Dialog With John Gibson

Wherein “Gibby” Admits To Biased Reporting

On March 28th, 2002 I happened across The Big Story with John Gibson, a Fox News Channel program. John was delivering a commentary on the Bush Administration’s energy policy and, in my opinion, that commentary warped the facts involved. I thought an article in Slate Magazine made that point rather clear, so I sent him the article with my comments. Mr. Gibson was kind enough to reply. This is that brief dialog in complete form.

We begin with my initial e-mail, then his reply, followed by my response to his reply, then lastly my request for a response to my response. Should he respond to my last e-mail, I will immediately post it here.

From: “Russ Martocci, Jr” <rustleluv@hotmail.com>

To: <myword@foxnews.com>

Subject: Bush Administration Energy Policy

Date: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:08 PM

Hi John,

Yesterday, I believe, I heard you deliver a commentary which claimed that the Bush Administration had in fact consulted with conservationist groups when formulating an energy policy—in contrast to claims by such groups that they had not. To me that reporting appears to be a distortion of the facts. Distortions of fact with a bias toward supporting politically conservative views are something that I find to be commonplace at Fox News—of course that is only my subjective opinion.

I believe those groups to which you referred in your commentary were not claiming they were given “no” access, as your commentary reported, but were given “short shrift”: an empty gesture, an insincere effort intended only for “C. Y. A.,” so to speak.

Contrary to your reporting are the findings of the following article from Slate magazine, which uses reference material to support its conclusions. I would think you would be well advised to peruse this article and its supporting documents so that you can more adequately inform your viewers.

Good luck, John.
Russ
CremeCityPop.com

Later that day, Mr. Gibson was kind enough to reply:

From: “Show – My Word” <myword@FOXNEWS.COM>

To: “Russ Martocci, Jr” <rustleluv@hotmail.com>

Subject: RE: Bush Administration Energy Policy

Date: Friday, March 29, 2002 1:55 PM

RUSS…


just remember, as conservative as you think fox is, slate is that and more to the left. slate is entirely agenda driven, and the agenda here is painting the administration as a tool of big oil. if you want to believe that, go ahead. but there are other facts out there waiting for you to get comfy with. the greenies wanted to dictate energy policy in the direction of conservation and toward putting a lid on production. they didn’t get their way. they are angry. those are the salient facts.


gib

I found that response a little thin on substance—true to form for Fox News. Here is my reply to John’s reply:

From: “Russ Martocci, Jr” <rustleluv@hotmail.com>

To: “Show – My Word” <myword@FOXNEWS.COM>

Subject: Re: Bush Administration Energy Policy

Date: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:13 PM

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny,

So, apparently what you’re saying is you are aware that Fox News is biased to the right? Fox is consciously biased in order to counter a perceived perception that Slate and other outlets are biased to the left? Frankly, once again you give no facts to support your opinion. I believe you make my point for me. By the way, will we see my response to your response if you should read my first one on your show?

Additionally, I will be happy to point out balanced reporting from the author you read today—I could not do the same for your show, unless you are willing to announce to your viewers that you are aware of your bias, as you have admitted here. I doubt that you will.

Also, it is clear from your reply that you have not bothered to do the research I asked of you. Your “argument” is nothing more than your opinion: i.e., not news. Granted, you were doing a commentary, and as such your opinion is warranted. The problem is your habit of restating the facts regarding a given opinion in a way that is more favorable to one side of an issue. That is bias.

It is what you display with terms like “greenie,” or when attempting to boil down the conservationist agenda to a desire to “dictate.” John, by your own reasoning wouldn’t that mean that the oil companies actually did do what you claim the conservationists were attempting—dictate the policy—since they were given access that the environmentalists were denied?

Slate, on the other hand, is providing an analysis of documents. A document is either blacked out or it isn’t. The environmental groups called in to consult were either given or not given access to persons such as Dick Cheney, former oil company executive and head of the task force. That is clear and factual reporting of tangible materials, the opposite of your reporting, I’m sorry to say.

While you blithely dismiss my complaint, you must agree that to use the words you used in your commentary is to misrepresent facts as they are known to you and thereby do a disservice to your viewers. The “greenies” (as you derisively refer to people who are ostensibly trying to do what they think is necessary to retain a healthy living environment) are “angry”? What unmitigated drivel!

I think in order to give a commentary, you must base it on fact alone, not interpretations of fact. John, I like ya, buddy—I’m not just trying to rank your work. You’re a straight shooter and I respect that, much like O’Reilly, whom I could make these same gripes about. You guys are just too fast and loose with the facts.

Despite your assertion that bias is to be found at Slate, I am unable to locate such bias in their reporting. You would need to make that bias clear with facts in order to prove your point to me. Once again, John, good luck.

Russ
www.CremeCityPop.com

(*Note: “Perceived perception”? What the hell was I thinking?)

I received no reply to my response, so I sent this last one seeking more dialog and raking the mud a little more forcefully.

Hey John,

I notice that The Big Story has not seen fit to respond to my assertion that you have admitted to the well-known Fox News right-wing bias in reporting…

(Remainder of correspondence omitted for brevity — full text available at CremeCityPop.com.)

So far, no word from The Big Story with John Gibson as to whether they found any bias in the above Slate article, nor as to whether or not they agree with my view that “Gib” has clearly admitted to reporting with a conservative bias.

As Ever Yours,
Gusher