Posted on 02/21/2005 1:55:59 PM PST by knighthawk
Last year, the very smart political scientists Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio completely unwrapped the orthodox newsroom view of religion and politics. Writing in First Things magazine, the authors conclude that secularists and religious people have been struggling against each other for many years, but in the newsroom accounts, one struggler (secularism) essentially disappears, leaving the religious side as oddly divisive people who want to take over the culture and "impose" (vote) their values. The authors believe newsrooms have been partisan in the debate for many years, partly because so many reporters are Democrats who do not go to church and do not fully understand that secularism is basically an aggressive quasi-religion now central to the core constituency of the Democratic Party. Some Democrats (i.e., Sen. Hillary Clinton) are beginning to understand this. When she said recently that believers have the right to live out their faith in the public square, she was taking dead aim at the secularist goal of banishing religion from public life. In the story of Eason Jordan, we have something new. Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, said something on a panel, the gist of which was that U.S. soldiers had deliberately shot at journalists in Iraq. This was a serious charge, but the major media essentially looked the other way for many days. But bloggers descended quickly, demanding to see the unreleased videotape of the panel and asking about Jordan's evidence. Jordan then softened what he apparently had said. But he resigned, essentially because of the case made by the bloggers.
Last week The New York Times, which had looked the other way for two weeks, ran a story dripping with disdain. Headlined "Bloggers as News Media Trophy Hunters," it offered a simpleminded view of bloggers as wild conservatives out to collect liberal scalps.
To make its case, The Times gave a sanitized account of Jordan's comment on his panel and made no mention of two Democratic politicians, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd, who were present at the panel and told the press they were aghast at what they heard Jordan say. Dropping Frank and Dodd from the story upheld the theme of out-of-control conservatives descending on famously liberal CNN. Jordan's explanations that he was talking about mistakes and collateral damage caused by U.S. forces was directly contradicted by Frank, who said that Jordan had said "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy." Nothing like this appeared in The Times.
Why some in mainstream media keep depicting bloggers as inaccurate is a mystery. In the blogs I follow, accuracy is crucially important, and errors have to be admitted quickly, usually on the day of the mistake. Maybe big media should get used to someone looking over their shoulder.
Ping
What is "CNN"?
Horse puckey.
She was taking dead aim at 2008, and the voters she knows don't like the anti-religious fervor of the modern Democrat party.
Do they think if they keep discussing the bloggers, we'll forget about the real story here? Jordan had made those claims before, and it's time that Frank and Dodd stopped cow-towing to CNN and just opened up an investigation. CNN is allowing this accusation to be spread as truth around the world, and it is the responsiblity of our government to get to the truth, and address problems IF THEY ARE REAL. If CNN is lying or perpetuating lies, about our military, their license to broadcast in this country should be pulled.
This is not about the bloggers, it's about getting at the truth.
(s)I hear advertisers with more money than inteligence know what CNN is. They advertise CNN on the fox news channel from time to time.(/s)
actually there really are CNN commercials on Fox.
The Clinton News Network will be back in time for 2008, they'll operate in the red for the next 3 years if they have to. They will be 'moderated' just like Hillary, and just as phonily.
"What is "CNN"?"
Apparently one of the less reliable blogs.
More than likely that's your local cable operator filling unsold local spots with its own promos.
It is after all, a target rich environment.
MSM death throes bump.
No, no, what Mr. Jordan was immaterial, certainly not deserving of resignation. The Wall Street Journal told me so.
It can't be easy standing up to the New York Times. Especially for the likes of us... Anyhow, thanks again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.