Media hypocrisy watch

Seth at Say Anything notes the media’s hypocrisy (yes, I know using the word "media" and "hypocrisy" in the same sentence is a bit redundant but anyway …) regarding their round-the-clock coverage of Pat Robertson’s advocation for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s assassination (Pat has apologized, BTW) versus their scant coverage of Clinton senior advisor George Stephanopoulos, who wrote a piece for Newsweek back in 1997 that had the headline: Why We Should Kill Saddam.

Anyone else remember hearing/reading about this back in 1997? I don’t. If it did get any coverage, it was a mere blip on the radar screen next to the coverage Pat’s gotten the last couple of days. While I condemned Pat’s remarks, I also condemn (once again) the media’s obvious double standards.

Hat tip to Rob Port of the Say Anything blog, who cross-posted this at Wizbang, where he is guest blogging.

Linking up with OTB’s Traffic Jam and the Mudville Gazette’s open post.

5 Responses to "Media hypocrisy watch"

homeless conservative says:

August 25, 2005 at 7:45 pm

I have 2 problems with your line of reasoning here –

1 Stephanopoulos is not a religious leader who is supposedly setting an example of good “Christian values”. Robertson should be your example of “hypocrisy”. He is an embarrassment.

2. Because Liberals say (or do) something stupid or unethical, it makes it OK for Conservatives to do the same? They’re bad, so we can be bad too?

Doesn’t anybody have any ethics or values anymore?
Sister Toldjah says:

August 25, 2005 at 8:11 pm

“I have 2 problems with your line of reasoning here -”

That can be easily explained. You didn’t get my “reasoning” apparently because what you figured my reasoning is is not accurate.

“1 Stephanopoulos is not a religious leader who is supposedly setting an example of good “Christian values”. Robertson should be your example of “hypocrisy”. He is an embarrassment.”

I’ve already condemend Robertson’s comments here (that link was also posted in this blog entry) and also here in the comments section. My quote in that comment was:

I don’t really think it’s right for a Christian man (especially one of influence) to go around advocating killing people.

So my thoughts on Robertson’s comments should be perfectly clear. And the media wasn’t jumping on Pat because as a Christian they didn’t think he should be saying those things, they jumped on him because he was a conservative – period – who said something stupid they could saturate us with news coverage of so they could paint social and/or Christian conservatives with the same brush. The fact that he is a Christian is just a “bonus” for the media. Stephanopoulos was a senior *advisor* to Bill Clinton, and he wrote an entire piece devoted to talking about assassinating Saddam Hussein. I hope you see the correlation between both GS writing his piece and Pat saying what he did. And I think it could be strongly argued that GS had more of an influence in Clinton’s admin than Pat did/does in GWB’s. Pat made a comment in passing. GS wrote an entire article on it. Now, we might have an “inside policy” on assassination of brutal dictators and what not but that’s not exactly something you want to go discussing in an op/ed piece.

“2. Because Liberals say (or do) something stupid or unethical, it makes it OK for Conservatives to do the same? They’re bad, so we can be bad too?”

No. This isn’t about moral relativism. It’s about media hypocrisy and how the media has different standards for which party they lay the heat on the most. The implication in their stories is that no public figure of Pat’s stature (Christian or otherwise) should go around advocating assassination. And they’re right. But they held Pat to a different standard than GS. Wonder why.

“Doesn’t anybody have any ethics or values anymore?”

I hope you’re not questioning my ethics or values. The meaning in my post was clear. I wasn’t invoking moral relativism, nor was I trying to say Pat wasn’t wrong in what he said. I hope *this* response will set the record straight on that for future reference.
homeless conservative says:

August 25, 2005 at 9:04 pm

I think a big reason this is getting so much media coverage is because of the (post-9/11) times we are in. Robertson’s remarks remind people of some of the Islamist-Fundamentalist remarks (fatwahs on people etc). Of course, the media has gone way tabloid in their coverage. In contrast, in 1997 most Americans didn’t know what a fatwah was in, nor did they think (or care) about terrorisum. I believe that was the start of Clinton’s “Monica scandal” days.

BTW, I wasn’t questioning your ethics or values personally. I’m just fed up with politics and politicians in general. Sorry if I was venting – I guess I should take up knitting or birdwatching or something less “bloodboiling”.
Ryan says:

August 26, 2005 at 12:15 am

Had Pat Robertson said this prior to 9/11 the coverage would have been the same.
Sister Toldjah says:

August 26, 2005 at 10:46 am

HC: Doing something less “bloodboiling” sounds nice but it would get boring after a while

Ryan: Yep – Pat was a magnet for the media pre- 9-11 as well.

Comments are closed.