Skip to comments.Old Media Curses the Wind
Posted on 04/13/2014 7:14:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
In strategy meetings through the years, Ive often heard conservative and Republican operatives complain, If the mainstream media would only cover the issue fairly . . .
My advice? Dont hold your breath.
In lively discussions with friends from across the political spectrum, including a journalist or two, Ive debated the proposition of whether a liberal media bias even exists. Without resolution.
Consensus aside, though, Ive determined it über-exists resting my judgment on two things: (1) surveys of the Washington press corps over the past decades, showing its members to be consistently and overwhelmingly liberal, and in turn voting Democratic, and (2) my personal experience with reporters and editors over the last 35 years.
And now, add to my personal list of anecdotal evidence two self-disclosures from important journalists in recent months.
Last October, in the wake of the disastrous rollout of Obamacare via the healthcare.gov website, National Journals Ron Fournier told MSNBCs Chuck Todd, [The Obama Administration] really had to get this right, not just for the healthcare reform, but for the whole idea that a lot of us believe in that a strong, effective government can help people through this huge economic and social transition were going through.
Fournier admitted that this federal government failure undermined the central argument that were having in this country namely, whether bigger and bigger government makes life better and better.
Fournier is not just any journalist: he serves as senior political columnist and editorial director of the prestigious National Journal. Before that, he worked for the Associated Press for 20 years, moving up to Washington bureau chief.
As top banana at the DC bureau, Fournier instituted a controversial policy that he called accountability journalism. The idea? Tell the readers who is right or wrong. Fournier called it being provocative without being partisan. . . truth-tellers without being editorial writers.
It seems to me theres a conscious effort to inject bias in the story, Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto offered in describing the new policy, though obviously Fournier would see it differently.
The point here isnt that Ron Fournier is a bad man. Ive spoken with him and found him pleasant enough. The fact that he and I dont agree on public policy is hardly earth-shattering, insidious or actionable. He has a right to write as he pleases and the publications he works for to print whatever they wish.
And Fournier does call out Democrats. I dont mind his style at all.
But please dont tell me that Fourniers political views are completely divorced, walled-off from his reporting and writing about these political issues on which we disagree.
The second journalist is Robert G. Kaiser. Kaiser worked for The Washington Post for 50 years, as an intern, reporter, foreign correspondent, editor and finally as managing editor, shaping the papers coverage. Last month, he wrote a parting-shot column entitled, How Republicans lost their minds, Democrats lost their souls and Washington lost its appeal.
Having left The Post and moved to New York City, Kaiser was full of self-righteous attacks on the failures of Washington, even while deriding those who attacked the failures of Washington.
He wrote of Republicans as global-warming deniers (never mind global temperatures), and lambasted the 162 Republicans in Congress who voted against raising the debt ceiling last October, saying the votes reflected the deep hostility felt by the newest version of Republican lawmakers toward the government of their country.
No mention of the deep hostility President Obama must likewise feel, since he, too, voted and spoke against upping the debt limit when in the U.S. Senate.
Kaiser rails against the incivility of conservative Republicans for calling Obama a socialist or in the case of Rep. Randy Weber of Texas, a socialistic dictator only to turn around and smear the free-market-oriented Club for Growth and Heritage Action as vigilantes for campaigning to eliminate every Republican in Congress who toys with moderation or considers collaborating with Democrats.
He seems oblivious to the implication that only some folks may campaign for what they believe and for whom they wish to see in public office. His folks.
I wont rail against the wind, Kaiser writes. I understand that, beginning with the passage of Proposition 13 in California in 1978, a tax revolt spread across the land. Americans who once trusted their government now distrusted it, profoundly.
Yet, even Kaiser confesses that this distrust was not irrational. The appalling war in Vietnam, the venality of Watergate, the now-forgotten but then-terrifying Great Inflation of the late 1970s these huge events altered the relationship between citizens and their government.
