Media Matters, New York Times, George W Bush, Bill Clinton

GOING TOO FAR?

Over Tabloid Bush Marriage Story, Lefties Attack NYT




For not jumping on a tabloid- originated story about a supposed Bush marriage "breakup", is the New York Times guilty of pro-Republican bias?

Despite a carefully- worded upfront qualifying statement, that's the baffling new assertion from anti-Bill O'Reilly website Media Matters For America.

For the tip, thanks to Radio Equalizer reader Joey Torres, who writes, "Media Matters has gone TOO FAR this time."

Where's the supposed bias? After a major recent New York Times piece detailing how marriage troubles might affect a future Clinton presidential run, the paper is wrong to ignore a report by supermarket tabloid the Globe indicating a serious breakdown between President Bush and the First Lady, claims Media Matters:

In his May 23 front-page article in The New York Times, staff writer Patrick Healy asserted that "[w]hen the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage" and how it "might affect Mrs. Clinton's possible bid for the presidency in 2008."

Healy offered no specific reasons for this purported interest among "prominent Democrats" aside from the amount of time the Clintons spent apart, a mention of a decade-old affair, and a reference to year-old "concern[]" over a "tabloid photograph showing Mr. Clinton leaving B.L.T. Steak in Midtown Manhattan late one night after dining with a group that included Belinda Stronach, a Canadian politician." Healy continued: "The two were among roughly a dozen people at a dinner, but it still was enough to fuel coverage in the gossip pages."

And here, they connect it to the Bush family:

Media Matters does not endorse the decision by The New York Times, NBC's Tim Russert, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, The Washington Post's David Broder, and countless other elite media figures to take their cues from tabloids like the Globe, or to pry into the personal lives of political figures. But if they are going to do so, we expect them to be consistent.

As it happens, the cover of the May 29 edition of the Globe contains another sensational headline about another high-profile political couple:

BUSH MARRIAGE BREAKUP!

EXCLUSIVE!

SEPARATE LIVES IN THE WHITE HOUSE

* Nasty fights
* Booze problems
* Laura urges counseling

On Pages 20 and 21, the Globe announces "Bush and Laura's 29-year marriage FALLS APART," adding: "They barely talk to each other," "[t]hey argue when they do speak," and "[s]he's afraid he'll hit the bottle." Quotes in the article attributed to "a longtime friend" include the assertion that "[w]hen the cameras aren't on, they have nothing to do with one another," and that "[f]or all practical purposes, they've broken up." The "family friend" continues: "After their last fight over booze, they just stopped talking -- period." The Globe's report that Laura Bush is concerned that President Bush may "hit the bottle" is reminiscent of a September 21, 2005, National Enquirer article about "Bush's booze crisis," which reported: "Faced with the biggest crisis of his political life, President Bush has hit the bottle again."

Media Matters wonders when we can expect The New York Times to assign a reporter to tally the number of nights the Bushes spend together and to conduct 50 interviews with Republicans to assess their interest in the state of the Bush marriage, or in President Bush's reported relapse -- and when it will run a 2,000-word front-page article on the topic. If it does so, we wonder if Broder will refer to the article as "anything but unsympathetic" to the Bushes.

Isn't the difference clear? Reports on the Clinton marriage have emerged from eyewitness sources over the course of many years.

The alleged Belinda Stronach affair is just one small element of the overall story regarding Bill Clinton's legendary womanizing. In the recent NYT piece, very little new information was reported, instead, it was primarily an assessment of how the Clinton's personal troubles could affect a future political contest.

Instead of treating tabloid reporting as legitimate, the NYT was looking at public perception of the Clintons. Over time, supermarket publications have certainly had a role in building it.

By comparison, this Bush "story" comes from one also-ran supermarket tabloid that placed it just above "Royal Scandal! Prince Harry's Steamy Party Pics" on the front cover.

Unless more reliable information emerges that makes it worth investigating, we shouldn't expect any reputable newspaper to devote increasingly- scarce resources to the matter.


ALSO TODAY: Happy fourth birthday to Powerline!

--- Legal victory for bloggers in confidential source case involving Apple Computer.

--- Can conservatives salvage what's left of the GOP? Captain Ed wonders.


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of your final purchases, are vital to supporting this site's efforts. Thanks again!