Pres. Bush IS a radical departure from Clinton. So such a "radical" change from pandering,etc. is not bad after all.
Posted on 03/19/2004 5:41:05 AM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
By BRADY DENNIS, Times Staff Writer
Published March 19, 2004
TAMPA - Legendary reporter Carl Bernstein riffed Thursday night about President Bush, the Martha Stewart trial, the war in Iraq and his affection for Florida.
But mostly he talked about an epidemic that troubles him deeply these days. He calls it "the triumph of idiot culture."
Speaking to a crowd of about 200 at the Wyndham Westshore, he placed most of the blame on modern media outlets.
Bernstein, the former Washington Post journalist who, along with fellow reporter Bob Woodward, unearthed the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, said much of today's news has deteriorated into gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy.
That type of news panders to the public and insults their intelligence, ignoring the context of real life, he said. Good journalism, Bernstein said, "should challenge people, not just mindlessly amuse them."
He said the modern press lacks true leadership, citing such examples as AOL Time Warner and mogul Rupert Murdoch as media owners that have increasingly abandoned the principles of meaningful reporting.
"Their interest in truth is secondary to their interest in huge profits," Bernstein said.
Still, he said people can change that trend by exploring the Internet and piecing together from reputable sources their own news about important world matters.
He offered another solution to avoiding the trash that fills the airwaves: "Change the damn channel. Simple."
Bernstein also turned his attention Thursday to the coming election, calling President Bush "the most radical president of my lifetime and perhaps in the century."
Bernstein said Bush "is radical in every degree," from a favoritism of the wealthy to a pre-emptive foreign policy to a lack of concern for civil rights.
"He certainly seems more ideological than any of our presidents," Bernstein said.
Even so, Bernstein said he hopes a genuine debate can take place this year about the future of the country, rather than the petty quarrels and meaningless accusations that so often dominate campaign coverage.
"Let's move beyond the absurd name-calling and sound bite journalism," he said. "It is our job ... to force a real debate."
Try as he might, Bernstein could not escape the ghosts of Watergate, even for one night. A man stood during the post-speech question-and-answer session and asked if Deep Throat, the anonymous source used by Woodward and Bernstein, was a real person.
Bernstein smiled and broke into an impression of Nixon, grumbling to an assistant and wondering himself about Deep Throat's identity.
"It is one person," Bernstein said, finally. "We did not make it up."
And when Deep Throat dies, he said, "We will reveal him."
You would think that someone talking on Idiot Culture would know that Bush, so far, is the ONLY president of this century.
Pres. Bush IS a radical departure from Clinton. So such a "radical" change from pandering,etc. is not bad after all.
Well then, Mr. Bernstein, why did you have absurd name calling and sound-bite journalism in your speech?
"He certainly seems more ideological than any of our presidents," Bernstein said.
Radical. Ideological. Typical liberal tripe.
Even so, Bernstein said he hopes a genuine debate can take place this year about the future of the country, rather than the petty quarrels and meaningless accusations that so often dominate campaign coverage.
Yeah, wouldn't want them calling each other radical ideologues now, would we? Let's crawl out of the gutter already.
"Let's move beyond the absurd name-calling and sound bite journalism," he said. "It is our job ... to force a real debate."
You first. Go get em, tough guy.
Ugly truth. There never WAS any "Deep Throat". Before there was a Jayson Blair, there were Woodward and Bernstein. They just haven't been found out yet. Gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy did not appear in the news overnight. There has been a segment of journalism that has promoted and endorsed this approach since the first chronicles of current affairs began to be kept by mankind. Since about the time of the start of the Cold War, it has been a part of the culture of the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, the LA Times, and all the lesser lights of liberal journalism, and only because of vast amounts of moral capital they have squandered to cover their bias, have they kept their dirty little secrets.
The movie is about a woman who chooses love and family over her successful career as a magazine writer but her playboy husband, a newspaper columnist, can't give up his cheating ways, even during her pregnancy.
What woman could resist that?
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.