I have heard for a long time about the liberal bias of the New York Times. All week I've been searching for some grand irrefutable example, and I haven't been able to find it; except for on the editorial page. But editorials are not bias. Editorials are opinion. Bias implies something more subtle.
The Times has high professional standards. It monitors itself closely, most of the time. Its reporters do a good job of masking their political opinions. However, in coverage of the White House, the mask perhaps sometimes slips.
For subtle evidence of bias, I am examining an article in the New York Times for Wednesday, September 20th, entitled : White House Drops a Condition on Interrogation Bill
In the lede graf:
Seeking a deal with Senate Republicans on the rules governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects, the White House has dropped its insistence on redefining the obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions, members of Congress and aides said Tuesday.
The word "insistence" stood out to me because it seems to connote a petulant and tyrannical temperment. It seems that "redefining the obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions" is a pretty serious matter to "insist" upon. Also, I thought the debate was about "clarifying" the language of an article of the Geneva Conventions, not necessarily "redefining".
In this case, "clarifying" means "interpreting", and certain Senate Republicans are wary of setting a precedent whereby other countries can justifiably "interpret" the Geneva Conventions in different ways. The president is apparently conceding to this reasonable point of view. It's a complicated issue and there are shades of gray. But in the Times opening paragraph, it is over simplified, perhaps necessarily.
Later in the article, the Times quotes Repulican Senator from Alabama, and Bush supporter, Jeff Sessions saying:
It's an argument between people with strong wills. Sometimes you have to step back and re-evaluate; the president has done that. Apparently he's said, O.K., let me look at this in a different way.
That is the way this compromise between Bush and the Senators was described by a card-carrying Bush supporter. Earlier in the article, The Times described it thus:
The developments suggested that the White House had blinked first in its standoff with the senators...
Blinked-first? Does this colorful language accurately represent the events?
Developments are in fact suggesting that a compromise will soon be reached over interpreting the Geneva Conventions and establishing clear laws for interrogating terrorism suspects. Is the Times portraying this debate as more combative than it really is?
Can you smell land?
Aimee Rawlins @ September 21, 2006 - 2:11pm
Would you argue that this debate is non-combative? It seems that by the very nature of the situation, when you have three respected Republican senators taking a strong stance against the party in power - their party - it automatically sets itself up to be a divisive, combative issue. Both parties here were essentially trying to make their opponent "blink first," and give way to their demands on the issue. Bush certainly attempted to coerce Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner into dropping their concerns by threatening that the CIA would have to discontinue their interrogation of all high-level terrorism suspects if their version of the bill passed.
Knowing what we do about the current political state of the country and the fractures in the Republican party, I see this as being an incredibly divisive and passionate issue between two very oppositional sides, and I don't think the Times created a combativeness that wasn't there to begin with.
»