The MSM's Subtle Rebuttals

Continuing on the idiocy of John Kerry, the flavor of the day—

Wonk was driving to work today in the DC suburbs, and chanced to catch a CBS news report on the hour. The lead story, of course, was John Kerry's continuing, agitated defense of his own indefensible behavior, blaming everyone else for it other than himself, a hallmark of Democratic behavior for as long as Wonk has been on this planet, it seems.

What was striking was the pattern in which this "news" report was presented. CBS led the broadcast with a "tease" soundbite of Kerry slashing at his opponents. Then came a few "objective" sentences on the current flap, whereby Kerry was caught on camera clearly and unambiguously dissing the intelligence of America's military. Then came a soundbite of George Bush firing back at Kerry and a couple of paraphrased Republican observations. And finally, Kerry got another vicious soundbite against the Republicans in before CBS moved on to another story, predictably about all the trouble we're having in Iraq.

What was striking here was a pattern in this presentation I've been noticing for years, and it hearkens back to my old (and largely unsuccessful and blessedly brief) debating activities in high school.

Most debaters are well aware of the pattern in a formal competitive debate, whereby two debaters present the "pro" view of an issue or event, and the opposing debate team presents the "con." In the first half of the debate, the issues and arguments are presented at length. The the pro-side begins the debate and alternates with the con-side, pro-1 and con-1, pro-2 and con-2.

After a break, the rebuttals begin in the same order, with the pro-side attacking the arguments of the rebuttal and vice-versa, based on notes taken during the first stanza. The presentations are in the same order, and the second rebuttal ends the debate, at which point the judges determine the winning team.

Just as the "white" player in a game of chess is viewed as a potential favorite because "white" gets to initiate the first move, the con side, and most particularly the 2nd rebuttal position are regarded as having the edge in formal debate. In this case, it's for the simple reason that, which the pro-side is responsible for forcefully presenting an idea, the con-side, if it's quick on its collective feet, is in the great position of getting to shoot the other side down. During the debate's second half, the con side is in an even better position since it gets, in the second rebuttal, the very last word in the debate.

It's human nature to always remember the very last thing said in any kind of argument or debate, and this is a major part of the advantage of the 2nd rebuttal position. This debater gets to speak last, have the last word, and leave the final impression in the debate before it is judged.

Where am I going with this? Very simple. After listening to the radio news for decades, it is overwhelmingly clear that the media bend over backwards to 1)present each political news story as a conflice (debate); and to nearly always, give the Democratic side of the argument the 2nd rebuttal position—the last word—before moving the story on.

Thus, CBS' approach to structuring this morning's Kerry story. Kerry gets to "open" the debate via his soundbite, while the Bushies get to rebut. But then, instead of going another round, Kerry gets to return to provide the 2nd rebuttal.

In stories during the Clinton era, the reports were generally structured in the same manner. Clinton's soundbite would appear first, the Republicans would be structured in the attack-response sequence, and then Clinton or one of his associates would slap back, getting the final, 2nd rebuttal position to conclude the story.

In both instances, a casual listener is left with the distinct impression that the Democrats have won the argument. In point of fact they have not. They have simply been provided with a free pass since the press advances them to the 2nd rebuttal position without allowing a second soundbite from their opponents.

When a Republican is being sandbagged by the MSM, however, the tables are turned. The opening soundbite is by the Democratic opposition. The Republican then is allowed a soundbite, although the press more often than not provides, via the news-reader, an easily alterable paraphrase—usually a weak one. But then, once again, the Democrat advances to the 2nd rebuttal position.

Listen to the average MSM radio news report. While this sequence may not be true 100% of the time, I'd wager it's true over 95% of the time. (You'll see this in the print media as well, where the Democrats and leftists generally appear in the article's concluding paragraph to get the final say on an issue.) And over time, over years, over decades during which the Democratic left always gets the 2nd rebuttal position, always getts the last word, an average listener can't be faulted for eventually "feeling" that the Democrats are always on the correct side of a given issue, each and every time. They are not, of course, nor are the Republicans for that matter.

But once again, we see the crafty, incremental way in which the organized left has morphed news into propaganda. One could read a transcript of such a broadcast story and believe the MSM's claim that they are "objective." But in the subtle way cited above, whereby the MSM nearly always gives fellow leftists the last and final word in an argument—the most memorable position in a news story—they can editorialize without leaving any fingerprints.