Loving and Hating on the Press

Over the course of my life I have learned that the Republicans love to tout the media as being liberal and biased against them, and I will give them some leeway to say that the opinion sections of the Washington Post and New York Times tend to be liberal (although Charles Krauthammer and George Will also have regular pieces), but the Republicans have also gotten their Wall Street Journal and Fox News into relative popularity as well. Fox News loves to call itself "fair and balanced" and I'm not sure if that's a jab at the other side of the media or a deluded sentiment, but I'll let my readers inform me of that one. And as tempted as I am to rail on the whole "liberal=uberbad" label that the conservatives managed to stamp on our society, I will save that for later.

I can't help but notice that W has been president for most of the "politically aware" stage of my life. I spent most of my childhood and high school formulating my opinions and ideology, and after doing so I became much more willing to apply my methodologies to government and current events (namely during college years). But I was aware of Clinton's last term in office, and over the last 9 years (gasp, I'm old...) I have learned one very definitive thing about the media. They love a juicy story.

I have heard from every Republican that W has received unfair treatment in the media. It seems that with every political issue that comes up that the Republicans certainly are impressive with providing a unified front and standardized talking points. I'm tired of partisanship, and I'm tired of feeling like our representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, are broken records with diametricly opposed sets of tracks on each other. The media is not responsible every time Republicans look bad, and "money grubbing conservatives" are not responsible every time a Democrat looks bad. (I think Ted Kennedy used that one once) The media is there to keep the government in check, and the media is ultimately necessary to preserve our way of life. They have become bloated, full of themselves, and money driven just like everything else in the world, but they can be counted on to jump on every juicy story. They gave oodles and oodles of coverage to the Lewinsky incident; the Post printed out the trial transcripts and had everyone making cigar jokes for months to come. Leno and Letterman had their field days, and so did Craig Kilborne.

As sick and nauseous as it makes me to watch the ballet between Scott Mclellan (perhaps the slimiest press secretary I've seen yet) and David Gregory (yeah I hate him too), you have to ultimately realize that it's two people just doing their jobs. Clinton perfected the art of the press secretary that didn't say anything (see Mike McCurry) so I admit he had a large part in making Scott Mcllelan who he is: a broken record that doesn't say anything. With Mclellan, the Bush administration is simply copycatting an act of political savvy. And all of the White House reporters are probably disenfranchised enough that they have to feign anger just to look like they're doing their jobs.

And, as I said, as much as the whole process makes me want to vomit, it is completely necessary to propogate democracy. Every presidency needs to be kept on their heels by the media, otherwise they can start making decisions without the effect of public opinion and backlash. So hell yes is the media tough, but its just a part of the damn territory. You want to be President? Live with the consequences then, because you will be under a lot of scrutiny. I asked my Dad how the press treated Carter, and he said they had a field day at his expense during the Iran hostage crisis. And probably rightfully so. During the next Democratic presidency, you can call me on this if I complain.

I would love to see how the media would have reacted if the administration had just released the Cheney story instantly and just called it an accident, and Cheney had taken fault immediately. Although I can't test it, I believe it would have been a big story, but for a lesser amount of time, and probably wouldn't have been as controversial. But I won't get my experiment.

Finally, if a journalist prints a story based on hearsay (in any publication other than a known tabloid) then you can complain about irresponsible journalism. I think the rule of thumb has been one first hand source, or three second hand sources. Lapses or mis-followings of this rule are hard to prove, but Dan Rather certainly had one. However, I don't think he broke it because he was aiming to get Republicans. Judging from several character reports, he was merely selfish enough to want the notoriety.

Time for bed. I should watch that movie with George Clooney about Mccarthyism, and remember what journalists were like before they were less profit driven. And when presidential administration's stances on issues and events held more substance. Maybe when I get up tomorrow the ballet will make more sense. And monkeys might fly out of my ass.

-K