February 10, 2003
60 Minutes is Biased!
And in other news, scientists in a dramatic new study discover that bears defecate in the woods. Glenn is a bit peeved at the fact that 60 minutes butchered the Ballistic fingerprinting story, and ignored the study that shows that ballistic fingerprinting won't work. Frankly, while I can understand why he would be peeved that 60 minutes' reporting hopelessly biased, I can't believe he'd be surprised by that fact. Don Hewitt's gang has been doing biased and shoddy reporting for quite some time, and has an admirable record of abysmal reporting, poor fact checking, and the kind of journalism one could expect from an underground newspaper.
First of all(not really first, just something that sticks in my craw), there was the Audi 5000 fiasco. National Review reported on this, as has the Wall Street Journal, and others. I owned an Audi 5000, and I can say flat out the story was completely false. I even did my own test, by putting my foot on the brake, then putting my foot on the gas while the car was in drive. The car didn't move an inch. I did the same test in my current car, which has double the torque. Same result. The story is basically libelous.
Second, there is the Lewinsky that Don Hewitt and Morley Safer gave the two Texas Democrats running for Senate and Governor. The use of Molly Ivins as a political centrist was the French tickler of the Democratic lovefest that was going on. I've seen campaign ads that were more balanced than that piece(which aired the Sunday before the election)
Finally, there was the story on South Korea yesterday. By the gist of the story, you would get the impression that all of South Korea wanted the United States to leave the country. However, that flies in the face of the fact that there have been a number of pro-American demonstrations, one a month ago, another today. One might think they might do some research, and find that most anti-American protests are organized mainly by campus radicals. However, they didn't bother. They could have bothered to do a Google search and find this, but they didn't. They could have spent some time browsing lucianne.com, like I did, and find the story this morning, but they didn't.
So am I peeved that 60 minutes did a lousy job of reporting again? Yes. Does it surprise me? No. Watching 60 minutes is like viewing a live-action Robert Fisk article. One is amazed that so much idiocy can be compressed into such a small screen.
Update: Edited a tad.
Posted by John Bono at February 10, 2003 12:09 AM | TrackBackI learned a phrase about the time 60 Minutes first aired. It was "yellow journalism". It was nice to see such a perfect rendering of a concept to cement its meaning in my mind. I too am surprised that the Perfesser acted surprised about it.
Don't forget the Alar apple or the cranberry scares.
Posted by: on February 10, 2003 02:08 PMI am so tired of getting breathless blurbs while watching Sunday afternoon sports on CBS, written by Hewitt himself, about some "penetrating expose" he plans to air that night.
I don't care what Don Hewitt, or any of the other sclerotic, earring wearing, self-important trendoids on the 60 Minutes crew, think. I am over it already! Enough. Let's close this chapter of American journalistic history and move on to a new form, one that engages the American people as equals, rather than as empty-headed receptacles whose sole job is to mindlessly munch on whatever liberal bug Don Hewitt has up his ass that particular week.
Posted by: Worth Colliton on February 10, 2003 02:10 PMOh, and how 'bout the "M-1 Tank will never work in a desert environment!" story? Yeah, that was some spot-on reporting, eh?
Posted by: BrewingFrog on February 10, 2003 02:12 PMYou guys miss Hewitt's most biased effort, he was the producer of the Nixon-Kennedy debates. Every chance he had to show Nixon in a bad light (which incidentally, he was responsible for, or showing a unfavorable mannerism) he made the most of. Remember if you listen to the debate, you thought Nixon won, if you watched it Kennedy came off better.
Posted by: ed on February 10, 2003 03:35 PMThe problem with the media is the air of infaliablity and impartiality that they report their stories with. It's always been my impression that every time I read a story in a paper about a topic about which I'm personally aquainted. That they get it wrong in at least one major particular and often present it in such a manor as to present an obvious bias to anyone who understands the story.
Posted by: Mark Smith on February 10, 2003 03:40 PMSecond Mark Smith's comment. The problem is, they're not smart enough, and don't know enough, to do the job as they define it.
Another biased 60 Minutes story was on the TVA some years ago.
Posted by: Stephen M. St. Onge on February 10, 2003 05:57 PMThe only good thing (and that is a terrible way to put it) I pulled from the parts of 60 Minutes I watched was the interview with the US military's chief of staff in South Korea. When asked how he felt about the South Korean demonstrators burning American flags, insulting them, and vandalizing/attacking the military compounds...I'll never forget how his eyes slowly watered and his voice choked up as he tried to find a diplomatic way to explain his feelings. It's a good thing, only because I'm glad to be reminded we have people out there who truely care, no matter how viciously they are opposed.
It's no surprise to learn how low the US's opinion of South Korea is.
Posted by: Charles Hueter on February 10, 2003 06:19 PMYeah, unfortunately, this post is spot on. With the average age of Sunday's Hour of Power on-air talent tilting well past 65 now, one wonders if senility may play a role in the sad demise of this once proud journalistic institution, now running on fumes.
As demonstrated by the recent piece on South Korea.
Yes, we hear the complaints and concerns of the young people there, too young to know what came before but not yet old enough to understand how easily it could all happen again. But after giving us the setup (and with little or no counterpoint from the older generation who knows better), the show stops short of asking the $64K question: WHY do you trust Kim Jung-Il more than you trust George Bush? Such a simple question. The fact that it was not asked speaks volumes.
Sad, really sad.
Posted by: wbb on February 10, 2003 11:06 PMProblem is that the media has gone from just reporting the news to filling up airspace and column inches with also characterizing the news, i.e. this is what it all means. The result being editorializing under the guise of making objective observations.
Posted by: CharlesWT on February 11, 2003 11:58 AM
