The Change that Will Save Our Nation
3January 22, 2009 by Tyson Wynn
Political cycles are cyclical. If one looks to the U.S. presidency, especially in modern times, we see a pendulum swing from left to right and back to left over and over again. Hoover to FDR, then Truman when FDR died, then to Eisenhower, to Kennedy and Johnson, who succeeded upon JFK’s death, to Nixon and Ford, who took over upon Nixon’s resignation, to Carter, to Reagan, then his VP, Bush 41, to Clinton, to Bush 43, and now Obama. It’s almost like a marching cadence (former band members yell with me), “Left, right, left, right!”
And while “change” is everyone’s new favorite word, I don’t see that we’re in for a change to anything new. Largely what I see being offered are repackaged things that didn’t work before, and many of which in fact led us into the morass that was the 1970s. That said, this post is not about politicians’ politics. They make their promises, we hold elections, and someone is ceded power for a time. We’ll see how it works out, though many of us are sure we have a good idea where it’s headed.
No, the change I crave, and the change that will save our civilization is a fundamental change in the news media. It was long understood that an objective and free press was essential to the success of our Republic. It was so important that it was protected in the First Amendment, along with freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
But we have just finished an election cycle when we have seen newsmen and -women weep on air for a candidate. The inauguration again brought tears to the eyes of supposedly professional members of the media. Does it not strike anyone else that when newspersons have become so invested in a person’s success they can no longer be looked at to report objectively and truthfully on that person and his administration? If Nixon had been this adored by the press, Watergate would still be just a hotel.
When the news bureaus have been co-opted as extensions of the White House press office, it is a very bad thing, regardless of who the president is. And, it is thoroughly disingenuous for the media to have nothing but criticism and rancor for Republicans and undying love and affection for Democrats, while expecting us to believe it has nothing to do with party. We’re smarter than that.
We need newspersons who will report the news and allow us to draw our conclusions. We need newspersons who are committed to asking hard questions of every president. We need newspersons who understand that while we grasp the historical significance of President Obama’s election, wish him well, and respect him as the leader of this nation, there are over 58 million Americans who did not vote for him, nearly half (22) of the 50 states are still “red,” and some of us our here are still clinging to God and our guns. The president is most certainly entitled to his inauguration, and he is entitled to the spoils of victory, but we are entitled to unbiased and un-spun information.
A media that is in a president’s back pocket (especially when it was largely responsible for the destruction of his predecessor) is bad for the president and the nation. It is allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. And President Obama needs to learn one huge lesson from John McCain: live by the press, die by the press. If they make you, they can destroy you.
And so there are really two solutions here. One, the mainstream media could demand and reward true, genuine objectivity (and punish its lack) from its correspondents and anchors. A just-the-facts reporting style would certainly be welcome by me. That’s probably too much to ask, so alternatively the press could just give up any semblance of objectivity and fully disclose their leanings. “Good evening and welcome to the CBS Evening News. I’m Katie Couric, I am a liberal Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections, and here’s my version of the news.” Honesty goes a long way with me.
Category 1st Amendment, Barack Obama, Liberal Rags, Media, My 2¢, News, Politics | Tags:
3 comments
Sorry, comments are closed.
Tyson, good post. The best news in Oklahoma is the Oklahoma News Report on OETA. It’s just the news – without commentary. I have tired, oh so tired of all the hype and misinformation or lack thererof.
Tyson,
I couldn’t agree with you more on this post. I am a moderate and didn’t support now Pres. Obama in the primary, but ended supporting him over John McCain, whom I have been a fan of for his independent streak for some time. I think we saw the media do what it always does: find a good story and push it as long and hard as they can. The Obama candidacy was a huge cash cow for liberal and conservative media source alike. Because of his excellent speaking ability, his race, and his age, he became so different from the norm that people either loved to love him or loved to hate him. I would argue that the media’s obsession with him was not ideologically based, but profit based. I do not denie that there is a liberal lean in much of the media. However, it is my belief that the conservative sources like FoxNews and all of talk radio were equally caught up in the Obamamania. These sources just drummed up stories that were negative.
I wrote a paper recently about the media’s role in our country and basically made the argument that the media is doing the opposite of what our Founders intended it to be doing. Instead of simply reporting the news as it is, the media tells the most compelling story for profit’s sake. One solution I had for this problem was an expansion of PBS and NPR. I cited studies that showed that consumers of these sources were more accurately informed than those of nearly every other source. Instead of having the news reported by ideologues like O’Reilly, Hannity, Olberman, and Maddow, these people just tell us the news. When there is debate, it is not a debate between host and guest yelling at one another (like say Hannity and Colmes), it is a discussion where people disagree respectfully.
This may not be the best solution, but the problem to me seems evident to both of us. When people who aren’t as politically interested watch MSNBC or FoxNews, they simply believe they are getting the news. It’s a sad state when I think I can find or political honesty on Comedy Central (Daily show, Colbert, South Park) than on “news” networks. Best wishes!
I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions about profits. News media was once profitable while they delivered the news. Profits aren’t in and of themselves evil. They have the power to corrupt, but it’s not an absolute.
I also don’t begrudge the cable news channels their opinion givers and commentators. I think it’s pretty well understood by most folks that when they watch “ideologues like O’Reilly, Hannity, Olberman, and Maddow” that they are getting opinions. I am drastically more concerned with the inherent liberal slant in what is supposed to be straight “news” reporting, especially from the broadcast networks. That’s the reason I used Katie Couric in my example. As far as the networks, I think we have to admit that at least FoxNews tries to be fair and balanced, as they say, by presenting persons on several sides of the issues. Some of the others pretend they have when they have a liberal Democrat and liberal Republican. That doesn’t really pass muster. And for the record, I watch very little of any of the networks. My favorite show on FoxNews is Special Report with Brit Hume. I don’t watch O’Reilly and was no fan of H&C.
And I will also have to differ with you on NPR and PBS. Having been in radio at an NPR station, I can tell you it has its own biases, which is obvious if you consider how many NPR “reporters” do double duty as cable news “commentators.”
Thanks for the comment!