Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Victor Davis Hanson: The End of Journalism [the rise of advocacy journalism]
NRO ^ | October 31, 2008 | Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on 10/31/2008 5:11:53 AM PDT by Tolik

        Sometime in 2008, journalism as we knew it died, and advocacy media took its place.


There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored.

For years an axiom of the liberal establishment was the need for public campaign financing — and the corrosive role of private money in poisoning the election process. The most prominent Republican who crossed party lines to ensure the passage of national public campaign financing was John McCain — a maverick stance that cost him dearly among conservatives who resented bitterly federal interference in political expression.

In contrast, Barack Obama, remember, promised that he would accept both public funding and the limitations that went along with it, and would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Then in June 2008, Obama abruptly reneged, bowing out entirely from government financing, the first presidential nominee in the general election to do that since the system was created in 1976.

Obama has now raised over $600 million, by far the largest campaign chest in American political history. In many states he enjoys a four-to-one advantage in campaign funding — most telling in his scheduled eleventh-hour, 30-minute specials that will not be answered by the publicly financed and poorer McCain campaign.

The story that the media chose to ignore was not merely the Obama about-face on public financing, or even the enormous amounts of money that he has raised — some of it under dubious circumstances involving foreign donors, prepaid credit cards, and false names. Instead, they were absolutely quiet about a historic end to liberal support for public financing.

For all practical purposes, public financing of the presidential general election is now dead. No Republican will ever agree to it again. No Democrat can ever again dare to defend a system destroyed by Obama. All future worries about the dangers of big money and big politics will fall on deaf ears.

Surely, there will come a time when the Democratic Party, whether for ethical or practical reasons, will sorely regret dismantling the very safeguards that for over three decades it had insisted was critical for the survival of the republic.

Imagine the reaction of the New York Times or the Washington Post had John McCain renounced his promise to participate in public campaign financing, proceeded instead to amass $600 million and outraise the publicly financed Barack Obama four-to-one, and begun airing special 30-minute unanswered infomercials during the last week of the campaign.

We know now almost all the details of Sarah Palin’s pregnancies, whether the trooper who tasered her nephew went to stun or half stun, the cost of her clothes, and her personal expenses — indeed, almost everything except how a mother of so many children gets elected councilwoman, mayor, and governor, routs an entrenched old-boy cadre, while maintaining near record levels of public support.

Yet the American public knows almost nothing of what it should about the extraordinary career of Joe Biden, the 36-year veteran of the Senate. In unprecedented fashion, Biden has simply avoided the press for most of the last two months, confident that the media instead would deconstruct almost every word of “good looking” Sarah Palin’s numerous interviews with mostly hostile interrogators.

By accepted standards of behavior, Biden has sadly proven wanting. He has committed almost every classical sin of character — plagiarism, false biography, racial insensitivity, and serial fabrication. And because of media silence, we don’t know whether he was kidding when he said America would not need to burn coal, or that Hezbollah was out of Lebanon, or that FDR addressed the nation on television as president in 1929 (surely a record for historical fictions in a single thought), or that the public would turn sour on Obama once he was challenged by our enemies abroad. In response, the media reported that the very public Sarah Palin was avoiding the press while the very private Joe Biden shunned interviews and was chained to the teleprompter.

For two months now, the media reaction to Biden’s inanity has been simply “that’s just ol’ Joe, now let’s turn to Palin,” who, in the space of two months, has been reduced from a popular successful governor to a backwoods creationist, who will ban books and champion white secessionist causes. The respective coverage of the two candidates is ironic in a variety of ways, but in one especially — almost every charge against Palin (that she is under wraps, untruthful, and inept) was applicable only to Biden.

So we are about to elect a vice president about whom we know only that he has been around a long time, but little else — and nothing at all why exactly Joe Biden says the most astounding and often lunatic things.

Imagine the reaction of Newsweek or Time had moose-hunting mom Sarah Palin claimed FDR went on television to address the nation as President in 1929, or warned America that our enemies abroad would test John McCain and that his response would result in a radical loss of his popularity at home.

