>>>Check #48<<<
Thanks. That is great information. I am beginning to get the feeling that this will blow up in the faces of the left. The left has refused to report the truth about the pre-war WMD debate, the good things that are happening in Iraq, and Joe Wilson's pathological lying, among other things. But they might be forced to report at least some of the truth when Fitzgerald or a judge drops the charges on Libby.
BTW, to me the "left" is the media. There are others, of course; but they would have no place to voice their lies if not for the treachery of the main stream media.
Perhaps such a fear prompted Woodward's revelation. The MSM had the wild surmise that the Libby defense was to shine light into their fetid warrens, and find many pairs of red eyes staring back. Woodward abruptly reveals info to terminate the prosecution, lest the warren be flushed and the likes of Russert etc. be exposed.
Beyond peradventure. In studying the problem of "bias in the media" I became fully convinced of its existence and became bored by further examples. So I stopped reading Reed Irvine's Accuracy In Media (AIM) Report and became fascinated with the reason behind the phenomenon.I realized that "the media" was an overbroad topic; whatever tendentiousness might exist in fictional movies and books there was no possibility of identifying any change which could be realized which could concievably make any difference. So I focused on nonfiction, and on the particular genre of nonfiction which is the locus of the problem - journalism.
And in studying the possible explanations for the leftist tendency in journalism I first hit upon the deadlines which actually define journalism as a genre of nonfiction. The deadline is actually "the show must go on" in the print world. Which highlights the fact that journalism is entertainment. As such journalism is intrinsically superficial.
The second characteristic I identified in journalism is negativity. "If it bleeds, it leads." Journalism isn't interested in the fact that Quaker provided all the oats anyone wanted for breakfast today - but let someone slip and fall in front of the Quaker plant - and the journalists descend upon the scene.
But the question about negativity was, "negativity towards what?" And what about journalism claiming to be objective, when its negativity and superficiality was such a clear non-objective tendency in journalism? And I then realized that the one characteristic which explains and defines the negativity of journalism is arrogance.
It is arrogant to argue from the assumption of your own superior virtue - and journalism constantly argues from the assumption of its own objectivity. The fact that journalists are arrogant would lead you to expect that journalism would be negative - would tear down any reputation in order to build up its own reputation.
Journalism and leftism have the same vice in common - arrogance and a bullying tendency.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate