FAIR Blog » Topic A http://www.fair.org/blog The national media watch group Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:42:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 en hourly 1 Debate, Washington Post Style http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/22/debate-washington-post-style/ http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/22/debate-washington-post-style/#comments Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:38:09 +0000 Peter Hart http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13023 We've talked about these "Topic A" debates in the Washington Post before, and today's installment is a doozy. The topic on the table is Obama's media strategy. And, as before, the important people are on the political right,

Here are the right-wingers: Karl Rove, Dan Schnur (communications director of John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign), Ed Rogers  (White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush), Dana Perino (White House press secretary for George W. Bush),  Linda Chavez (chair  of the Center for Equal Opportunity, former member of the Reagan administration).

They're matched by two Democrats: pollster Douglas Schoen and Clinton adviser Lanny Davis (who's most recently been noteworthy for defending pro-coup forces in Honduras). Apparently the best media strategy comes from the right or the mushy middle.

]]> http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/22/debate-washington-post-style/feed/ 2 The Washington Post's Afghanistan Debate http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/01/the-washington-posts-afghanistan-debate/ http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/01/the-washington-posts-afghanistan-debate/#comments Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:45:32 +0000 Peter Hart http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=12542 The Washington Post had another "Topic A" feature on August 31, headlined "Is the War in Afghanistan Worth Fighting?" A crucial debate, to be sure; the Post found one person (Andrew Bacevich) to argue that it is not, which is probably a position close to the majority view of the American public. That position is "balanced" by four contributors who argue the war is worth fighting, in different ways or for different reasons. This imbalance echoes the Post's previous presentation of the Afghanistan debate, showing once again that the paper seems to believe that a public that increasingly sees the war as a lost cause needs to be talked out of that position.

It's worth noting that conservative Post columnist George Will has written today against escalating the war (9/1/09)-- under the headline "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan." While Will calls the idea of a long occupation with increased troop levels "inconceivable," it's worth noting what he's actually for:

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

More bombing, drones and cruise missiles. That's the Post's peacenik.

]]> http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/09/01/the-washington-posts-afghanistan-debate/feed/ 2