Bias doesn’t get much clearer than this. The lead story in today’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer trumpets a letter, written by 26 former diplomats, calling for the defeat of President George W. Bush. On the front page, the story goes out of its way to suggest that the letter is a bipartisan effort. The editors save for the back pages (or entirely omit) significant evidence suggesting that the signatories are partisan Democrats. Not one word of the Bush perspective appears on the front page. It’s all on page A26, safely out of the view of the average reader.

The Dog Trainer’s prominent and sympathetic treatment of this letter stands in marked contrast to its coverage of a letter that was released in May by hundreds of former military men, many of whom served with John Kerry, questioning Kerry’s honesty and fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. The letter, which was signed by every officer in Kerry’s chain of command in Vietnam, was buried by the Dog Trainer in stories appearing on pages A21 and A20. In the little coverage the paper did provide, the stories ignored the central accusations of the letter, and gave prominent play to the spin that the letter was a partisan hit job.

Here are the details:

Today’s story, regarding the diplomats’ letter criticizing Bush, is in the lead position in the Sunday paper — the most prominent position any story ever receives in a newspaper. Everything on the front page is designed to emphasize the supposedly bipartisan nature of this group. The headline of the story is Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go. The sub-head reads: “The 26 ex-diplomats and military leaders say his foreign policy has harmed national security. Several served under Republicans.” The first sentence reads:

A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America’s national security and should be defeated in November.

Other portions of the story on the front page highlight the theme that these officials served under Republicans as well as Democrats:

Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former U.S. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including Israel, the former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia.

Others are senior State Department officials from the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations and former military leaders, including retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East under President Bush’s father. Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq.

Let’s read further, shall we? I’ll identify for you the precise moment when the editors jump the story to the back pages — where, studies show, most readers don’t bother to follow the story:

Some of those signing the document — such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff

[See Statement, Page A26]

and here the story jumps to the back pages, which generally signifies that this is the part the editors don’t want you to know:

Merrill A. McPeak — have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said.

The first hint that this might be a group of Democrat partisans, and it’s buried on Page A26. Most readers will never see this. Accordingly, their primary impression is likely to be: Wow, this sounds like a bunch of Republicans criticizing Bush!

Of course, if a single one of the group were a registered Republican, you can bet the group would have pointed out this fact. Only one among the 26 told the Dog Trainer that he had ever voted for a Republican — and that guy (Jack F. Matlock Jr.) “was a registered Democrat during most of his foreign service career.” The story says “he voted for Reagan in 1984 and the elder Bush twice and now is registered as an independent.” (Reading between the lines, it’s obvious that he voted for Carter in 1980, Clinton in 1996, and Gore in 2000.)

The Dog Trainer completely omits another fact that I was able to determine in 10 minutes of internet research: 10 of these 26 former diplomats have given money to Democratic candidates in the 2004 campaign:

• A William Crowe in Alexandria, Virginia gave $2000 to Howard Dean.

• Jeffrey Davidow gave $1000 to John Kerry.

• Charles Freeman of D.C. gave
  $2000 to Howard Dean.

• Joseph P. Hoar gave $1000 to Howard Dean.

• Robert Keeley gave $300 to Howard Dean.

• George Moose gave $2000 to John Kerry.

• A James Phillips of Arlington VA
  gave $1000 to John Kerry.

• A William Smith from Washington, D.C. gave $2000 to Kerry.

• Retired diplomat Michael Sterner was a cheapskate: he gave only $100 to Dean.

• Alexander Watson gave $1,050 to John Kerry.

So what we have is a group of Democrats, a significant percentage of whom gave money to Democratic presidential candidates in 2004, saying they oppose Bush. Stop the presses!

Compare this story to the treatment the Dog Trainer gave in May to a letter, signed by hundreds of military men who served with John Kerry, which raised questions about Kerry’s honesty and fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Unlike the former diplomats who signed the anti-Bush letter, many of the signatories of the letter denouncing Kerry knew Kerry well. As described here, the letter was signed by the majority of officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11, and also by Kerry’s entire chain of command during the period Kerry served in Vietnam.

Pretty big story, right?

Not according to the Dog Trainer editors, who buried it in two stories on pages A21 and A20. The first story, which was buried on page A21, was headlined: “Navy Veterans Fire On Kerry.” The sub-head raced to put the pro-Kerry spin on the letter: “The Democrat’s supporters question the motives and ties of the newly formed group.”

The letter to Kerry stated: “Your conduct is such as to raise substantive concerns as to your honesty and your ability to serve, as you currently seek, as Commander-in-Chief of the military services.” This seems like an explosive allegation. But the Dog Trainer stories never even alluded to this central accusation. The opening paragraph of the May 4 makes it sound as though the primary point of the letter was that Kerry should release his service records:

A newly formed group of Navy Vietnam War veterans has joined the political fray over Sen. John F. Kerry’s military experience, demanding that the prospective Democratic presidential nominee release all his service records from the period he spent in Vietnam’s river battle zone.

The third paragraph of the story takes up the theme of the sub-head, that the letter was a partisan hit job:

The Kerry campaign and its Vietnam veteran supporters questioned the group’s numbers and its influence Monday night, accusing the organization of close ties to Republican loyalists and President Bush’s reelection campaign.

A spokesman for Bush’s campaign denied any connection.

The story goes on to pound home the theme that this is all partisan politics:

Former Deputy Asst. Secretary of the Navy Wade R. Sanders, a Kerry supporter who also commanded a swift boat during the war, dismissed O’Neill’s group as “a Bush campaign tool.”

Sanders and Kerry campaign staffers questioned the group’s claims of hundreds of supporters.

. . . .

“They’ve got an obvious political agenda,” said Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton.

A follow-up story the next day, buried on page A20, also gave prominent play to the angle that the letter was a partisan hit. For example, the sub-head reads: “Fresh criticism of the senator’s record in Vietnam is dismissed by his campaign.”

I challenge any fair-minded person to provide an innocent explanation for the blockbuster coverage the Dog Trainer gives the anti-Bush letter today, as compared to the tepid coverage it gave to the anti-Kerry letter in May.

Nope, no bias here!

(NOTE: This post is a more readable and comprehensive compilation of two separate previous posts on the issue — here and here.)

UPDATE: This Reuters article quotes one of the group as saying the group is a mix of Democrats and Republicans. So is the ACLU . . . but Democrats tend to predominate. I’d like to see the breakdown.

So far only one has stated he’s a Republican — sort of. Bill Harrop firmly states: “I really am essentially a Republican.” The word “essentially” used in this context generally means: “sort of.” Impressive.

UPDATE x2: More on one of the diplomats who served under Republican presidents, here.