From the Right…

"Who would listen to this podcast? It's like overhearing a conversation on a train!" That made me laugh, considering I was intently staring at the computer speakers at the time! Enjoyed the podcast very much. I listen to Hugh regularly on the internet and enjoy his energetic style. I agree with the comments of Paul D. and mjs. You handled yourself professionally, which I found refreshing. I'll be checking out your blog and podcasts.

Jake,

I forgot to add this on my previous comment. Your dissembling about the memo that went out to Hugh describing the topic of your interview was pathetic. You either have a dreadfully ineffective staff who has no idea what you will be talking about or you're a liar. It looked like a 60 Minutes hit piece that backfired badly. And I'm sure Senator Vitter was the most important topic of the day and not, say, the fact that Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush or the environmental horrors of China.

Rush gave us a one-way transmission system to hear things suppressed by the MSM. The blogosphere now allows us to discuss it. We've got new tools to follow what's happening and you guys are still living in the era when Morley Safer could ambush people without fear of reprisal. Good luck with that.

I was having a dry spell today, but you've given me inspiration for a blog post. Thanks.

PS - Typically, italics are used to designate quotations and not the text of your comments. Also, a "preview" button is common in comments to allow us to read and edit our comments before posting. Get with the program, dude.

Jake,
As someone who has been trained in journalism, I can safely say it is much more biased to the left than to the center and the right. That is what Mr. Hewitt has tried to say to all of you in the Dinosaur, Drive-by, Mainstream Media. Just admit it. Admiting it makes you much more transparent and then we know where you and the others come from and have your world view. Yes, we are told to be as unbiased as possible, but it can not be done. The fact is that I on my blog ofter link to MSM sources for information to get out on the center or right. But, there is no way that you or anyone else in the DDBMSM are not biased. And especially "investigative" reporters. What really gets under your skin is that people like Mr. Hewitt point that out to you. Oh, and yes it is important to get outside the "beltway" or the salons of New York City and the clubs of Los Angeles and get to know those of us who work hard every day, play by the rules and worship God and love the United States. I think it would be an eye opener.

I like Hugh, generally agree with him, and almost always see his point. I'd say he's more Republican than conservative, but I'll gladly have him on my team.

With regard to the memo, it seemed harmless to me, but I don't blame him for bringing it up. Because, with regard to MSM bias, I agree with him completely. You folks are so biased it's insulting when you won't reveal who you voted for.

Jake. We know who you voted for - journalists voted 90% for Clinton when the rest of the country was voting 40ish% for him. That question is about honesty and transparency, whether you think you're hiding something, how smart you think your audience is, not about your political views - we already know those.

I didn't listen to the podcast, only read the transcript at Hugh's site, so I don't know how flustered you sounded. Still, I thought you did OK.

And it was really interesting. You and Hugh should get together regularly and discuss MSM bias or the lack thereof. Every two weeks, get together with your examples. You could defend the MSM with examples of tough questions like the one you asked Reid - if they're out there. And you could prove your point about the memo by your future course of conduct.

Full credit to you for pressing Reid, by the way. And did you notice how he responded? He was shocked and surprised at that kind of treatement from his allies, and handled it badly."

Actually, I think you and Hugh are both right. I’m sure you don’t meet with your colleagues every morning to get your talking points from Nancy Pelosi, and I don’t doubt your sincerity when you and the rest of the MSM insist that you report the facts, as honestly and objectively as humanly possible. But Hugh is also correct. The MSM is heavily biased to the left, as evidenced by the reporting from Iraq. The reason it is so bad is that most of the alleged reporters suffer from the arrogant ignorance that Bernie Goldberg described so well. They are like that famous ditz from New York who couldn’t understand how Nixon won the election, because nobody she knew had voted for him.

I didn't listen to the podcast, only read the transcript at Hugh's site, so I don't know how flustered you sounded. Still, I thought you did ok.

And it was really interesting. You and Hugh should get together regularly and discuss MSM bias or the lack thereof. Every two weeks, get together with your examples. You could defend the MSM with examples of tough questions like the one you asked Reid - if they're out there. And you could prove your point about the memo by your future course of conduct.

Full credit to you for pressing Reid, by the way. And did you notice how he responded? He was shocked and surprised at that kind of treatment from his allies, and handled it badly.

Here’s another example of MSM bias: I am far more outraged by Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana than I am about David Vitter. Jefferson has been indicted for a real crime which many other people have gone to jail for, Vitter is a flawed human being who is doing more harm to himself and to his family. My guess is that the MSM looks at Jefferson and says, “Another Democrat politician taking bribes? How boring. Let’s get back to the next Republican scandal.”

Several readers have talked about Hugh going too far with the refrences to the email sent by Mr. Tapper or his staffers and I have to disagree. When confronted, Jake listed at least 3 different things he was going to ask Hugh about, in order of, the weeks events. Was the book going to be #5? If so wouldn't it be easy to email that he wanted to talk about the weeks news AND his book. Seemed like Hugh was right. Nonethless we who listen to HH absolutely know where he is coming from but to hear almost every journalist squirm and never admit who they voted for makes them look like they have something to hide. Nonetheless if you keep asking questions like the one to Harry Reid, you will gain real credibility with those of us who truly are objective. Just because we listen to HH doesn't mean we think he is always correct. But this time it looks to me as if he was. At least you will know what you are up against next time.

Just noted your comment above. If you're trying to claim centrist or "objective" credentials by saying you get flak from both the right and the left, know that that tactic is transparent, childish crap and one of the reasons people like Joe Klein are held in so much contempt by people whose lips don't move when they're reading.