In 2004, few Americans knew Barack Obama. In 2008, they may elect him. Surely his past was of more interest than his present serial denials of it. Whatever the media’s feelings about the current Barack Obama, there should have been some story that the Obama of 2008 is radically different from the Obama who was largely consistent and predictable for the prior 30 years.

Each Obama metamorphosis in itself might be attributed to the normal evolution to the middle, as a candidate shifts from the primary to the general election. But in the case of Obama, we witnessed not a shift, but a complete transformation to an entirely new persona — in almost every imaginable sense of the word. Name an issue — FISA, NAFTA, guns, abortion, capital punishment, coal, nuclear power, drilling, Iran, Jerusalem, the surge — and Obama’s position today is not that of just a year ago.

Until 2005, Obama was in communication with Bill Ayers by e-mail and phone, despite Ayers reprehensible braggadocio in 2001 that he remained an unrepentant terrorist. Rev. Wright was an invaluable spiritual advisor — until spring of 2008. Father Pfleger was praised as an intimate friend in 2004 — and vanished off the radar in 2008. The media might have asked not just why these rather dubious figures were once so close to, and then so distant from, Obama; but why were there so many people like Rashid Khalidi and Tony Rezko in Obama’s past in the first place?

Behind the Olympian calm of Obama, there was always a rather disturbing record of extra-electoral politics completely ignored by the media. If one were disturbed by the present shenanigans of ACORN or the bizarre national call for Americans simply to skip work on election day to help elect Obama (who would pay for that?), one would only have to remember that in 1996 Obama took the extraordinary step of suing to eliminate all his primary rivals by challenging their petition signatures of mostly African-American voters.

In 2004, there was an even more remarkable chain of events in which the sealed divorce records of both his principle primary rival Blair Hull and general election foe, Jack Ryan, were mysteriously leaked, effectively ensuring Obama a Senate seat without serious opposition. These were not artifacts of a typical political career, but extraordinary events in themselves that might well have shed light on present campaign tactics — and yet largely remain unknown to the American people.

Imagine the reaction of CNN or NBC had John McCain’s pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years been revealed as a white supremacist who damned a multiracial United States, or had he been a close acquaintance until 2005 of an unrepentant terrorist bomber of abortion clinics, or had McCain himself sued to eliminate congressional opponents by challenging the validity of African-American voters who signed petitions, or had both his primary and general election senatorial rivals imploded once their sealed divorce records were mysteriously leaked.

The eleventh-hour McCain allegations of Obama’s advocacy for a share-the-wealth socialism was generally ignored by the media, or if covered, written off as neo-McCarthyism. But there were two legitimate, but again neglected, issues.

The first was the nature of the Obama tax plan. The problem was not merely upping the income tax rates on those who made $250,000 (or was it $200,000, or was it $150,000, or both, or none?), but its aggregate effect in combination with lifting the FICA ceilings on high incomes on top of existing Medicare contributions and often high state income taxes.

In other words, Americans who live in high-tax, expensive states like a New York or California could in theory face collective confiscatory tax rates of 65 percent or so on much of their income. And, depending on the nature of Obama’s proposed tax exemptions, on the other end of the spectrum we might well see almost half the nation’s wage earners pay no federal income tax at all.

Questions arise, but were again not explored: How wise is it to exempt one out of every two income earners from any worry over how the nation gathers its federal income tax revenue? And when credits are added to the plan, are we now essentially not cutting or raising taxes, but simply diverting wealth from those who pay into the system to those who do not?

A practical effect of socialism is often defined as curbing productive incentives by ensuring the poorer need not endanger their exemptions and credits by seeking greater income; and discouraging the wealthy from seeking greater income, given that nearly two-thirds of additional wealth would be lost to taxes. Surely that discussion might have been of interest to the American people.