Kaisers real complaint is that the march of big government isnt faster and unrestrained. To him, the problem with Democrats is that they arent liberal enough and the problem with Republicans is that theyre not Democrats.
Our concern, on the other hand, is that folks with a strong political bent in favor of ever larger and more intrusive and controlling government Fournier and Kaiser, just to name two are almost exclusively shaping what stories are covered by the mainstream media and how theyre covered.
That may not change. But the hopeful news is that the stream where Americans get their news is indeed changing.
I bet Thomas Jefferson, who hated the press of his day (and had every reason to), would welcome todays revolution in the press away from the dominant media bias. There may be some irony that the founder of the Democratic wing in American politics would have preferred newspapers without government over government without newspapers, while todays major Democratic newspaper journalists would find the preference so incomprehensible.
And speaking of Jefferson . . .
Two American freedom fighters share April 13 as their birth date: Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, and Jane Jacob, my mother. Happy Birthday to you both, Tom and Mom!
Does a bear........in the woods?
The mainstream media has been pro socialism from the 20’s.
Journalists.Working hard to replace lawyers as the most reviled group in America.
As much as I love talk radio, I get sick of hearing my favorite hosts get their panties all wadded up over something that was said by some idiot on some idiot cable news show or by some idiot in some idiot newspaper.
Mock them, yes. But to get "outraged" and demand some sort of retraction or apology, forget it.
Also, I am sick of hearing "If this had happened under a (insert name of Repulbican here)"....
We have to stop reliving the last war.
It would better serve us if we would say something along the lines of, "Okay. I look FORWARD to President Palin using The IRS as a weapon against Liberal groups...." Or, "Then I guess you'll be okay when Secretary of State Cruz blames the death of an American ambassador on a video and sends Ambassador Limbaugh out to lie about it on the weekend news shows...."
We can't change the past, but if we can get people to see what the future might hold, at least then we might actually have a chance to change what's coming.
The debate is over, the facts are settled.
The media isn’t just biased to the Left, it’s actively partisan to the Left.
Maybe someone could write a program to write news articles based on actual newsworthiness. For instance, protests would be covered by the amount of actual protesters, so that a million pro lifers would get front web page coverage, whereas 2 anti Koch hippies would not even get a mention.
The debate contrasting big vs small government is based upon a flawed premise that we should not accept.
The real debate should occur over positive liberty vs negative liberty. In other words this should be about what the government can do to you vs what the government cannot do to you.
Anything else is meaningless.
Recents events have once again, been badly covered by the legacy media. Rat scandals,immigration issues,and the range war have been hardly mentioned.
It is absolutely true that the MSM has decided to join hands with the Rats to attack the freedom of speech and freedom of religion in order to destroy any resistance to a single party socialist state. One ruled by an oligarchy of which they are a member.
The Republicans need to renounce the MSM at every opportunity and refuse to walk into its traps, like left-wing hosted debates. They need to remind the public continuously that the MSM IS the DNC’s mouthpiece.
Re: Fournier. All you have to do is watch him on TV. The self-righteousness of the inside the beltway liberal is readily apparent.
It would be great if the big names on our side would stop fighting each other and pool resources to create a news broadcast that can be sold as a syndicated program for any station wanting an alternative to the 6:30 WH press release broadcast.
Or start a credible cable news network.
I say this because of the supposed shift the author sees, then why was she leaving (forced out?) of CBS?
I’ll take it one step further back. What is the purpose of government? The answer to that determines all that follows.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
This, I believe is the best and most succinct answer to your question.
Yep, like F=MA to engineers and physicists.
For political, societal happiness and harmony, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”
It’s pretty straightforward, isn’t it? The monsters who violate this principle have no excuse - they know full well what they are doing.
A few seconds before I was due up, the line went dead. It wasn't the first time I was cut for wanting to ask simple, foundational questions.
Yes, they know d@amn well what they do.