The networks and major newspapers are going out of business, so the sooner smart people like Jake stop thinking of themselves as members of a priesthood--but as mere mortals trying to be good reporters despite the biases that our biochemistry burdens us with, the better. As for the Vitter story, headlines and story placement are well-known extensions of editorial license. On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Without transparency we don't know if there's an agenda or unconscious bias. It unnecessarily calls your credibility into question. Having your views known might push you to become a better journalist by being more conscious of these issues.

It WAS like an argument with "a guy on a train", wasn't it? Funny line. Nice going, Jake. I thought you held your own quite well with a man who in a way sense until it sounds like nonsense. I imagine it must be difficult to have a rational discussion with someone whose own center of balance has been thrown so far out of whack from years of carrying water for this senseless, bizarro administration.

Nice hair splitting by the chap just above. Center right is conservative. Jack, you got your butt handed to you. He was on to your stunt about Vitter from the beginning and kept you backed up to the end. Your preening about how you asked Reid a question nobody in the press corps has before says a lot and had the effect of confirming Hewitt's premise.

What a jerk Hewitt was!!! If you look at Hewitt's blog you can see him lying and spinning about the interview and whether the podcast will play in entirety. Then Hewitt's rabid dogs get all frothy about it. All over nothing. The guy is nothing but a fraud.

Jim

Mr. Tapper, Great interview. From both positions...

To be credible, we must admit we all harbor bias, and go on to comprehend that our individual bias is based on our own (however limited and skewed) knowledge, experience, wants, needs and wishes.

With that, we all live, think and reason within our individual bubbles of our bias. Hewitt, unlike most members of the dying MSM, is clear, upfront and honest about his bias. It's clear that his line of questioning to you made you very uncomfortable, regarding thoughts and revelations of your own bias.

And with that, Hewitt largely handed out your profession’s bias, deep fried, salted and ready to eat.

As an aside, we all recall that several years ago ABC News, of their own free volition, made the decision to hire the former senior political, campaign adviser and communications director for Bill Clinton. Who has now aspired and become the main political correspondent, analyst and political voice for ABC News.

With that being true, one of my favorite quotes comes to mind:

It does not take sharp eyes to see the sun and the moon, nor does it take sharp ears to hear the thunderclap. --- Sun Szu

Jake-
My perception is that you are one of the few in MSM that really does try to be even handed. Hugh Hewitt (who I do
admire) does treat any MSMr as guilty
as charged--and with prosecutorial zeal. You came thru better than most when subjected to his unrelenting style that he does so well when he is on his
own "fastest gun" wins turf. But though I think you should have been given a bit of slack, Hugh is right about the overwhelming majority of MSM
journalist types who can recognize the bias of Fox, but can't see their own.

I hope you did not feel "delegitimized" Jake. I think your back and forth with HH went well. I would have to think that answering questions to give your readers background info will only increase your audience. Keep asking the fair questions and don't accept nonsense for answers...

Jake,

Thanks for the great interview with [by?] Hugh Hewitt! I enjoyed the unscripted verbal interchange immensely. I hope you will become a regular on Hugh's talk show.

Regards,
Brad Brown

Jake, the "interview" was great radio and good podcasting too.

I've listened to Hugh Hewitt now for several years in Minnesota, and I always consider the source for whatever I hear.

What caught my attention was the discussion on Mormon bigotry. I do think this will be a very interesting thing to watch in ALL media as the Romney campaign moves forward. I think you as an "MSM, inside-the-beltway" kind of guy could really stake an interesting claim to this territory to see if something is actually there or not.

I'd be curious to see some kind of media comparison between what was said of candidate/future President Kennedy as a Catholic (in so-called "less enlightened times") versus what may be out there for Romney. This type of analysis could easily be done with Lexus-Nexus and other technology, and could even be done just through the primary season if Mitt doesn't take the nomination.

Just a thought.

Hope to hear you again on Hugh's program. You presented yourself well.

Entertaining podcast. It certainly made my Saturday morning work go faster. Several points:

a.) Hugh did get a little tiresome with the memo issue and the "will you broadcast the podcast issue"?

b.) Hugh was right on the mark relative to MSM bias. Ideology and worldview are ingrained. It allows someone to select the facts that support his/her opinion and ignore the facts that do not. The problem with MSM is not biased reporters. Rather, the problem is that they everyone is biased in the same way so that it seems to an MSM employee that they are mainstream. While Jake Tapper did a fine piece of journalism with his questions concerning Harry Reid, there is no secret that his network clearly feels the war is a mistake, we have no chance of winning, Bush lied, et al. Consider the selection bias with his question - Vitter is a non-issue. How about talking about the surge operations and the congressional reactions to the war? Instead, we play to form and fuss at Vitter.

c. I am glad that Hugh challenges these MSM beliefs and admire Jake for showing up and having to defend his beliefs.

Posted by: TLB | Jul 13, 2007 8:49:34 PM.

"The mainstream media does have a culture that is more akin to Hollywood than Middle America."

I would have to second that observation of TLB's with the emphasis on the term "culture" to replace "bias". The MSM does have its own culture complete with "A"-"B"-"C" lists of its own celebrities. It thinks that other Americans either think like they do, or should, and any other points of view are dismissed as "interesting".

The MSM culture is not much different than Wall St. culture. The networks and the print media are information brokers and offer up the news to benefit the brokerage house, be it Morgan Stanley or Columbia Broadcasting. As for the individual investor or the individual reader/viewer, well, they're on their own.