2017 and the End of Ethics

National Review ^ | 12/24/2013 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Servant of the Cross]

Will there be a scandal if the new political appointees at the IRS sic their auditors on Moveon.org? What will the Washington Post say should the new president keep Guantanamo Bay open for five more years, quadruple the number of drone missions, or decide to double renditions? Will it say that he was shredding the Constitution, or that he found the terror threat too great to honor past promises?

Will NPR run an exposé on our next president should she tap into Angela Merkel’s cell phone, or monitor the communications of Associated Press reporters — and their parents? Will investigative reporters go after the president should he falsely claim that an ambassador and three other U.S. personnel died in the Middle East during a video-sparked spontaneous riot? Or if he then jails the filmmaker for a year on a trumped-up parole-violation charge?

In other words, because for the past five years the members of the Washington press corps have abdicated their traditional adversarial role as watchdogs of the executive branch, can we still have watchdogs at all in 2017? If the next president falsely swears that his new health-care program will not affect citizens’ current coverage, what consequences could possibly follow? If the New York Times went after such perfidy in 2017, would the new president just say, “Where were you when Obama did it?”

[Servant of the Cross]

The media is complicit in the era of no ethics inflicted on America by the 0bama WH.

[Standing Wolf]

The media is complicit in the era of no ethics inflicted on America by the 0bama WH.

I think I can simplify that. The self-proclaimed "news" media are Marxist whores.

[Servant of the Cross]

VDH ping.

[lowbridge]

“can we still have watchdogs at all in 2017?”

We all know the answer to this. Yes if the next president is a republican. No if he is a democrat.

[VRW Conspirator]

Will there be a scandal if the new political appointees at the IRS sic their auditors on Moveon.org?

If Obama were allowed to continue, Moveon.org and the like would eventually find themselves audited by the IRS. Idiots.

[rcofdayton]

If the next president is Republican he or she should aggressively and immediately confront all instances of media hypocrisy

[rockinqsranch]

Title, subtitle: "2017 and the End of Ethics

Will the Obama-era hypocrisy continue when the next president takes office?"

Most certainly IF it's Democrat, especially Hillary.

[Dubh_Ghlase]

I find it quite interesting that, suddenly and quietly, that Eight Democrats have proposed a bill that would take the death penalty off the table for a variety of serious federal crimes, including espionage, treason and assassinating federal politicians.

What's the deal here? Looking into your future and trying to pad the landing for yours (or others) treasonous actions?

You have broken the very laws you were sworn to uphold and defend. Now that those treasonous actions are about to be revealed, you are seeking to pass laws to protect you?

Don't think you can hide from the penalties already established for breaking those laws with new laws of your own origins!

KARMA IS A BITCH!!!

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“If the next president is Republican he or she should aggressively and immediately confront all instances of media hypocrisy.”

Don’t worry. President Palin most certainly WILL! :)

[Jim Noble]

“In other words, because for the past five years the members of the Washington press corps have abdicated their traditional adversarial role as watchdogs of the executive branch”

It cracks me up every time a “conservative” says this. When did this “traditional” role start? Were the media watchdogs of FDR? Of Truman? Of JFK? Of LBJ? Of Xlinton?

Don’t be absurd! The media are relentless promoters of communism, and enemies of liberty, and they always have been.

[Sir Napsalot]

I don’t trust any reporting of “news” now, and less people will trust media then.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[itsahoot]

The media are relentless promoters of communism, and enemies of liberty, and they always have been.

We would never have noticed had it not been for talk radio and FAUX News.

The most trusted man in America was a commie and no one noticed, not many, even today know that.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the ping! Merry Christmas!

[Luke21]

“The media are relentless promoters of communism, and enemies of liberty, and they always have been.”

During Reagan, they simultaneously portrayed the Gipper as uncaring about AIDS and the poor, as a doddering fool sleeping through cabinet meetings, and a dangerous maniac seeking to blow up the world.

Like you, I don’t get people who believe all this started under Obama. Remember how they carried Clinton’s water and made Ken Starr into a clone of Hitler?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“In other words, because for the past five years the members of the Washington press corps have abdicated their traditional adversarial role as watchdogs of the executive branch”

It cracks me up every time a “conservative” says this. When did this “traditional” role start? Were the media watchdogs of FDR? Of Truman? Of JFK? Of LBJ? Of Xlinton?

Don’t be absurd! The media are relentless promoters of communism, and enemies of liberty, and they always have been.

Actually, when you say “the media,” you primarily mean journalism. Wire service journalism, specifically the Associated Press - of which all major journalism outlets are members. Is that not so?

All journalists writing for members of the AP write to the AP style guide, and assume that they will be accorded the presumption of objectivity by their peers.

There was a time when journalists were not assumed to be objective - but it was not in any century that you or I have ever lived in. There was a time when journalists were notorious for not agreeing about much of anything. And then came the Associated Press. People became nervous about the concentration of propaganda power that it entailed, so the AP pointed out that everyone knew that its member newspapers didn’t agree about anything - and used that well-known fact as evidence that the AP itself was objective. But of course, in hindsight we know that the assumption of objectivity could not coexist with the fractious tradition of independent journalism. And we know which one of them had to go.

The assumption of objectivity requires that journalists go along and get along with each other, and especially with the AP itself. In fact, the assumption of objectivity does not mean that journalists actually are objective; it means only that they all tell the same story - and it means that journalists are not objective about themselves. In fact, journalists use the assumption of objectivity to precisely the same intent that the ancient Greek Sophists used their claims of superior wisdom - to suppress dissent. If it be assumed that I am wise and you are not, how can you expect me to deign to trifle with your facts and logic? And if I am assumed to be objective and you are not? Same difference.

Of course, sincere efforts to try to be objective are unexceptionable, and indeed laudable. It is argumentation from the assumption that you actually are objective which is contemptible sophistry.