A New Media Bias Record: 465 Unconfirmed Sources

In A Word Media Watchdog has uncovered yet another great example of using unconfirmed sources as the basis for an entire article. Yahoo! news published an article by Richard Reeves entitled IS GEORGE BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT -- EVER? Well, according to the article over 388 historians believe George Bush to be the worst president ever or heading down that road. Of course, none of these so-called historians would publicly state their beliefs.

So, for those of you keeping track at home, here is what we know to be true from the Reeves' Yahoo! article:

• 465 people were polled and asked about Bush's recorded compared to other Presidents. However, we (the reader) can not truly know if any of those polled is even an actual historian because no one would actually commit to any of their beliefs publicly.
• John F. Kennedy wrote a book called Profiles In Courage.
• James Buchanan was the 15th president of the United States.
• James Buchanan was a lawyer, a self-made man, served with some distinction in the House, served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee' and secretary of state under President James K. Polk. He had a great deal to do with the United States becoming a continental nation -- "Manifest Destiny," war with Mexico. He was also ambassador to Great Britain and was offered a seat on the Supreme Court three separate times.
• The end.

From all this nothingness, Reeves goes on to try and make a case that the most historians believe George Bush will wind up beating James Buchanan for the title of worst President of the United States. My personal favorite non-attributed statement was: "...and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives."

I've got an idea, next time Yahoo! runs a top story like this that shows up on my Yahoo! News page, how about actually including some real sources (you know people that actually believe their statements so strongly that we actually publish their names).

Where did they find these historian hacks anyway and who the hell are they? Anyone who understands history knows Bush's legacy won't be written for at least 25 to 50 years. I find it woefully irresponsible for historians to be making these type anti Bush comments only 5 years into the Bush Presidency.

Unfortunately, woefully irresponsible and today's media go hand in hand.