It’s 2:20 and I haven’t had time to post any of several half-finished posts, or read the news. I’m currently engaged in a death match with Quark XPress, trying to get a client’s brochure ready to print. (And for pity’s sake, don’t tell me I need to switch to InDesign. I know. But that knowledge doesn’t add a nickel to my bank account so Quark it is, at least for the time being.)
Until I can beat this software into submission, I’m reposting something from last year that is unfortunately just as pertinent today as it was a year ago. Last week the New York Times unashamedly smeared their formerly fair-haired maverick John McCain. The Los Angeles Times dropped any pretense of neutrality and is openly advocating for Barack Obama. Now that the media’s goals have changed, their treatment of formerly favored politicians has too. While it may be entertaining to conservatives to see the people who used to enjoy a free ride suddenly being kicked off of the bus, the truth is that with an advocacy media, we all lose.
_____________________________________________
The Breathtaking Arrogance of Reporters – (originally posted 2/22/2007)
Bloggers always seem to gripe about the MSM, and it’s certainly fair to say that for the most part, I despise journalists. What was once an honored profession and an institution that made America great is now an ongoing performance art piece entitled “Hubris.”
This article about Helen Thomas’ dislodgement from her front row seat at White House press conferences is illuminating:
As for how she thinks the next White House will handle the press, she said, “I think reporters should pin down the candidates and get them to almost sign on a dotted line that they’re going to give regular news conferences. It’s the only institution in our society where a president can be questioned on a regular basis. If he’s not questioned, he can operate solo, as a dictator.”
It amazes me that a woman of her age and experience could believe such a ridiculous premise. Our founding fathers provided checks and balances. It is Congress and the Supreme Court who have the power from preventing a President from becoming a dictator. The press may assist in the functioning of those checks and balances – they publicize information, people contact their representatives in Congress and demand action – but the press is not the fourth branch of government. Their power is taken, not granted.
Although I don’t believe it was intended, the Frontline series News War includes interview after interview to drive the point home. This interview has a telling quote where Bill Keller describes his motives in becoming a serial exposer of classified government programs:
[There are] several reasons for writing about it, but I think the main one, again, is this context: the concentration of executive power. This is a program that was taking place without the kind of congressional oversight that you would normally expect. There were some members of Congress who knew about it; there were quite a few members of Congress who normally would have been apprised of a program who did not know about it. … [emphasis added]
In this quote he’s referring to the Times’ exposure of the SWIFT program, which used to help us “connect the dots” by tracking terrorist financing. The Times’ ombudsman later admitted that the program broke no laws and perhaps it wasn’t such a “swift” idea to expose it. “Sorry” isn’t good enough, and while the ombudsman may have expressed regret, Keller certainly has not. It is clear that he would do it again, given the chance. There is no excuse for this. No laws were broken by the programs Keller exposed, and they were succeeding. Congress had been notified; just evidently not to Keller’s satisfaction. I don’t think anyone expects the media to kowtow to any administration. But neither do we expect it to take the arbitrary position against one that Keller admits having.
Having elevated themselves to such a position of authority, the press has an obligation to not be partisan or arbitrary, and to exercise sound judgment. That they refuse to do so has earned them the disgust of the majority of Americans. A recent Zogby poll has revealed that 71.4% of Americans are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism. 55.4% describe blogging as “important to the future of journalism.” While 85.3% of people describe “professional journalism” as important to the future of journalism, “citizen journalism” is also described as important to the future of journalism by 74.4% of the people surveyed. 65.4% of people believe that traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news, where only 23.6% believe it is not.
The inevitable result of their hubris is that the media is talking themselves out of their jobs. While this may serve the cause of justice – they don’t deserve their jobs anymore – it doesn’t serve the American people. We need a free press to aid – not replace – our constitutional system of checks and balances. The situation can be salvaged if they would just return to their original mission: to deliver facts impartially. It will be a tragedy if they do not.
