Posted on 09/17/2011 2:34:51 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
As the bad economic news continues to emanate from the United States - with a double-dip recession now all but certain - a reckoning is overdue. American journalism will have to look back at the period starting with Barrack Obama's rise, his assumption of the presidency and his conduct in it to the present, and ask itself how it came to cast aside so many of its vital functions. In the main, the establishment American media abandoned its critical faculties during the Obama campaign - and it hasn't reclaimed them since.
Much of the Obama coverage was orchestrated sycophancy. They glided past his pretensions - when did a presidential candidate before "address the world" from the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin? They ignored his arrogance - "You're likeable enough, Hillary." And they averted their eyes from his every gaffe - such as the admission that he didn't speak "Austrian."
The media walked right past the decades-long association of Obama with the weird and racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. In the midst of the brief stormlet over the issue, one CNN host - inexplicably - decided that CNN was going to be a "Wright-free zone." He could have hung out a sign: "No bad news about Obama here."
The media trashed Hillary. They burned Republicans. They ransacked Sarah Palin and her family. But Obama, the cool, the detached, the oracular Obama - he strolled to the presidency.
Palin, in particular, stands out as Obama's opposite in the media's eyes. As much as they genuflected to the one, they felt the need to turn rottweiler toward the other. If Obama was sacred, classy, intellectual and cosmopolitan, why then Palin must be malevolent, trashy, dumb and pure backwoods-ignorant.....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
WOW! Just wow! What a fantastic article, I was so disappointed when it ended! I wanted more! I’m saving that sucker! Thanks for finding it! :)
The MSM is the biggest threat that America has ever faced. I hope that the Republican President and Republican Congress address this issue in 2013.
yep.
Between now and Nov ‘12, the “Love-Me Media” will be in complete Obama CYA-mode.
The MSM is even worse than the politicians and socialists whose asses they kiss - it's their faces in the asses....
It’s time to name the culprits.
Let’s stop mentioning how THE MEDIA is also to blame for the mess we’re in because they did not serve as watchdogs of the truth.
Let’s place the blame suarely on the shoulders of INDIVIDUALS IN THE MEDIA!
More likely Woodrow Wilson. It was in full swing for FDR.
The press needs to wake up - their job is to report the news - not to play at being a narcissistic kingmaker...
And lest we forget ... those “bridge to the future” Clinton years.
veritas2002: Let’s place the blame suarely on the shoulders of INDIVIDUALS IN THE MEDIA!
A good starting-point would be the known members of the journ-o-list...
As much as I despise Obama, this article points out the real problem in this country - a compliant mainstream press that covers not just for Obama (although their activities in that venue are truly incredible), but *all* of the established Left.
I have relatives (mostly relatives-in-law) who are good, decent, mostly clear-thining people who buy into all these leftie demagogues, and it’s mostly due to ignorance: they know little or nothing of the information that’s easily available at this site or talk radio or numerous other “alternative” outlets.
Obama is such a pathetic loser he never would have made it past the Illinois legislature if it hadn’t been for sycophants in the press. It’s useful to remember that his path to power has always been paved by the MSM - their role in pushing McCain as his opponent is one example, but the most striking is how the Chicago Tribune topedoed the campaign of his Illinois Senate opponent by prying into previously-sealed court documents on that Republican’s divorce. And these are the same phonies who scream bloody murder about the invasion of the privacy of the Anthony Weiners of the world.
I dream to see ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NYT/WaPo and the like driven into the ground, with their fields plowed with salt and their progency sold into bondage (figuratively, of course). Then we’ll have a chance of restoring this country
As Beck says: Change the Media, Change the world. He gets it.
No, it didn’t but I think with Obama they dropped the lipstick and we are seeing the pig more clearly than ever.
Not much self-examination in the old media. And when they do, they cover up with, “Yeah, but our intentions were good.”
