So Jan Crawford Is a Liberal Hack, Huh? Part 3: Newsbusters Says Crawford Was Somehow the Only Big Media Reporter to Provide Context Showing Obama Gaffe Similar to Romney’s
On Tuesday’s CBS This Morning, Jan Crawford stood out as the only Big Three network journalist to play a clip of Barack Obama’s infamous “cling to guns and religion” barb at conservatives, as she covered the recently-released secret recordings of Mitt Romney remarking about the “47 percent of the country who are dependent on government.”
Crawford remarked that Obama “spurred similar controversy” with the 2008 comment, but neither ABC’s Good Morning America nor NBC’s Today mentioned it in their coverage of the Romney video recordings, which were released by the left-wing magazine Mother Jones.
Weird, huh? Who independently thought to make the connection to Obama’s 2008 gaffe? Allahpundit did. And I did. The liberal media didn’t — but Jan Crawford did.
It’s almost like she’s being . . . fair to conservatives!
One day, all of you are going to see I was right about Jan Crawford.
It might take weeks, months, or even years — but you’ll see.
And I predict you’re going to rub your eyes in amazement that this is the person you once chose to attack as the premier example of liberal bias in Big Media.
In the meantime, when I notice stories like this about her coverage, I’m going to bring them up. Like this one.
It feels like the beginning of a semi-regular series, in fact. Hence the title.
Parts one and two of the series were my initial defense of Crawford.
Now, not every critic of hers has taken the position that she’s a liberal hack. And this series of posts is NOT directed at people who have not taken that position.
I am aiming solely at the people who are holding up Jan as the epitome of left-wing journalism.
Y’all are just wrong. You didn’t look at her record and you didn’t fairly evaluate my evidence.
And I’m going to keep making the point until you finally admit it. And then I’m going to keep making it, because sometimes I’m a jerk.
Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/18/2012 @ 6:17 pm
So, for example, DRJ and Beldar are emphatically NOT the targets of my criticism here. I want that to be very, very clear.
Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/18/2012 @ 6:18 pm
The more she is critiqued, the more she works for our side.
As far as I am concerned, she is a pinko commie.
Comment by Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 9/18/2012 @ 6:19 pm
#3, now that is funny!
Patterico, you must admit that all journalists have been tarred by the actions of most of the MSM. So you are doing her—and those rare fair minded journalists—a favor by demonstrating the fairness that we reflexively (based on past experience) do not expect to see.
Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/18/2012 @ 6:25 pm
aand the proverbial cement life preserver is thrown to the drowning man sticking to his principals/principles,,,,,,
Comment by EPWJ (d84fb0) — 9/18/2012 @ 6:32 pm
That was strange.
Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/18/2012 @ 6:41 pm
This is how it was edited for CBS News on the radio this AM:
This was a week when Romney was really trying to get his campaign back on message.
His main message: jobs and the economy -andinsteadthisvideo, which was secretly filmed at a Romney fundraiser,is proving to be a big distractionin a very tight presidential race.that’s it.
Comment by Colonel Haiku (d5aaff) — 9/18/2012 @ 6:41 pm
If she’s the same lady – the only reporter that I recall – who wouldn’t let go of the Fast and Furious story when it first broke, in fact, held on like a terrier with a rat, I recant my condemnation.
Is she?
Comment by Colonel Haiku (d5aaff) — 9/18/2012 @ 6:44 pm
That was Sharyl Attkisson
Comment by Icy (84c440) — 9/18/2012 @ 6:48 pm
Jan Crawford is a news trollop!
Comment by Colonel Haiku (d5aaff) — 9/18/2012 @ 7:06 pm
Does it occur to you, Dr. Frankenstein, that your inability to convince your own readers that one uncharitably interpreted incident does not a partisan hack make may not be an accident?
Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 9/18/2012 @ 7:15 pm
Oh, look, it’s … leo marvin.
Yay.
By the way, I think I did convince quite a few people.
Comment by Patterico (4a5875) — 9/18/2012 @ 7:24 pm
No doubt. Obviously those aren’t the ones I’m referring to.
Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 9/18/2012 @ 7:30 pm
… nor the ones you’re referring to when you say:
“One day, all of you are going to see I was right about Jan Crawford.”
Comment by leo marvin (45619c) — 9/18/2012 @ 7:35 pm
Meh. She provided the Obama context after being called out for her alleged bias?
I don’t have a dog in this fight but that’s not the most compelling argument, is it?
Comment by landshark (e2ea3d) — 9/18/2012 @ 7:51 pm
No, the most compelling argument is her long history of fairness to conservatives PREDATING being called out for alleged bias.
I guess you missed my post on that?
Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/18/2012 @ 7:58 pm
If so, it was part one. It’s linked in the post.
Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/18/2012 @ 7:58 pm
I like patterico guyhe’s got a track record…
my momma had tracks
Comment by pdbuttons (0b4b1b) — 9/18/2012 @ 7:59 pm
So she’s moderately fair until it’s time to get her guy re-elected.
Color me unimpressed Patrick.
Comment by kinlaw (2fb87c) — 9/18/2012 @ 9:22 pm
LOL. Brian Williams once had a brain. Then the MSM sucked it out like the bug in Starship Troopers.
Comment by pat (0833d4) — 9/18/2012 @ 9:49 pm
personally, i blame Bush for all this rancor…
Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 9/18/2012 @ 9:51 pm
The liberal media didn’t — but Jan Crawford did.
National Soros Radio worked this angle too – mostly to explain how president food stamp’s comments were amazingly empathetic in contrast to Romney’s, just in case anyone were silly enough as to find the remarks of the two to be in any way similar in nature.
Comment by happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/18/2012 @ 10:41 pm
It was so empathetic it almost brought tears to my eyes. What love, what concern and what understanding he showed for those bitter clingers.
Comment by elissa (0718a3) — 9/18/2012 @ 10:46 pm
What is your evidence that Obama is “her guy”? It flies in the face of her books supporting Clarence Thomas, her praise for Sarah Palin, etc. You’re just making assumptions you can’t possibly know to be true.
Comment by Patterico (83033d) — 9/18/2012 @ 10:59 pm
Meanwhile, our special friend Matt Yglesias has struck again:
The concept of “redistribution” falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state.
– Yes folks, he actually said “You don’t own that.”
Comment by Icy (84c440) — 9/18/2012 @ 11:22 pm
Obama has prevented anybody from secretly taping his remarks to donors this year.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 9/18/2012 @ 11:23 pm
Patterico, you wrote, “I predict you’re going to rub your eyes in amazement that this is the person you once chose to attack as the premier example of liberal bias in Big Media.”
And you’re right that some people are doing that.
But a lot of people — myself included — still find it troubling that she was involved in the coordination of questioning by the Romney press pool.
She has done a lot of good things, and will do many others. I still think this was a troublesome thing — a thing that on its face and taken in isolation looks very bad, and a thing that she still hasn’t explained or apologized for to my knowledge.
So good luck to you in your campaign. But showing other good works she may have embraced doesn’t put this issue to bed, nor will a campaign of doing so.
Comment by Beldar (e25f85) — 9/18/2012 @ 11:33 pm
Having read her book on the Court, I knew better than to attack her as a liberal.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/19/2012 @ 12:09 am
I’ll bet a $100.00 she voted for Mr. Prompter in 2008.
And another $100.00 she votes for dope again.
Comment by mg (44de53) — 9/19/2012 @ 2:04 am
the dope again. Sorry- Have not had my first cup of Kenyan yet.
Comment by mg (44de53) — 9/19/2012 @ 2:07 am
“The concept of “redistribution” falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state.”
That whole rights of man, we hold these truths to be self-evident,all that Bill of Rights munbo jumbo, forget it.
Comment by Bugg (6cf7f9) — 9/19/2012 @ 4:15 am
No, I read the first post, so you can ease off on the snark.
