No biased Times?
When I saw the New York Times headline that the February 5 votes against cloture on the Iraq resolution in the Senate were actually votes for ending debate, I let it go: perhaps the New York Times staff was completely ignorant of politics, and didn’t realize that voting for cloture was voting for ending debate. I don’t generally read the Times; I just see the headlines on memeorandum.
After seeing a nearly identical headline today, it seems clear that they always knew. In reporting on both votes, the Times goes out of its way to avoid even using the word “cloture”.
In G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy they use “procedural vote” to avoid using the word “cloture”:
The procedural vote, which divided mostly along party lines, left the Democratic leadership 11 votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate on the bipartisan resolution.
They must have liked that, because in Senate Rejects Renewed Effort to Debate Iraq, they use the “procedural” misdirection three times:
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, spoke Saturday after a procedural vote to start debate on an Iraq resolution failed.
But the outcome, four votes short of the 60 needed to break a procedural stalemate…
Without 60 votes for the procedural motion, the Senate was unable to start debate.
Cloture is a “procedural motion” to limit debate and force a vote. Those who vote against it want more options to be considered before the vote. As the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nevada) can keep debate going for as long as his party supports it. Debate ends when the majority leader chooses not to continue debate.
The Times staff must know this. After the February 5 motion for cloture failed, debate continued for almost two weeks.
While researching this post, I ran across a posting by “Lance” on A Second Hand Conjecture. The English language appears to be going through a major shift. A year ago, cloture meant “ending debate” and “shutting off debate”. Voting against cloture meant being “against limiting debate”. Today, voting against cloture means the exact opposite.
What’s changed in the eyes of the Times?
In the past, I’ve preferred the blood & controversy theory of media bias: that they’re biased in favor of spectacle. That theory fails here. The New York Times is either displaying extreme bias or extreme ignorance, and it’s hard to believe that they’re ignorant of the true meaning of cloture when they go out of their way to avoid even using the term.
- G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy
- Republicans “procedural” votes against cloture “block debate”. Harry Reid’s procedural vote against cloture “allow him the option to reopen the issue”.
- Senate Rejects Renewed Effort to Debate Iraq
- “Without 60 votes for the procedural motion [to end debate], the Senate was unable to start debate.”
- Senate Democrats again fail to get Iraq vote
- “A day after the House rebuked President Bush's plan to add more than 20,000 combat troops to the existing force in Iraq, Senate Democrats again failed to invoke cloture and move to a vote on the underlying resolution. But while they fell short by 11 votes on February 5, this time they were only four votes shy of getting cloture.”
- War rebuke halted in Senate
- “The 56-34 roll-call vote was four short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, or to limit debate before a vote. Seven Republicans crossed party lines to vote with Democrats to advance the resolution.”
- GOP Blocks Cloture On Surge Resolution
- “Reid and the Democrats insisted on blocking any consideration of alternatives and demanded an end to debate—which makes Reid’s complaint that the GOP would not allow debate on the issue somewhat mystifying. Cloture is an end to debate on the floor, a limitation to allow a vote on the question before the Senate. The filibuster provides for unlimited debate, which the Republicans appear ready to provide.”
- Closing the Book on Cloture
- “In 2006 a vote against cloture was described in this manner: ‘the Senate voted 49-to-48 against shutting off debate on the issue, well short of the 60 votes needed to move ahead with formally considering the amendment’… Today, when voting against cloture we get: ‘G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy’.”
- Well, We Know That Isn’t True
- “The fact of the matter is that the vote did not sidetrack debate or anything else. It was a cloture vote. Debate can continue until the next election. What won't happen is a vote on the the non-binding resolution. Reid is spinning it, but it was his refusal to allow alternate measures to be considered that forced the vote.”
More deception
- There will be deception
- As their world falls apart, media liars will get better at lying.
- The coming crisis
- We know it. We just don’t know what it is yet.
- Media misdirection
- What does it matter when major news organizations try to rewrite history through omission and misdirection?
- Obama campaign skirts campaign finance law
- I expected the New York Times to be silent on the illegal donations that the Obama 2008 campaign encourages. I should have known better: they’re trying to cover for the campaign. But the bigger issue is that laws that don’t get enforced are counterproductive; they encourage dishonesty and lawlessness.
- The Helter Skelter Media
- Joe the Plumber and the vengeance of the media.
- 19 more pages with the topic deception, and other related pages