Media Bias KOed by Lexis-Nexis, Part II

As I've previously argued, the best evidence of MSM bias is when the press treats identical situations differently depending on whether the gored ox is Democrat or Republican.

Once again, the UN's Oil-for-Food scandal was an irresistible temptation for bias. Consider the op-ed in yesterday's New York Times:

Nothing has caused the United Nations more grief than the appearance of a conflict of interest. Although the Cotecna contract was a small slice of the oil-for-food program, the link to the secretary general put a face on the allegations of corruption in the program and triggered calls for Kofi Annan's resignation from critics who were enraged by his opposition to President Bush's war with Iraq.

The panel has largely undercut that line of attack. It found no evidence that Mr. Annan intervened in the bidding or selection process, and no clear evidence, just a few possibilities, that the secretary general even knew Cotecna was bidding. The panel concludes that Cotecna got the contract because it was the lowest bidder and was deemed capable of performing the work. . .

It is not clear whether Cotecna's departure would have changed anything in Iraq.

But contrast the tone and recommendation with this Times op-ed last August:

Mr. [Ken] Lay emerged from his arraignment yesterday and held a bizarre news conference, where he proclaimed his innocence. . . But the idea that he is somehow the victim of a politicized prosecution is belied by the facts of the case. . .

The meticulous Justice Department team prosecuting the Enron case, which has now filed criminal charges against 31 people, added Mr. Lay to a previous indictment against Jeffrey Skilling, a former chief executive at Enron, and Richard Causey, a former chief accountant there. Mr. Lay will have a hard time distancing himself from the actions of his closest subordinates, and from what's expected to be the damning testimony of some of them.

Or this, from America's most liberal paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which tied itself in a pretzel defending the Secretary General yesterday:

The commission found that U.N. procurement officials were not aware of Kojo Annan's connection to Cotecna, so it could not have affected the company's selection. There was, the commission said, "no evidence that the selection of Cotecna in 1998 was subject to any affirmative or improper influence by the secretary general. ...." Cotecna got the contract, the commission said, because "it was the lowest bidder." Moreover, under U.N. policy and practice, "the secretary general is not involved in procurement decisions." . .

As to Annan's conduct, the commission concluded that "the evidence is not reasonably sufficient to show that the secretary general knew that Cotecna had submitted a bid on the humanitarian inspection contract in 1998."

But Annan did become aware of the contract in 1999 because of an article in the Sunday Telegraph about the Cotecna-Pakistan issue and Kojo's continuing relationship with Cotecna. Annan asked his son about the matter, and Kojo Annan lied to his father. Annan then asked a subordinate to look into the matter. Within a day, an answer came back that "Kojo Annan's connection with Cotecna was not known to any of the responsible procurement officials and that his employment with Cotecna had ended." With his son and his staff giving him the same answer, Annan then let the matter drop.

That was insufficient, the commission said. Annan should have referred the matter for "a thorough and independent investigation." That is the only bone of contention the commission picks with Annan personally.

There really is a lot more to the Oil-for-Food story -- for example, how the United States looked the other way when it knew Saddam Hussein was cheating, because it served Washington's purpose at the time. But the subject here is Kofi Annan, and Coleman is simply wrong in his conclusions, although that is unlikely to dissuade him.

In the end, this isn't about Oil-for-Food. It's about the Bush administration's dislike of Kofi Annan. Coleman is simply the designated administration hit man. But the weapon Coleman has chosen, the Oil-for-Food Program, is a wimpy little toy. And no matter how much Coleman tries to make it look larger, that's what it will remain.

Three years ago, however, The STRIB sang a different tune, accusing Enron of profiting from contacts with the Administration--despite the fact that the White House refused to save Enron from bankruptcy.

And recall that NY Times columnist Paul Krugman -- a decent economist until he began obeying silent radio instructions from the planets Tobor and Serutan (get it?) -- spent six months accusing (without proof) George Bush of a conflict of interest:

[T]the Enron debacle is not just story of company that failed; holds it is tale of system that failed because it was corrupted; says Enron was so enmeshed with Bush administration that any bailout would have been politically disastrous; says real issue is what Enron executives got away with during good times; says capitalism depends on set of institutions--many of them provided by government--that limit potential for insider abuse; says Enron affair shows that these institutions were corrupted, and that none of checks and balances that are supposed to prevent insider abuses worked; says supposedly independent players were compromised; says only question that remains is how far and how high corruption extends.

Quite the pointed barb--undermined by Krugman's belated disclosure that he had been a paid Enron consultant.

The press puts Republicans on the rack, but excuses or ignores paralled Dem conduct. Journalist ethics are a fraud: dusted off to preserve their priestly class self-image, but rarely to punish 4th estate abuses. Today's MSM is anything but objective. What's new is blogs, thankfully. Now, as Ken Layne said, "we can fact-check your ass."

(via Greg Scoblete)