[To Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, and Ombudsman Deborah Howell]:

Your still timely article, "Seldom-Discussed Elephant Moves Into Public's View," from last year, noted that a group -- you called them "wingnuts" -- offered a $1,000 reward to any reporter who got the President to answer a specific question about the Downing Street memo.

As you note, the President (who didn't really answer the question) responded; "My conversations with the Prime Minister was, how can we do this peacefully."

But what did the "this" refer to?  Disarmament -- the stated purpose of the war?  Or the removal of Hussein -- the implied purpose during the election campaign?

Much of the media didn't seem to have a problem with the Administration's ambiguity on this.  Why?

The main question raised above has still not been examined: Whatever the "this," was that the President referred to as our goal, what was the plan to achieve it, in the President's words, "peacefully"?

Also, why did that plan fail?

These questions were all also largely ignored by the media. Why?

Because the administration intended all along to go into Iraq, and so ["needed"?] to be unclear about it?  If that is the answer, what does this have to do with the role of the media, and the issues raised above?

Especially given that; a) this was potentially the most important policy choice of the administration; b) it was the defining issue of the election, and, most importantly, c) the Administration ran its campaign for reelection based upon the theme of trust, candor, and forthrightness (as the President himself put it almost every day, "at least you know that I mean what I say") -- and upon the theme that their opponent, in marked contrast, did not.

Why is this still extremely relevant today?  It is not because of the Bush campaign's characterizations of both Bush and Kerry during that same election, but the media's role regarding these characterizations, relative to the facts, and the reasons why.

In 'October of '02, in a speech from Cincinnati, Ohio, the President told the nation that if the [Iraq] resolution was approved, we would use military action, "only if it proves necessary," and, that "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is either imminent or unavoidable."  That view had changed by March of '03, when the administration not only began military action, but then ran a campaign accusing their opponent of flip flopping on the issue by disagreeing with the timing and planning of it.

Much of the media also went along with this characterization, as well. But how was this possible? If military action was not imminent and unavoidable in October of '02, when we thought Iraq had WMD's and we expected the backing and authority of the United Nations, how was it nevertheless so imminent and unavoidable in March of '03 that Kerry was a "flip flopper" to still have believed the same thing?

Military action wasn't more unavoidable. It was less unavoidable. But not only was this never really addressed, again, much of the media also parroted these Bush campaign characterizations of Kerry.

Obviously, Kerry wasn't a flip flopper -- unless Kerry specifically knew that the "vote for me because at least you know that I mean what I say"President, on this most critical of issues, did not mean what he said.  And unless Kerry voted for the resolution to remove Hussein from power, carte blanche, and not to rid Iraq of WMD's.

But did he? Why would he have? The President himself repeatedly told the nation that the "war" was about WMD's.

But more importantly, here is what Kerry stated in his speech to the Senate in support of the resolution authorizing the use of force;  "in order to force inspections, you need the [legitimate] threat of force."

He also stated; "Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."

Consider the following critical facts, all grossly underreported:

(1) As of the vote on the resolution, there had been no viable weapons inspections in Iraq for several years.  (2) Largely because of this, our assumptions about Iraq WMD's were made in the absence of sufficient data (most if not all of the intelligence reports regarding the state of Iraq's WMD's repeatedly emphasized this central point -- I know this because I read them).  (3) After the resolution vote, inspectors went back into Iraq.  (4) By mid March of '03 they had discovered that our assumptions may have been incorrect;  (5) they reported that they were finding scant evidence to support them; and, (6) they called for more time before acting.

Why were these facts almost never addressed, despite their relevance to a topic that dominated the election coverage?

This issue of flip flopping on Iraq dominated 2004, so this bears repeating here one more time;  Kerry, before the full Senate, just before the resolution vote; "Let me be clear,  the vote I will give the President is for one reason and for one reason only, to disarm Iraq of WMD's if we cannot accomplish that" through weapons inspections.

Subsequently, those same weapons inspections suggested that Iraq may not have had WMD, and thus to wait before engaging. (It's a message that three out of the four remaining permanent members of the security council heard, so it wasn't that garbled.  And again, even if it was, and even if much of the country was unaware of these things at the time, Congress and the Administration do not get their intelligence data from the news.)

Yet, according to the illogical logic of his opponents, playing upon the ease, in a largely sound bite world, with which the issue could be misconstrued, Kerry "flip flopped."  The same opponents, ironically, who again, ran their campaign on the platform of "at least you know we mean what we say."

Yet the media, far from correcting this fallacy, assisted in it.

In your piece, "My Bias for Mainstream News" (March 20, '05) you even point out (ironically, yet very tellingly), that your newspaper was cited by the Republican National Committee for supporting this very same characterization of Kerry regarding his initial "support" for military action in Iraq.

Why did much of the mainstream media, and your newspaper in particular -- a newspaper that much of the country likes to believe is "liberally biased"-- support such a misleading, and election changing mischaracterization?

