Posted on 01/13/2005 7:14:16 AM PST by crushkerry
Who can you trust?
This week’s release of the CBS report got me trolling through lefty blogs to see what they might possibly have to say about this, the most egregious media scandal in history. You won’t be shocked to learn that they thought very little of it; most haven’t even commented on it at all.
Instead, they are outraged by the Armstrong Williams payola scandal. The subversives are, of course, correct in their outrage. What the Bush Administration and Armstrong Williams did was wrong and sneaky, if not entirely original. But this does not allow the subversives to be hypocritical. While Dan Rather is one of the most recognizable names in the news business, and 60 Minutes (I know, I know, it was the cheesy "After M*A*S*H"-style spinoff 60 Minutes II that fabricated the Bush guard story) is the Coke, Nike and McDonalds of the news biz all rolled into one, most people’s reaction to the pay-for-commentary scandal was to ask, Armstrong who?
Moreover, as Glenn Reynolds recently pointed out in Tech Central Station:
"'The Clinton administration was probably even more active than the Bush administration" in distributing news segments promoting its policies,' said Laurence Moskowitz, chairman and chief executive of Medialink, a major producer of promotional news segments."
And wasn’t “everybody does it” a handy excuse for Mr. Clinton when another scandal broke?
I’m not making excuses for the federal government or Armstrong Williams, but this scandal and Rathergate aren’t even in the same ball game.
But if the lefties are interested in being indignant about something, perhaps they should reflect back to Stephen Hayes’ important investigative journalism over recently retired leftist talk fixture Bill Moyers.
WHEN PBS executives asked themselves the question so many Americans asked after the September 11 attacks--what can we do?--their answer was obvious: Bill Moyers. We can give America Bill Moyers. Lots of Bill Moyers.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting promptly set aside some $440,000 in public funds for "emergency programming" featuring Moyers and friends. First there was "Moyers in Conversation," six half-hour episodes beginning September 12. Also on September 12 came "New York Voices: The Day After," an hour-long special co-hosted by Moyers. Then, on September 20, "America Responds: A National Conversation with Bill Moyers," two hours of live dialogue between Moyers and, among others, author and rapper extraordinaire Cornel West, O.J. attorney Alan Dershowitz, and "Vagina Monologues" playwright Eve Ensler.
And before that, Moyers really cashed in:
He further pointed out that he "privatized" more than ten years ago, eschewing "public television funding" altogether. "For over a decade now I have raised every penny for every production from foundations and corporations," Moyers insisted. "They're 'subsidizing' public television, not the other way around. As I say, you have it wrong."
If I have it wrong, so does the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Their records show that over the past decade, Moyers took a total of $969,377, though nothing since 1994.
But you really should, as we say in the blogosphere, read the whole thing. Hayes’ investigation turns up all kinds of interesting fees, markups, bonuses and kickbacks. In short, Bill Moyers has become an extremely wealthy man by producing and starring in his own anti-Republican talk show, paid for in part by taxpayer money.
But that’s a two year old story! Moyers is retired! Why bring all this up again now? Because, as Reynolds ask – and the entire news biz seems obligated to answer – who can you trust?
The personal voice in which even most anonymous blogs are written tends to inspire trust. But is that trust deserved? Sometimes, but not always. When Iraqi blogger Zeyad reported crimes by American troops I trusted him because he'd been reliable in the past, and now there's been a conviction in the case. His report could have been bogus, of course, with his earlier truthful posts merely a ruse to gain credibility, but I didn't think so, and apparently I was right. Track records matter. (Mitch Berg thinks you should look at bloggers' day jobs in assessing their credibility, though I'm not sure how much I agree with that.) Still, as Hugh Hewitt warns, "black blog ops," aimed at disinformation, are an inevitability and there are probably some going on right now. A while back, in the context of a much less significant effort to manipulate the blogosphere, I quoted scientist Thomas Ray, who once observed that "every successful system accumulates parasites." The blogosphere is successful enough now, and enough people have noticed that success, that it can expect to attract parasitism.
So who can you trust? Mostly, yourself …
Perhaps, but one certain gauge of trustworthiness is whether or not – despite partisanship or ideology – a news source (whether it be a newspaper, a news program, a blog, whatever) remains consistent in their coverage of the days events. In the cases of Armstrong Williams and Bill Moyers, the left-of-center blogs have borne a remarkable double standard. And that ought to make them untrustworthy.
Ping
This is the typical response to their own crimes. When they get caught in criminal acts, all goes quiet. But just let a Repub get a parking ticket....OMG, the front page of every leftist rag for 2 months!!!!!
The GOOD OLE LIBERAL DOUBLE STANDARD --- which is required for their survival.
Anyone who has read or heard parts of the Thornburgh report will see that basically Rather tried to cover his @ss and let the others below him take the fall.
I therefore am suggesting that we coin a few new phrases in the aftermath of Rathergate.
1. The Dan Rather Syndrome
The Dan Rather Syndrome. A pervasive attitude in one's work environment where the boss often has his subordinates take the blame for any of his (or her) wrong doing so as to cover his own @ss.
For example:
"My boss has Dan Rather Syndrome. He let two of us take the hit for his screw up on those mutual funds."
2. Dan Rathered.
Dan Rathered. When a subordinate is fired for the mistake of his boss or when a boss fails to cover his subordinate and leaves he or she out to dry.
Example:
"My boss Dan Rathered me. He let me take the fall for his blunder that cost us the Anderson account."
Let this be Dan Rather's legacy.
nikos
I missed the final talley. Who won the recent battle of the liberals?
I'm not surprised, typical of the state of denial that the left is known for.
See this post: Michael Moore Wins Walter Mondale Trophy As America's Most Annoying Liberal Pundit.
Thanks, I do not know how I missed it. Should have guessed the winner?
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.