Second, the real story was not John McCain’s characterization of such plans, but both inadvertent, and serial descriptions of them, past and present, by Barack Obama himself. “Spreading the wealth around” gains currency when collated to past interviews in which Obama talked at length about, and in regret at, judicial impracticalities in accomplishing his own desire to redistribute income. “Tragedy” is frequent in the Obama vocabulary, but largely confined to two contexts: the tragic history of the United States (e.g., deemed analogous to that of Nazi Germany during World War II), and the tragic unwillingness or inability to use judicial means to correct economic inequality in non-democratic fashion.

In this regard, remember Obama’s revealing comment that he was interested only in “fairness” in increasing capital-gains taxes, despite the bothersome fact that past moderate reductions in rates had, in fact, brought in greater revenue to government. Again, fossilized ideology trumps empiricism.

Imagine the reaction of NPR and PBS had John McCain advocated something like abolishing all capital gains taxes, or repealing incomes taxes in favor of a national retail sales tax.

The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: mediabias; obama; vdh; victordavishanson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

1 posted on 10/31/2008 5:11:54 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Lando Lincoln; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; SJackson; dennisw; monkeyshine; Alouette; ...

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:
                His website:
                NRO archive:

2 posted on 10/31/2008 5:12:40 AM PDT by Tolik (2008: Maverick/Barracuda vs. Messiah/Mouth or The Hero vs. the Zero and "Our mama beats your Obama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik


3 posted on 10/31/2008 5:13:17 AM PDT by comps4spice (Democrats caused the current financial mess. Do we really want to give them the Oval Office?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

The only thing missing from this excellent analysis is the election of Obama would silence Victor Davis Hanson and ANY other vocal critic of the fascist Obama tyrant in print, on radio and television, or on the Internet.

4 posted on 10/31/2008 5:21:53 AM PDT by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: comps4spice
Except for this MSM cover


5 posted on 10/31/2008 5:22:03 AM PDT by BigLittle ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: comps4spice

This morning I was riding in the car and accidently heard the CBS radio news.

It was a commercial for Obama, complete with a nicely selected portion of his speech set against an almost unintelligible McCain rally bite; a NYT poll showing Obama ahead by 12 across the country, and trending wider in Michigan and Ohio; ‘analysis’ by Bob Scheiffer that predicts an Obama blowout; news of vote fraud by Diebold in Tennessee; bad news about the economy, and which candidate is more likely to ‘save the economy’; and a scary report about Bush trying to sneak deregulation in while he still can.

It’s the most blatant and obviously partisan report I’ve ever heard on a commercial radio station— and I’ve been posting about them here for more than 10 years.

It’s simply unbelievable.

6 posted on 10/31/2008 5:23:06 AM PDT by IncPen (Pitchforks and torches.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BigLittle

Electile dysfunction, among many others ...

7 posted on 10/31/2008 5:23:26 AM PDT by Tarpon (Barack Obama will ban all the guns he has the votes for ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Contrast the cogent, hard-hitting, objective and succinct way VDH writes with the airheaded, drunken, naive ramblings of Peggy Noonan.

Talk about chicken s*** and chicken salad.

8 posted on 10/31/2008 5:27:41 AM PDT by Mac from Cleveland (Joe Biden behind a microphone is like Ted Kennedy behind a steering wheel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
One more point needs to be added to Dr. Hanson's article: the media might well have birthed a Frankenstein who will soon turn on them and destroy them. The media think they can control President Obama, that his predations against the media will stop at killing the hated talk radio, but once a tyrant gets a taste of blood....

9 posted on 10/31/2008 5:31:34 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
I have heard rumors throughout the last decade that there have been considerable inroads made by those of the Islamic nature into the fields of finance, journalism, and publishing. We get burps of that every now and then: so and so has ownership of banks, Those Saudi guys are striking down publications of American writing in other countries etc, etc, etc...

Call me paranoid/conspiracy-theorist, but it seems to me that the intensity with which we have seen the Mainstream Media melt down into a propaganda machine has been fostered by those of an Islamic nature in ways we arent readily seeing right now. How many of these newspapers are owned/financed by foreign investors? How many of those are of an Islamic nature? How much intimidation/chilling is being done by 'free press' agents within their own ranks because they are beholden to something outside to the American ken? Im just an ignorant person with just my own little nano-corner of the country that I try to maintain the best way I can, but these are things that I want to ask sometimes. And no one is asking them.