Could the answer be found in the question itself? That is, could it be that the misperception that your newspaper (rather than the facts themselves) is biased against the far right, has affected the way that it presents and analyzes the news?

Real balance, as opposed to perceived balance, are two very different things.  In order to "support" a central right wing republican contention, and therefore, to at least appear "balanced," to the [currently dominate with the party] right wing of the republican party, in this instance, you had to ignore the facts.

While you might argue (and I would wholeheartedly disagree) that this is the case only "in this instance," it is the one instance that you chose to highlight in your sweeping editorial arguing in support of the objectivity of mainstream news.

It was also an instance which dominated election coverage, and changed the course of our nation's history.

Public perception on consistency and wishy-washiness changed the outcome of the election.  There were dozens of separate election altering factors.  Yet while many democrats may like to believe or argue otherwise (but they got a lot of things wrong in 2004, didn't they), this perception of Kerry had more to do with losing half of the middle core of voters than many of the other issues put together.  The election was about trust, and the voters did not trust or like Kerry because of his perceived wishy-washiness, many times more than the charisma issue.

This perception largely emanated from the almost always dominant Iraq issue. Yet the most critical, basic points necessary to make an informed evaluation were routinely omitted from the analysis, leaving the debates
grossly skewed, and voters, extremely misinformed.

Again, why?

I suggest that the mainstream media has been affected by a highly orchestrated, persistent, creative and often rhetorically brilliant campaign against it by the right wing of the republican party -- who truly believe that it is the media's coverage, rather than the facts, that are [sometimes biased] against them. So affected, that, without a strong democratic message to counteract this, it joined in the defining campaign mischaracterizations of Kerry as a flip flopper (on Iraq, on gay marriage, on No child Left Behind, on the Patriot Act, on what type of orange juice he had for breakfast the other morning).

The larger problem, however, goes far beyond the election coverage.

In an email to you last May 17, I wrote the following:

"In your March 21 online followup (to the above cited article, "My Bias for Mainstream News"), you noted that "Liberal objections revolved around the notion of 'false equivalence' -- that my examples of left-wing lunacies were less egregious than the right-wing lunacies."

Actually, they were fundamentally different. But their more notable importance is that in an otherwise excellent piece, you also engaged in what has served to undermine objectivity more than anything else in the media; that is, engaging in (1)"he said/she said" reporting of the claims of each side, without reporting the underlying facts necessary to determine which claims are accurate, and (2) making sure to critique both sides - regardless of the standards and characterizations used to criticize each. (For an example of the latter, see Robert Samuelson's May 11 editorial. He essentially blames the deficit equally on both sides, despite the fact that the tax cuts in '01, '02, and '03, that largely contributed to it (CBO data), as well as the recent fiscally disastrous budget, were overwhelmingly republican backed, and despite the fact that the pay as you go budget amendment, which would have required fiscal discipline by its very definition, was opposed by 50 Senators -- every single one of whom was a republican. [Note that Samuelson did essentially the same thing once again a few weeks ago, "Getting past the Budget Blab," February 8, 2006].

It is also interesting that you term it left wing lunacy. The [ridiculous] idea that the administration knew is believed by a minuscule fraction of democrats, while the mistaken ideas on the right that you cite, as your own statistics note, are believed by a majority of those in the republican party, despite the fact that they have been definitively proven to be wrong. But you would be accused of bias if you approached it this way, so instead, you "equate" the two.

As for the second example -- that Bush was coached during the latter debates -- it is charming that you use this as an example of left wing lunacy.  Bush was seemingly more articulate and coherent in both of those debates than he has ever been in any prior non rehearsed discussion as President.  Perhaps he simply got his game on, and articulated the best performance of his life.  It's possible, and reasonable.  But given that the technology exists, and it would have been to his campaign's advantage, why wouldn't he have been coached?  In other words, you cite something which you can't, and don't, really know, and which I can't, and don't, really know.

One belief held by a minuscule percentage, and another which is certainly logical, if not plausible, and which many otherwise reasonable people may believe, does not simply equate to "less egregious." They are fundamentally different. But the point is, you had to come up with two examples for each (perceived) "side," in order to portray an apparent lack of bias.  In a sweeping article to illustrate that the media is not biased, no less.

You also write that because your newspaper receives criticism from both sides, that it therefore must be 'balanced."

Back in May, I also suggested to you that getting criticized by both sides is not indicative of balance. The two sides may be very different in tolerance level, approach, focus, effort, and in fact, objectivity and reason. The logic of the criticism that is made -- and that could be made -- is all that matters.

As a separate inquiry, do you really believe, additional differentiating factors aside, that the democrats have waged (or even could wage) nearly as effective a campaign against the media as has the right wing of the republican party?

