The CPAC Files: Bob Novak v. Sam Donaldson on Press Bias - Whew!

Robin Burk is accredited to this year's Conservative Political Action Conference as a member of the Winds of Change.NET team. She's covering CPAC as a private citizen and maybe a "citizen journalist" (if she could figure out what that means), as an academic studying new media trends, and as an ordinary voter interested in national & international affairs. Robin is not affiliated with the organizations who sponsor CPAC.

Catching up on posts from the sessions today. I was really sorry to miss Vice President Cheney's talk at the evening banquet - got back from MSNBC just after the doors closed.

The Bob Novak v. Sam Donaldson debate on the question of press bias was the most energetic session I watched today. Money quote: ""This vehement rightwing family man Barney Frank".

I took rather detailed notes during the session. Here they are, followed by my thoughts on what was said.

Novak: We have seen a march to the left on the part of the media. Rather didn't report on Bush's TANG service, he read a script. (lots of applause at that) When the exit polls suggested Kerry was winning on election day, there was delirious joy on the part of my fellow media members - they stood up and cheered.

Donaldson: My fellow conservatives. I like Bob Novak. He may have one or two defects ...

Donaldson came prepared with news stories, all with an ironic twist in that they were intended to make the case that there are diverse viewpoints in the MSM. "War helps support Terrorists" writes the WaPo. This gives support to the morale of terrorists. These quotes influence public opinion against our presence in Iraq.

[but adds ironically]: This business about the 1st ammendment is a real problem. [more seriously] What Jordan said in Davos was stupid. [irony again] But, "This vehement rightwing family man" (heh) Barney Frank unfairly attacked Jordan. "Clearly speech we don't agree with should be attacked and ended."

At that point Donaldson switched to a serious, intense tone. His voice got higher and he leaned forward: "We need to push for a national shield law and we need to make it retroactive." Notes it would protect Novak re: the Valerie Plume story.

Then the two men took questions from the audience.

Q: What can we do to deal with the vote counting issue in elections? Novak: keep the electoral college. There can be fraud and other problems in vote counts.

Q: Uniformed Naval officer (? he was in khakis but I didn't get close enough to see rank) to Donaldson: Were the Swift Boat Vets treated fairly by the media?

Donaldson: Multiple people on Kerry's boat supported him, people "up the river" didn't. Novak tries to correct Donaldson on that - lots of talking over one another. (Note: IIRC, one person on the boat supported Kerry's account. O'Neill says the others weren't "up river", but 30 yards away. It's telling that the basic facts are still in dispute, at least in the minds of some.)

Donaldson then equivocates by saying neither candidate's Vietnam service should have gotten as much emphasis as it did in the campaign. Novak finally manages to ask Donaldson if he read Unfit for Command. Donaldson admits he didn't, but adds he didn't read "Kerry's campaign book either".

Novak: how can you reject it as a lie when you didn't read it? Says he himself interviewed fellow officer on the boat with him and others on the boat too. Donaldson replies that the citations for Kerry's medals say all that needs to be said. (that's a paraphrase).

Novak: Kerry's people decided they needed a gimmack in the election and tried to do jujitsu by repositioning Kerry as military hero rather than war opponent. Hence "reporting for duty" at the Democratic convention. Donaldson seems to be really upset at this discussion. Says the medals show Kerry served honorably. (Neither Novack nor Donaldson addresses the fact that the citations etc. were re-issued well after the conflict.) Donaldson thinks it's "underhanded" to attack Kerry on this issue.

Q to Novak: Given how entrenched the liberal media is, should we establish a separate conservative media or push for unbiased media? Novack: I want to see more conservative members of the media. There are 3000 members of the media in DC. At a hockey game a while back, he and Fred Barnes tried to count how many of the 1000 or so that they personally knew could be considered conservative. They came up with 10 names. Novak says he works with various organizations trying to attract young conservatives into the business.

Donaldson: None of us have any objection to attracting more young people into the business. But what is the media? He thinks the MSM tries to be objective, check facts. Thinks journalists should have some experience in the subjects they cover and notes he reads the WSJ for financial insights.

Q to Donaldson: With journalists overwhelming identifying themselves as Democrats can we honestly expect them to cover stories fairly? Donaldson says he doesn't consider himself a Democrat, has voted both ways. The test is: do you keep your beliefs out of your work? Cites the late David Brinkley as an example of someone with strong political beliefs that did not bleed into his reporting.

Novak: The last Roper poll, in 1992, showed 89% of Washington bureau chiefs voted for Clinton over Bush. What has changed is that reporting now is an essay / analysis, not straight reporting, and on TV there's a lot of smirking and other expressive body language. So now it really does matter who they voted for.

Donaldson: What about Fox?

Moderator Brent Bozell says he considers both men to be outstanding members of the media and thanks them for taking the time to appear here.

COMMENTS:

This was an intense session, although Novack and Donaldson clearly respect one another and started out calmly enough. Novack's job was to state the affirmative (that there is a discernable liberal bias in the MSM). Donaldson came armed with counterevidence, delivered in a great deadpan way at first. Then he became more and more intense and a bit agitated.

Several things struck me during this debate. First, the Court of Appeals ruling against the NYT and Time magazine is an understandably high-emotion event for those in the business. Up to the point when he mentioned a national shield law for journalists, Donaldson was in command of his delivery. But at that point, the emotion began to break through and things got a lot more intense and a lot less scripted.

Second, I was struck (again) by how few of those who dismiss the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth have actually read their claims carefully. It may be that the Swiftie claims can or should be refuted, but it doesn't seem as if their critics are doing that. Donaldson either doesn't know that there are serious questions about the re-issue of Kerry's citation, and that his record is not fully disclosed, or he doesn't care. He dismisses the Swifties as just another part of the partisan election process and therefore doesn't pay attention to the claims they advance - or, and this is key - the evidence they offer.

This debate was a replay of the 2004 campaign: deja vu all over again.

I haven't made up my mind yet about the pros and cons of a national shield law for journalists. I can see why it might be valuable to society in some cases, but when I look carefully at Sam Donaldson's statements about Kerry's military awards I have to wonder if the MSM should be given that special consideration. Not because Donaldson comes down against the Vets, but because he apparently made that decision without examining their claims and the evidence.

It gets back to the value to the country as a whole of giving privileges to the Fourth Estate -- and to the question of whether the MSM are the only holders of the Fourth Estate franchise any longer.