The Dog That Didn't Bark

Vanity ^ | 08/04/2016 | IronJack

[IronJack]

It is no surprise, at least to conservatives, that the recent Wikileaks emails have revealed the collusion and moral turpitude behind the Democrats’ smiling façade. Among other things, they expose a chilling incest between leftists in the political sphere and their comrades in the press. The fact that an increasingly radical political party has nestled into intimacy with the so-called watchdogs of our public domain should be one of the breaking news events of this still-young century.

Instead, what we’ve witnessed is an echoing, empty silence, interspersed occasionally with an embarrassing level of deflection, deception, and legerdemain.

The absence of a story is itself a story.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in his famous Sherlock Holmes series, spins a tale in which Holmes snares the culprit not by what happened, but by what DIDN’T. A dog that normally bayed loudly at strangers had failed to raise a whimper the night a prized racehorse was stolen. Holmes reasoned – with his usual modesty – that the hound’s silence was because the perpetrator was not a stranger. The lack of a howl was the grounds on which he announced his j’accuse.

So it is with the Wikileaks emails. The culpability of the Democratic National Committee’s leaders is clear. But one expects partisan skullduggery from a political party. The chorus line on this corrupt can-can are the mass media. The story here is as much their betrayal of the First Amendment as it is the dirty deeds of the Democrats.

Deals were made. Palms were crossed. Bodily fluids were probably exchanged. Operators for the DNC machine negotiated favorable treatment from the Fourth Estate. And the press complied. Willingly. In fact, they actively courted DNC approval on numerous occasions. That sort of undermines their pretense of being mere witnesses to history..

We know who the offenders were in the Democrat Party. But who were the media villains? Who is digging after those facts and holding those feet to the fire? Where are all the brave crusaders who love to portray themselves as paladins speaking truth to power?.

A real seeker after truth would be poking around his own newsroom, looking for evidence, naming names. Who in his inner circle was part of this scandal? How high did the manipulations and dirty deals go? Are other reporters involved? Editors? Publishers? How many of his friends and colleagues were secretly hopping into bed with the very people they were supposed to be scrutinizing?.

Where is the outrage? Where is the high moral dudgeon we heard from the likes of Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee when Richard Nixon got caught erasing tapes and strong-arming witnesses? Where is all the posturing about the lofty First Amendment charter of the “guardian” press? .p>

The absence of a story is itself a story.

Far from pressing an investigation into media collusions, the self-same organs dig deep into the laughable allegation that Vladimir Putin and a host of pallid Russian hackers are manipulating the 2016 presidential election by ginning up hostility against Hillary Clinton. It’s a classic case of shooting the messenger rather than reading the message.

But it isn’t working. Crazed Bernie Sanders supporters hooted Hillary off the stage at the convention, and even booed their own demigod when he demonstrated his complicity by endorsing her. They don’t care if Joe McCarthy published the emails; they’re enraged by the fact that their publication reveals a caustic disregard for their candidate, their voices, and the entire democratic process. They feel betrayed – and rightfully so. Because they have been. All along.

As have the few remaining subscribers to the New York Times and the handful of viewers who still watch CNN. For years, conservatives have charged that news organs are biased against them, that stories are spiked when they show conservative principles in a positive light, and that partisanship is more the hallmark of modern-day journalism than objectivity.

Every time those charges are leveled, the media have flippantly brushed them away as paranoid ravings, despite objective measures of their validity by Accuracy in Media and other watchdogs of the watchdogs. Now, the claims are no longer refutable. The emails show a fawning servitude toward prominent liberals by influential media outlets which routinely maintain their coverage is unbiased and neutral. They cut deals with their political cronies, while yapping tritely about journalistic ethics (as gross a contradiction in terms as “honest politician”) and their “guardian role” in the public marketplace of ideas.

In other words, they’re liars – paid liars in an institution built on lies and omitted truths. And liars don’t put their own sins under a microscope. Bob Woodward isn’t likely to dig into allegations that the Washington Post is on the DNC’s payroll. Dan Rather’s too busy being unemployed and inventing stories about George Bush to probe the complicity of CBS. Bob Schieffer is preoccupied writing paeans to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

The watchdogs don’t bark because they sleep at the feet of the criminals.

The one thing – the ONLY thing – any journalist has to market is his credibility. Absent that, he is little more than an entertainer, a sideshow shill amusing for his patter but with no more reliability than a used-racehorse salesman. What kind of credibility accrues to an institution that not only supports a given agenda, but actually curries its favor? How can anyone believe they’re getting the whole story from people who intentionally don ideological blinders?

Is it realistic to expect the watchdogs to turn on their masters, to nip at the hands that feed them? That depends on whether journalists are more committed to a principle , an agenda, or a paycheck. I get it. We all have bills to pay. Ideals don’t put food on the table or pay for your daughter’s Zumba classes. If chasing the truth imperils your job, maybe discretion is the better part of valor.

But if you’re willing to subvert principle for practicality, stop preening and strutting like you’re some kind of anointed defender of Truth. You’re a whore. Just like anyone who sells his soul to keep a roof over his head, your principles are written on rubber. Your high office is nothing more than a more comfortable brothel that reeks of printers ink or overheated klieg lights instead of cheap perfume. You’re no better than the ignorant masses you presume to enlighten. So why should any of them listen to you?

That dog won’t hunt.

And with any luck, you’ll have sold yourselves right out of a job.

[IronJack]

Vanity bump

[newgeezer]

Funny that I’d see your ping for this today.

Just a few minutes ago, I was pondering the sad fact that the sheeple won’t give a **** about Hillary’s crimes and character until the media start reporting about them.

I mean, as usual, it’s the mushy middle—voters who claim to be open-minded and thoughtful but are in fact clueless—who will decide this election. And where do they get the “facts” to guide their decision? From the major networks, political ads, and Facebook (where they only see what their like-minded “Friends” share and what FB allows them to see).