Take some of the mischaracterization's of Kerry that dominated the election.  Pretty cut and dry stuff.  Yet how effective were democrats in combating these in the popular dialogue, let alone in the media's analyses? Not very, to put it mildly.

It is hard to change anybody's mind, on any part of the political spectrum, no doubt. But what if part of being a right wing republican constitutes an emphasis on belief first?  If this is the case, this would cause facts that conflict with this belief to be more quickly repudiated, rather than integrated or objectively considered.  This then would require a higher emphasis placed upon those facts, both in selection and presentation, that tended to not present conflict with those beliefs, in order to preserve the appearance of objectivity.

Regardless, whether or not you believe that the above suggestion is correct, human nature being what it is, it is fairly inevitable that the better the job of reporting facts that you do, the more you will be accused of bias by those whom the facts do not support.  Therefore, the only relevant inquiry into such criticism is the context, logic, and validity of the points themselves, which has almost nothing to do with your defense of it in the aforementioned piece "my bias for mainstream news."

This poses a problem. So far it seems, by running from this reality, the media has largely if inadvertently dealt with it by trying very hard to not appear biased, rather than to simply not be biased (two extremely different concepts).

By joining in the parrot like repetition of the common mischaracterizations of Kerry, rendered easy by the democrats highly ineffective campaigning strategy [sorry Senator Kerry, but this reality has got to be recognized for it to be substantially improved upon, as the democrats, once again, ran a very poor campaign], this is at least somewhat achieved. But given the nature of the arguments, it will never fully be achieved until each news source is effectively what the Fox self labeled "news" channel is right now -- news analysis, on a political front at least -- subtly and brilliantly packaged to support the views of the right and far right.

In an email, dated January 2, I suggested to your new ombudsman, that "the paper does not wish to appear biased to a perhaps overly subjective far right, which itself has spent so much creative energy making this case, it has even gotten the media itself to begin believing it."

In a column which I had not yet read when I wrote the above, your new ombudsman, the day before, had written; "The Post shouldn't give critics ammunition. We must renew efforts to be fanatical about accuracy and fairness, doing away with any hint of bias."

I disagree thoroughly with two thirds of that statement.  I also believe it is inherently contradictory.

You can't, not, give certain groups ammunition.  Good reporting is ammunition, by its very nature.  And anything which provides relevant facts that do not necessarily support a previously held belief, is going to provide more than a hint of bias, even if it is in fact nothing of the sort.  That's just the way it is. The more the media complies, either overtly, or implicitly (e.g. constantly arguing in its editorials that it is in fact unaffected, and unbiased, such as you did in your otherwise fine piece "My Bias for Mainstream News"), the more effective such cases will be against it.

You simply can not be a good media source, and at the same time do away with even more than a hint of bias, and not give critics "ammunition," when you are constantly accused of bias by groups when the reported facts, and often basic logic, are going to conflict with preconditioned beliefs.

In this way, overly sensitive to "charges or hints of bias," we saw a mainstream media never properly assess Kerry's position on the No Child Left Behind Act or the Patriot Act and the differences between legislating and enforcing or administering laws under the Constitution therein, Kerry or the President's (position, and positions, respectively) on the gay marriage issue, or Kerry's position on the Iraq war. This resulted in a perception of wishy-washiness that caused mainstream voters not to like Kerry many times more than over the charisma issue, and changed the outcome of the election and our Nation's history.

William Raspberry had suggested to me that he was saving some materials I had written him for use in a possible course he was going to teach at Duke on politics and the media.  I am going to forward this email on to him (and to a few others as well), because of the connection with the ideas expressed herein.  I might also include it in whole or in part on  http://www.pressthenews.com.  Perhaps you can add to these ideas, refute them, or, as has often been the case with the Washington Post, simply ignore them.

Regarding this latter option, note that I have not once received a response from you in the past, and on this larger issue of bias and the coverage of Kerry during the election campaign, I have not once received a substantive response from anyone at the Post.  I wonder why? If my argument is so poor I would think it would be easy to address.

I fear the problem is that it is not poor, but reasonably accurate, and that this is a reality that the Washington Post would just as soon ignore -- continuing, instead, to take false assurance in the extremely poor assumption that it must nevertheless be "balanced" because it continues to get attacked by the far right for almost anything that reports facts or logic that conflict with some or much of the far right's preconditioned beliefs.

If, as some cynics allege, the media is well aware that it has kowtowed to the far right, then I guess my efforts are largely for naught. By reading your pieces, and those of your ombudsman, for example, I do not believe these cynics are correct.  Therefore, if through logic I have not managed to illustrate that in fact your newspaper (and others) in order to maintain the appearance of "non bias," has in fact become increasingly biased as the right wing of the republican party has come to increasingly dominate both national politics and the perception of the media  -- marginalizing liberals and causing both yourself and others to mistakenly label many simple democrats, moderates, and independents as liberals themselves -- I ask you once again, please tell me how.

Respectfully Yours,

Ivan Carter