My point is that I just don’t think that this subsequent revelation really strengthens your argument and I’m surprised that you would invest so much in the fact that she showed even-handedness while being scrutinized. Your initial post was the best argument – why diminish it?
Comment by landshark (daf028) — 9/19/2012 @ 7:46 am
Patterico:
You wrote in pertinent part:
It’s almost like she’s being . . . fair to conservatives!
One day, all of you are going to see I was right about Jan Crawford.
It might take weeks, months, or even years — but you’ll see.
And I predict you’re going to rub your eyes in amazement that this is the person you once chose to attack as the premier example of liberal bias in Big Media.
In the meantime, when I notice stories like this about her coverage, I’m going to bring them up. Like this one.
______________________
Almost? Being fair? Weeks? Months? Years? If Ms. Crawford’s reporting was in fact objective, you would not have to plead her case like a starry eyed adolescent boy with his first puppy love crush.
I’m surprised your wife hasn’t slapped you back into reality yet. Please try to stop your fawning. You look foolish.
I had thought your work was better than this. Could you attempt to prove me correct?
Comment by gzerman (86e3e2) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:24 am
I’m not seeing your argument, gzerman. I’m just seeing bashing.
OK, you don’t agree with Pat. Why, though? Let’s see your argument.
—-
I think Beldar makes a great point. Journalism as a profession is largely corrupt. For someone to recognize that and yet not blow the whistle makes a lot of sense from a career POV, but it is basically a betrayal of the idea of informing her audience.
Journalist coordinating and largely taking a side is the story here. It seems that Crawford went out of her way to be fair to Mitt Romney and I think she should find a way to resolve this conflict between her honesty and the dishonesty of the journalists she works around. Can she keep her career if she does so? Probably not at CBS.
Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:31 am
AND THEN WE’LL SEE WHO STOLE THE STRAWBERRIES!!!!
Comment by Rob Crawford (c55962) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:43 am
I, for one, did not attacker her as a “liberal”, but as a journalist.
Comment by Rob Crawford (c55962) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:45 am
I think that’s exactly the right tack.
Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:46 am
I maintain that it is improper and unprofessional, if mildly so, for journalists to cooperate in advance about what questions will be asked of a public official, unless the cooperators work for the same firm.
Patrick is, however, making pretty clear that Crawford is doing no WORSE than that relatively petty transgression. For example, there is no reason to believe that she would not similarly cooperate to try to ensure that a LIBERAL pol got asked a particular question.
Comment by Mitch (341ca0) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:53 am
Except that her profession is biased in favor of liberals. Agreeing to this coordination is, in and of itself, promoting that bias. It would be different (still pretty lousy), if they just did this coordination to everyone to get the juiciest stories about all politicians. But it’s not like that.
Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 9/19/2012 @ 8:59 am
Well, Jan’s social calendar has just opened up dramatically until after the election.
None of those pesky Georgetown parties for her.
In particular, I doubt if she’ll be invited over to Andrea’s for a long time.
Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/19/2012 @ 12:47 pm
Of course this is aimed at me and Beldar, as well as anyone else who questioned Crawford’s actions. It doesn’t offend me that you want to convince us your analysis is correct but please don’t act like you aren’t including us, unless Beldar and I convinced you that Crawford owes the public an explanation regarding why she coordinated these questions. Given what you’ve written and her failure to respond here, I don’t think we did.
Has Crawford come forward anywhere to explain why it’s neutral for her to coordinate the questions the media asks Romney, and specifically why it’s neutral for virtually every reporter at Romney’s press conference to repeatedly ask him variations on the same coordinated question (about whether he regrets his tone or timing)?
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/19/2012 @ 3:04 pm
“Conservatives have criticized Mitt Romney…”
“…he is running a timid campaign…”
“…he pulls his punches…”
“…doesn’t have the fire in his gut to win.”
During the press conference he also “deflected questions…”
Directly from her story on CBS.com. This is not neutral language.
Comment by Birdbath (716828) — 9/19/2012 @ 3:25 pm
Will she cover the President’s deception on Letterman?
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/19/2012 @ 3:51 pm