A thoughtful article, but it doesn't even begin to touch on the real depths of leftist media depravity. It notes, for instance, that Rather's national guard papers were fakes, but fails to use the correct word for them, forgeries. It notes that the Swiftboat vets attacked Kerry's war effort, but it fails to note that Kerry was the one who raised the Vietnam issue, about five times a day. It lets the MSM say that if the new media had a right to investigate kerry's military career, they had a right to investigate Bush's military career, but it fails to note that Bush did not raise this issue about himself. It also fails to note that the MSM NEVER ever investigated kerry's Vietnam career, they just publicized his press releases. They pestered Bush daily about his military record, but they never pressed kerry to sign a release of his own records.
As the article suggests, the whole sea change in the media probably happened with Watergate. "But when, beginning in the 1960s, authority took a severe beating, the media establishment was the one authority that actually gained in strength. Crusading reporters and editors became cultural heroes—the rebels and nonconformists who refused to kowtow to anybody. The Watergate scandal in particular confirmed in the media the sense they had of themselves as independent guardians of the public good and the very conscience of the nation in times of crisis."
Watergate was a huge victory for the leftists. They brought down a powerful president, elected a Democrat, and changed the whole direction of the country. They were the great heroes, investigative reporters. They believed their own corrupt propaganda and their heads swelled up bigger and bigger. They became the victims their own self-induced hybris and came to believe that they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it.
But they haven't collapsed yet. They still have a ton of money and power, control over the elite institutions and foundations, a 95% monopoly over the existing news sources, and a vast network of interconnections with American universities. The death of the MSM is going to be a long, slow, painful process, and they can still do incredible damage to our country in the process.
As it happens, I knew Peter Braestrup. He reported from Vietnam for the NY Times. He loved reporting on wars in dangerous places. But he was unable to go along with the press campaign that lied about the Tet offensive. He quit the Times, wrote a couple of books about what really happened (which the MSM buried) and went on to do other things, including founding this journal. I would say that he was a liberal, but an honest liberal. He never again was allowed to speak from the bully pulpit of the MSM.
It notes, for instance, that Rather's national guard papers were fakes, but fails to use the correct word for them, forgeries. It notes that the Swiftboat vets attacked Kerry's war effort, but it fails to note that Kerry was the one who raised the Vietnam issue, about five times a day. It lets the MSM say that if the new media had a right to investigate kerry's military career, they had a right to investigate Bush's military career, but it fails to note that Bush did not raise this issue about himself. It also fails to note that the MSM NEVER ever investigated kerry's Vietnam career, they just publicized his press releases. They pestered Bush daily about his military record, but they never pressed kerry to sign a release of his own records [especially this one...the unmissable asymmetry of it].It's amazing that Republicans can win elections when you consider the media headwind they have to fly into. Rush makes the point that this might work to their advantage as the old media loses its power. Conservatives have had to contend with a hostile media for decades and so they've been forced to stay in fighting shape. On the other hand, the Dems have become slow and soft, and will suffer when confronted with a new media that challenges them rather than just repeating their talking points.