Pioneer media critic Reed Irvine dies at 82

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | November 18, 2004 | Jennifer Harper

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

Pioneer media critic Reed Irvine dies at 82

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 18, 2004

---

Journalist and media critic Reed Irvine, who relentlessly exposed the foibles of a biased press for more than three decades, died Tuesday from complications of a stroke he suffered late last year. He was 82.

    Mr. Irvine was a pioneer in his field, founding the nonprofit watchdog group Accuracy in Media (AIM) in 1969 during an era when the content and ideological underpinnings of TV and newspaper stories went largely unquestioned.

    Oxford educated, a Fulbright scholar and a former economist with the Federal Reserve System, Mr. Irvine cheerfully took on the credibility of press giants -- inaugurating a full-blown "Can Dan" campaign against CBS newsman Dan Rather 16 years ago.

    "We've fought the good fight," Mr. Irvine once said. "Someone had to start pointing out there were serious errors being made in the media -- and a lot of them were the fault of the ideological biases of the reporters and editors."

    He took on dozens of news organizations and high-profile scions of the so-called liberal press, mounting cases against the New York Times, CNN, NBC and The Washington Post, prompting former Post editor Ben Bradlee to call him a "miserable, carping, retromingent vigilante," comparing Mr. Irvine to an animal that urinates backward.

    Mr. Irvine responded by sending Mr. Bradlee a trophy, courtesy of the Miserable Carping Retromingent Vigilante Society.

    Mr. Bradlee sent it back.

    The intrepid but good-humored Mr. Irvine got his point across.

    "It sticks in my craw, but...

[The Right Stuff]

RIP...that Bradley story speaks volumes.

[Uncle Hal]

He was one of the real conservative heroes on our side.

[Fedora]

RIP. Irvine did some great work.

[lapster]

Thank you so much for posting this. Too often as great young conservatives leaders emerge, we tend to forget about the giants upon whose shoulders we stand. Reed was such a giant. In the words of Churchill re: the Battle of Britain, he "stood alone until those who were half-blind were half-ready." Good man. Great loss.

[xJones]

Mr. Irvine cheerfully took on the credibility of press giants — inaugurating a full-blown "Can Dan" campaign against CBS newsman Dan Rather 16 years ago.

I most sincerely hope that Mr. Irvine enjoyed Rather's September, 2004 melt-down. It proved everything he ever said.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Farewell to a true life hero
Canada Free Press

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Farewell to a true life hero
Canada Free Press

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[jmeagan]

I had one personnal interaction with Mr. Irvine. I was calling a local talk show about an item that appeared in an AIM report. I couldn't find the report so I called AIM's office to get the official numbers. The first person I got was not familiar with the information. The next thing I knew I was transferred and was talking directly with Mr. Irvine. He was very gracious and answered all my questions. I was really impressed that he would take the time to talk to a "nobody."

[Tribune7]

A true hero.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The fact of the tendency of journalism to promote socialism is something I learned from Reed Irvine's AIM Report.

If you follow this link to my favorite thread you will see that the political topic which most interests me is the reasons for the tendency of journalism to promote socialism.

Basically the free press naturally promotes itself above its level of competence - it is the institutional embodiment of the Peter Principle. Journalism promotes its own "objectivity" - which is really a synonym for wisdom - but nothing requires journalism actually to be wise. The upshot is that journalists are a herd of people who are desperate to avoid the revelation that they don't know what they are talking about - a herd whose main fear and main target is the little boy who credibly tells the obvious truth.

Journalism promotes fabulous tales of the superior competence of hacks who in fact have no real expertise in the topics on which they espound, or else they would be conservatives rather than liberals. It is remarkably easy to appear intelligent if you have no expertise on the topic du jour; just follow the obvious cues of the journalist and say whatever sounds good. The journalist wants your support for the liberal position, and wants you to look good while giving it. All you need do is echo the liberal line and the journalist will reliably give you the cover of never asking the dreaded "second question."

If you want to get along, just be a sport and go along. It's OK if you stumble and start out backing the wrong horse, as long as you recover and avoid being courageous and opposing the journalist. It is only if you manifest actual courage that you risk being publicly humiliated with whatever the wit of journalism in general can find to throw at you.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The fact of the tendency of journalism to promote socialism is something I learned from Reed Irvine's AIM Report.

If you follow this link to my favorite thread you will see that the political topic which most interests me is the reasons for the tendency of journalism to promote socialism.

Basically the free press naturally promotes itself above its level of competence - it is the institutional embodiment of the Peter Principle. Journalism promotes its own "objectivity" - which is really a synonym for wisdom - but nothing requires journalism actually to be wise. The upshot is that journalists are a herd of people who are desperate to avoid the revelation that they don't know what they are talking about - a herd whose main fear and main target is the little boy who credibly tells the obvious truth.

Journalism promotes fabulous tales of the superior competence of hacks who in fact have no real expertise in the topics on which they espound, or else they would be conservatives rather than liberals. It is remarkably easy to appear intelligent if you have no expertise on the topic du jour; just follow the obvious cues of the journalist and say whatever sounds good. The journalist wants your support for the liberal position, and wants you to look good while giving it. All you need do is echo the liberal line and the journalist will reliably give you the cover of never asking the dreaded "second question."

If you want to get along, just be a sport and go along. It's OK if you stumble and start out backing the wrong horse, as long as you recover and avoid being courageous and opposing the journalist. It is only if you manifest actual courage that you risk being publicly humiliated with whatever the wit of journalism in general can find to throw at you.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the live link.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

My #14 was intended for another thread; my fat finger. If the mods would delete #14 and this reply itself, the thread would be improved.