10 posted on 10/31/2008 5:32:48 AM PDT by Alkhin (Hope looks beyond the bounds of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IncPen

Dan Rather: "Oh, Mr. President, if only you knew how
much I and your other servants at CBS support, worship, bow, grovel and kneel to you.
We have faithfully covered up all your atrocities, Mr. President and now
we pledge to support any candidate named "Hussein" in your glorious honor
until our stock tanks and CBS is no more."

11 posted on 10/31/2008 5:34:38 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolik


12 posted on 10/31/2008 5:35:02 AM PDT by Misschuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen

“This morning I was riding in the car and accidently heard the CBS radio news.”

You need to go see your doctor, ASAP.

Don’t let something like this go untreated.

: )

13 posted on 10/31/2008 5:35:49 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
In other words, Americans who live in high-tax, expensive states like a New York or California could in theory face collective confiscatory tax rates of 65 percent or so on much of their income.

Since both those states will almost certainly go Obama, I hope so. The producers will leave and the parasites will starve.

14 posted on 10/31/2008 5:37:17 AM PDT by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Thank G-d that Obama happened to walk down Joe the Plumber’s street.

15 posted on 10/31/2008 5:37:31 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Regarding those taking off work to help elect Obama.

It would be wonderful to see every capitalist add a one day 200% Obama tax on their goods November 4th.

16 posted on 10/31/2008 5:39:15 AM PDT by listenhillary (4 legs good, 2 legs baaaad!, ~~ Obama Hussein - You make it, we take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen

Good point. On the radio-stations I listen the most - my area lacks choice in right-talk availability: one is definitely conservative, and another, I guess, best defined as not liberal - the news feed comes from whoever they affiliated with (not FOX). Its fascinating to hear the left biased news feed interlaced with a conservative talk show.

A larger point is that conservatives, especially living in liberal states like Maryland have no choice but be exposed to the alternative views, because they are so all permeating - you can’t open a news paper or scan the TV channels without getting it. For liberals, its the opposite. Unless they go out and seek the conservative voice on the radio or Internet, they can move around safely without stumbling on it ever.

Its an amazing informational disbalance that I think is not healthy, and can be worsened with the so called “fairness” doctrine that the Lefty congress is itching to implement.

17 posted on 10/31/2008 5:41:42 AM PDT by Tolik (2008: Maverick/Barracuda vs. Messiah/Mouth or The Hero vs. the Zero and "Our mama beats your Obama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
I tell you this plainly, if Obama wins on Tuesday there will be no one - no one - not McCain, not Palin, not the McCain campaign, not even the RNC that should suffer any blame. The entire blame for the possible election of Barack Hussein Obama is the American mainstream media. Period.
18 posted on 10/31/2008 5:49:41 AM PDT by Obadiah (Vote for Obama so he can spread your wealth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

And if the media & the Dems succeed in this coup d'etat, there will be no need for them to care. The first thing Obi/Pelosi will do is shut down public opposition so that we will be much like those Soviets of old, huddled around the bulletin board in the park, learning "the truth" from the posted, approved press releases.

19 posted on 10/31/2008 5:49:55 AM PDT by workerbee (If you vote for Democrats, you are engaging in UnAmerican Activity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alkhin

“Call me paranoid/conspiracy-theorist”

OK. But only if you call me one.

The Muslim ‘front’ snuck in through our prisons.

They became the militia for overthrown, and many are the vote behind the overthrow.

Obama has become the shining star of the overthrow.

He may not be an actual ‘plant’. But, I do think that many factions are planning to hang their STAR off the MAGIC NEGRO.

Including the American Muslim Movement, and the influences from other dictators.

BUT, they have to win, first. Ain’t gonna happen.

20 posted on 10/31/2008 5:52:41 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson