Debbie Schlussel versus Sarah Palin (multiple articles)

I'm not a regular reader of Debbie Schlussel nor am I a fan (she seems a bit low class at times), so I just became aware of her criticism of Governor Palin.

If you scan the archives of her site debbieschlussel.com you will see that she was an early supporter of Sarah Palin. That makes her criticism all the more interesting.

Here are ten articles from Debbie's site. In the first one, she is still a Palin supporter, but also criticizes her for her choice of baby names. Beginning with the second article, she really begins to tear into her.

We’re not talking about “a consistent tendency in fallen human nature,” nor are we talking about self promotion. We are talking about the promotion of the agenda of the left.

. . . and I claim that, in the presence of fallen human nature, promotion of the agenda of the left by journalism follows directly from the incentives of journalists in the associated press.

“and I claim that, in the presence of fallen human nature, promotion of the agenda of the left by journalism follows directly from the incentives of journalists in the associated press.”

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that your statement is completely incorrect, that these incentives play no role whatsoever, but I don’t think you fully grasp or credit the strength and energy of the Evil that animates the left.

Alexander Solzhenitsin said, “Evil people always support each other; that is their main strength.” In the main, he is correct. However, Satan is not only the father of lies; he is a betrayer, and these qualities are inherited by his minions. When one of them strays from the agenda, or puts his self interest ahead of the agenda, the rest will turn on him fang and claw.

I have seen too many instances of media putting the party line ahead of personal gain, ahead of friendship, of honor, of honesty, and even ahead of profits, to accept that their primary motivation is anything other than the furtherance of the leftist—which is to say, Satan’s—agenda.

True. But the other aspect of the situation is the need for an explanation of the secular mechanism by which the left has take over "the media." It took me decades to sort it out, but it's like everything else:
This problem, when solved, will be simple.
From the founding era to the Civil War era, newspapers were associated with political parties and the perspectives of their respective publishers was no secret to anyone; the opinions which those papers projected were mostly what the papers were about. The papers didn't have privileged access to news not in principle available to the general public, and consequently newspapers were not merely outlets for news. Indeed, most newspapers were weeklies rather than dailies, and some had no deadline at all and just went to press when the printer was good and ready. It is only with the advent of the telegraph and the Associated Press monopoly (that is not an overstatement of the case) that claims of the "Priesthood of the reporter" (i.e., the claim that all journalists were objective) became central to the business model of the newspapers. That claim is essential to the great value of the very expensive AP newswire.
It is the doctrine of the priesthood of the reporter which leads directly to the dolorous influences you cite. The tendency inheres in fallen human nature. The empowerment of monopoly journalism is the mechanism by which it has metastasized.

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.