Dereliction of Duty
2March 7, 2009 by Tyson Wynn
Over on the American Thinker Blog, Lance Fairchok reports what we already know. There is collusion between the political and media rails of our society. This, my friends and readers, is why we pitch a fit about the Big Liberal Media.
This is especially prescient because of the recent discussion here on the WynnBlog regarding Second Amendment rights. It has long been my position that First Amendment rights to free speech are as potentially dangerous—if not more so—than the Second Amendment right to possess weapons. Yet, we require no license from the government to exercise one’s right to free speech. Any schmuck former political operative can end up hosting a supposedly objective news program one one of the dinosaur media’s networks.
And just as some irresponsible idiots can abuse their Second Amendment freedoms and do great harm, even evil, some of the talking heads America relies on for news and information abuse the right of free speech and abandon all objectivity for the sake of politics.
From the column:
Every morning, a group of old friends have a nice chat. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CNN’s James Carville, CNN commentator Paul Begala, and Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have a wide ranging conference call, usually starting just before dawn. Democrat Pollster Stan Greenberg is a frequent participant. They examine current events and how they fit into the new administrations policies. They determine how to best get their message to the public.
***
When they next appear on various programs as interviewers or interviewees, their comments do not conflict with each other. They have coordinated the broad themes and the topics, and after that early morning phone call they coordinate with their personal networks and associates, influencing and coaxing the comment and reportage on specific issues nationwide.
But why should this bother us? Shouldn’t we all just get along?
From an information consumer’s standpoint it is disturbing that several main networks are so tuned into White House message shaping. How can the citizen expect accurate analysis and reportage when the “journalists” that present it are so tied into the party in power? Obviously they cannot, as we have so clearly seen in the blatant bias and advocacy of last year’s campaign media coverage. The “prevailing political and media interpretation” is a nice way to say “political message.”
Those in the media should remember that it is the nature of those in power—from any party or political persuasion—to do everything possible to retain it. If you choose to be willing accomplices, there will be a price to pay, which we are already seeing with the mass downturn in traditional media viewership and readership. When you start doing your jobs—objectively—you might save the industry…and maybe the country. If you choose to stay in either party’s back pocket, you will feel the considerable heft of their backsides bearing down upon you eventually.
Oh, and there will be new permit program established to authorize you to exercise your First Amendment rights. You will be required to take an 8-hour training course at a cost of approximately $60, provide pictures and fingerprints to your local sheriff’s office (at a cost of approximately $35), undergo a background check, and pay a fee of $100 per five year period of licensure. The line forms to the right (or would you be more comfortable on the Left?).
Category 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, Liberal Rags, Media, News, Politics | Tags:
2 comments
Sorry, comments are closed.
Strange how conservatives failed to note when FoxNews became an arm of the Bush White House and the RNC, or when the White House slipped a minimally-credentialed Jeff Gannon in to White House briefings and news conferences to lob softball questions at Bush and his press secretaries.
There is no monolithic media, although there has been a significant concentration of the media in since WWII. The media is in the business of making a profit, and if they believe that profits come from toeing the White House line — as the NYTimes did in substantiating the WMD claims of the Bush administration in 2002 — then that’s generally what they do.
In short, the media has a huge MAJORITARIAN bias, which means that they seek the largest audience possible, and cable news has facilitated a great deal of narrow-casting to particular ideological tastes. More importantly, the media is hugely risk averse, which means that they are reluctant to pursue stories that may have a law suit at the end of them (hence, precious little critical coverage of corporate America, which generally owns the media), or which can generally be predicted to create a big White House pushback. In any event, they generally give critics on both the left AND right plenty of cause to complain.
To that, how about the imbalance on most Sunday political talk shows since Obama’s inauguration? It’s strange, but the media’s view of newsworthiness seems to be that when Republicans are the majority party they get the bulk of the coverage, and when the Democrats have the majority the media decides that Republicans remain more newsworthy.
The unifying variable in studying the U.S. media is the obsessive focus on official news sources. What that typically means is that the party out of power bitterly complain that the media uncritically focuses on the message coming out of the White House. The only thing that changes are the ideological sympathies of the complainants.
Same as it ever was…
It does little good to attempt to prop up your positions by pointing rightward and saying, “But they do it, too!”
My premise is that when the media gives up its objectivity for a chummy relationship with the administration—regardless of its political affiliation (I think I made this very clear)—it’s bad for news consumers. Sure, the Gannon thing was cheap, but let’s be honest. He wrote for some obscure web publication. He was not hosting and/or anchoring the NEWS on broadcast networks. The kind of collusion between the the big media and the Obama White House is unacceptable.
It may not be monolithic, but the mainstream media is largely liberal. It’s been shown time and again. You know, kind of like how we know that university faculty, though not monolithic, trends significantly leftward.
I won’t be any help on the Sunday news shows. I abandoned them long ago. My stomach can only take so much, and I frankly have better things to do on Sunday mornings.
In closing, I submit for your edification this from Camille Paglia on Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/):