NY TImes Skews the News… pro-war/pro-Bush: 1,301 words, seven quotes, two photos + opening and close VS antiwar/anti-Bush: only 327 words, 4 quotes

NY Times Skews the News… Again - by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst: "August 30, 2005

The New York Times, sheltered by its legendary but mythical "liberal" reputation, has become increasingly bold and transparent in its defense of President Bush and his policies, both foreign and domestic. This support is not found, of course, on the labeled editorial pages (which can be discounted as mere opinion), but on the attention-grabbing front page and in other news sections.

Artfully skewed "news" pieces pay lip service to balance, fairness, and objectivity by mentioning or even quoting the opposition, but the writers' loyalty is clear: These "factual" pieces unabashedly devote far more direct quotes, positive editorial descriptions, and emotionally appealing photos to Bush supporters than to those who oppose him or his policies.
...
In a shameless repeat performance of the piece I analyzed earlier this year, the New York Times has gone for the jugular of the antiwar movement by portraying its strongest spokespersons – military family members who oppose Bush and are calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq – as weak, misguided, confused, mentally unbalanced, and unpatriotic.
...
The title of the copycat article, eerily reminiscent of the previous article's title ("GI Families United in Grief, but Split by the War," Jan. 2, 2005) is "In War Debate, Parents of Fallen Are United Only in Grief." Clearly, the Times has an agenda to pursue: To overshadow the shared sorrow and rage experienced by parents of slain soldiers across America with simplistic pro-Bush vs. anti-Bush opinions – opinions that divide onlookers, thereby undercutting public support for people like Cindy Sheehan, and for all parents who don't support the war that killed their children.

For anyone who doubts that the Times has devolved into a house organ of the Bush administration and the Pentagon, the following facts and figures about this new "aren't those antiwar parents just awful?" article will be eye-opening.

WORD COUNT: The article is composed of 1,628 words. Of these, only 327 words were devoted to the antiwar/anti-Bush side (primarily in direct quotes, many of which portray the speaker as seeking therapy, confused, or looking for answers), while 1,301 words were devoted to the pro-war/pro-Bush side (in both direct quotes and positively worded descriptions of Bush/war supporters).

PHOTOS: Two photos accompanied the supposedly "balanced" article, both of which were Bush/war supporters. Notably, in one of the photos, a woman who uncannily resembles Cindy Sheehan is kneeling in front of a white cross, mirroring the photo of Sheehan at Camp Casey that millions of Americans have already seen. Thus the pro-war camp, the reader is to assume, has its own Cindy Sheehans – a sure sign that somebody at the New Bush Times is getting terribly nervous about her persuasive appeal.

DIRECT QUOTES: The article quoted seven pro-Bush/pro-war family members (some of them repeatedly), but only four who oppose Bush and the war.

OPENING AND CLOSING PARAGRAPHS: