How Dan Rather And Media's Kings Lost Their Crowns (Wonder Land)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, November 12, 2004 | DANIEL HENNINGER

[presidio9]

It is often said that the only sure winner in American politics is the media. Amid GOP victory parties or the ruined dreams of the Kerry candidacy, the one constant is that the media marches on.

Maybe not this time. Big Media lost big. But it was more than a loss. It was an abdication of authority.

Large media institutions, such as CBS or the New York Times, have been regarded as nothing if not authoritative. In the Information Age, authority is a priceless franchise. But it is this franchise that Big Media, incredibly, has just thrown away. It did so by choosing to go into overt opposition to one party's candidate, a sitting president. It stooped to conquer.

The prominent case studies here are Dan Rather's failed National Guard story on CBS and the front page the past year of the New York Times (a proxy for many large dailies). Add in as well Big Media's handling of Abu Ghraib, a real story that got blown into a monthlong bonfire that obviously was intended to burn down the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. I think many people thought the over-the-top Abu Ghraib coverage, amid a war, was the media shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Authority can be a function of raw power, but among free people it is sustained by esteem and trust. Should esteem and trust falter, the public will start to contest an institution's authority. It happens all the time to political figures. It happened here to the American Catholic Church and to the legal profession, thanks to plaintiff-bar abuse. And now the public is beginning to contest the decades-old authority of the mainstream media.

[Earthdweller]

Yea and they won't get their crowns back either. Us "stupid" Americans gave it to them and reserved the right to take it away. Ain't America grand.

[thombo]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for big media(msm) to fold or change their agenda. i work for a company w/approx 250 employees who are overwhelmingly dem, and they believe whatever Rather, Jennings,(etc.) say. I have the feeling that the majority of dems in the US feel the same way.

[Earthdweller]

I say let the Dems who are stupid enough to believe everthing they(MSM) say should continue to do so. It didn't get them anywhere in this election and I don't see things going back to the way they where with MSM worship.

[Zon]

Old media needn't change. It's actually better if they continue to render themselves irrelevant trending toward obsolete.

With nearly as many homes having Internet access as televisions people will continuer escalating their Internet for their source of news.

[robertpaulsen]

"and they believe whatever Rather, Jennings,(etc.) say."

I would venture a guess that what they say is 98% accurate. But the issue is not what they say.

The issue is 1) the types of stories they cover and 2) from what perspective.

Does the press cover the homeless when a Democrat is President? Has the press ever approached the gun issue from the Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program? According to the press, is there any car out there that kills people other than an SUV?

[Getready]

True.
It is the angle at which they approach a story. They try
to "shape" the context in which a story is repeated.
Example: Will talk about "insurgents" in Iraq as if the
"insurgents" represent the population of Iraq (not a bunch
of international terrorists who want to die in their attempt
to pester U.S. forces)

Or if the Prez. wants to cut taxes cuz he thinks we pay to
much to the Feds, they might say something like.."in order
to firm up his support among the wealthy, the Prez. is
now strongly desiring a tax cut...(that is an exaggeration(sp?)
but you get the picture.)
I got sick of that way of framing the news long ago...I
barely watch abc, cbs, nbc news ...I learn more from books,
internet, educational movies, professional journals, and
some surprisingly conservative younger college folks. So when
I hear their "news" I am usually well versed in the subject
before they open their lame 20 second spot...as if 20 seconds
can cover a complex issue....

[SMARTY]

Dan Rather is the real Humpty Dumpty here and he took all the clucking idiots with him. Good riddance! The facts are no longer THEIR privileged, personal, private property to loan out to us on a short tether. They never were. Facts are the only currency and the pure gold standard of political intercourse in the US and never WERE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY of the MSM. Game's up! Americans, and I'll say it again-with the help of the Swift Vets, have returned to their senses where movie star wannabies in the MSM can NO LONGER predetermine US public opinion.

[presidio9]

bookmarking

[robertpaulsen]

It think it was the Brokaw interview with Kerry about his IQ compared to Bush. Kerry said "I don't know how they've done it ... (cut)."

Of course MSM cut off "... because my record is not public."

Now, did Brokaw lie? Nope. But only those who get their news from other than the MSM would know he cut the response.

[Kitty D]

I keep e-mailing CBS news about the Rather/Mapes issue because I want them to know they both should have been removed during the investigation(if there actually is one) and I'm not just forgetting about this horrendous breach of not only journalism but THE LAW. I'm hoping others are doing likewise. The pressure must stay on. I'm glad to see the Journal responding again.

[bruin66]

The issue is 1) the types of stories they cover and 2) from what perspective.

As important is what they DON'T cover.