas for the information Wednesday, [that] show the White House was aware of the damage that might come from the demise of the nation’s biggest energy trader and seventh-largest corporation” according to the Times.

It’s amazing that two papers can find two completely different stories from the same source.

But, who’s right?

Both of them are, and while they are reporting the news, neither paper is giving you the full story. It’s all about focus and spin, something that everyone does in their own little way.

This is a case of seeing and hearing what you want and ignoring anything that might get in the way or your point. The Devil is in the details, so let’s leave that part out.

In doing so, are these papers doing a disservice to their readers? Overall, hells yeah. They’re misleading, presenting their own opinion and their own news and that’s all you’re going to get. It’s half truths that ignore the whole truth.

But, I say overall and not definite because, well, look at the reason people read one paper over the other. And it’s more about the Times here, so I’ll focus on that as my example.

The Washington Times is pretty damn conservative, perhaps one of the finest examples of yellow journalism and sensationalism this side of tabloids. But it gets plenty of readers becase it’s conservative, it’s not the liberal drivel it’s readers could get anywhere else (in their opinion). They buy the Times because of it’s conservative slant, because they’re going to hear what they want to hear, yea, Right! Their readers are pleased as punch but they’re doing a public disservice by isolating the facts to make it seem like the big, bad Democrats are out to get Bush43.

The Washington Post isn’t in the same boat, though. It’s a larger paper, more widely read world wide and therefore held to a slightly higher standard by the public at large. Hell, everyone knows the Times is a rag, it admits that it’s biased. The Post still attempts to present an air of neutrality, and being an older, more esteemed paper, and it must strive to keep up that premise.

So, the Post fails it’s readers more than the Times because many of its readers read it because they believe that they’re neutral and that the Post is the best source for even coverage.

What they are both saying, and no matter how hard the Times tries to downplay it, is that the Bush administration was a little more involved with Enron than it is telling us. It’s just simply a matter of how they present that association. One says it was nothing, the other says there was more than you think.

Either way, they’re both not giving their readers the full picture.

May 29th, 2002 at 12:25 pm | Tags: Uncategorized