This list was posted at FR a while ago:
1. Ezra Klein
2. Dave Weigel
3. Matthew Yglesias
4. David Dayen
5. Spencer Ackerman
6. Jeffrey Toobin
7. Eric Alterman
8. Paul Krugman
9. John Judis
10. Eve Fairbanks
11. Mike Allen
12. Ben Smith
13. Lisa Lerer
14. Joe Klein
15. Brad DeLong
16. Chris Hayes
17. Matt Duss
18. Jonathan Chait
19. Jesse Singal
20. Michael Cohen
21. Isaac Chotiner
22. Katha Pollitt
23. Alyssa Rosenberg
24. Rick Perlstein
25. Alex Rossmiller
26. Ed Kilgore
27. Walter Shapiro
28. Noam Scheiber
29. Michael Tomasky
30. Rich Yesels
31. Tim Fernholz
32. Dana Goldstein
33. Jonathan Cohn
34. Scott Winship
35. David Roberts
36. Luke Mitchell
37. John Blevins
38. Moira Whelan
39. Henry Farrell
40. Josh Bearman
41. Alec McGillis
42. Greg Anrig
43. Adele Stan
44. Steven Teles
45. Harold Pollack
46. Adam Serwer
47. Ryan Donmoyer
48. Seth Michaels
49. Kate Steadman
50. Matt Duss
51. Laura Rozen
52. Jesse Taylor
53. Michael Hirsh
54. Daniel Davies
55. Jonathan Zasloff
56. Richard Kim
57. Thomas Schaller
58. Jared Bernstein
59. Holly Yeager
60. Joe Conason
61. David Greenberg
62. Todd Gitlin
63. Mark Schmitt
64. Kevin Drum
65. Sarah Spitz
As the bad economic news continues to emanate from the United States - with a double-dip recession now all but certain - a reckoning is overdue. American journalism will have to look back at the period starting with Barrack Obama's rise, his assumption of the presidency and his conduct in it to the present, and ask itself how it came to cast aside so many of its vital functions. In the main, the establishment American media abandoned its critical faculties during the Obama campaign - and it hasn't reclaimed them since . . .
. . . To the degree the press neglected its function as watchdog and turned cupbearer to a Styrofoam demigod, it is a partner in the flaws and failures of what is turning out to be one of the most miserable performances in the modern history of the American presidency.Why do people complain about "the media" when their actual gripe is specifically with journalism?Why do people accept the idea that journalism is "the press" when the First Amendment "freedom . . . of the press" refers not only to journalism but to magazines, newspapers, books and - considering that the Constitution explicitly contemplates and urges the promotion of "progress of science and useful arts" - high speed printing, telegraphy, radio, movies, TV, yes, and the Internet.
And why do people accept the conceit that journalism is, or of right ought to be, "objective" - and is constitutionally assigned a "watchdog" role in our polity?
Journalism became a unified entity with the advent of the Associated Press, which binds all its various organs in a "Borg" of common interest and financial necessity. It is no accident that it is only after the mid-Nineteenth Century founding era of the wire services that newspapers ceased to be fractiously independent and now are so homogenous that if you've seen one, you've seen them all - except marginally in the Editorial pages. And it is only with the advent of the AP that anyone ever thought of claiming that anyone else was "not a journalist, not objective."
Homogeneous wire service journalism promotes the conceit that it is "objective," and that it is uniquely the legitimate watchdog of the government. Yet the only way to even attempt to be objective is to begin with full disclosure of one's own motives - and that is precisely the opposite of hyping one's own "objectivity." So journalism is not even trying to be objective, and is highly subjective in its claim that criteria it uses to interest the public are innately indicative of "the public interest." The two things are not identical, and frequently are directly opposite to each other. Wire service journalism is the watchdog, not of the government but of the people. We depend on the "private sector" for most of our needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and so forth - and journalism is cynical about the private sector for that very reason. That cynicism assures journalism that Alar must be poisoning the children who eat apples, and that Big Energy must be poisoning the entire world with carbon dioxide. It assures journalism that women cannot rely on men, nor children on parents - but all must rely on journalism to expose their plight, and on the government, run by journalism's allies known as "Democrats" - to provide food and protection for them.
That perspective of journalism is utterly self-serving - and journalism gets away with its self-interested frauds because of its unity and its propaganda power. Anyone who intends to hold his breath while waiting for journalism to admit fault for its support of Democrats who do nothing that a journalist wouldn't do except claiming to be objective must expect to turn very, very blue. A cursory glance at the history of the "Texas Air National Guard Memos" which were shown to be abject frauds, and of the history of the award given by journalism to Dan Rather on his retirement, would disabuse anyone who is paying attention of any thought that journalism recognizes any responsibility to the truth.
No one expects all media to be 'objective'. Obviously something like The Nation is going to be left of center - Human Events will be right of center.
When people are outraged about leftist bias it's in what we're come to expect as media that's suppose to give both sides. Like a general circulation newspaper. I assume my local paper should make some effort to provide information for the 'general' population. I would be equally offended if they only covered stories for elites, or only blacks, or only whites, or only teenagers etc. It's a betrayal of trust.
Extreme bias from a general circulation newspaper is offensive....
Journalism is suppose to be self serving... that works best. But it's not. Right now journalism is failing - cutting back on jobs and not serving the place the place ithas in the culture. The only way journalism is 'self serving' today is on an individual basis - where one small group of writers gets to impress themselves and a very small part of the population that's similar. ( Oh - and they lecture the rest of us - that's fun) In short, most 'journalists' write like they're putting out an in-house rag for friends. And a scold sheet for conservatives...
Still they wonder why they're failing? Stunning.
My local paper is so biased - that I'm thinking of paying for my subscription - but asking them to donate the paper to a hospital or something. It's offensive to have it in my home - a slap in the face every morning. But since I still believe in newspapers I don't want to cancel my subscription... I'm conflicted.
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.