In this article Dick Morris reminds us that:
- BBC maliciously, vociferously, and wrongly claimed that Blair "sexed up" prewar Iraq intel.
- CBS maliciously used transparent forgeries to attack Bush's TANG record.
- The NY Times launched an attack on the Bush Administration in the last week before the election, fraudulently claiming that the military had negligently allowed terrorists to steal 370 tons of explosives which it had control of.
- Newsweek has published - and had to retract - its inflammatory Koran abuse story.
Morris correctly summarizes these as political attacks against Bush, and concludes that, notwithstanding the constant scandal reports on the Cli;ton Administration, there was no negative reporting on that Administration
which was not substantively, or entirely, true. Indeed he points out that Monicagate was broken by Drudge only because Newsweek was spiking the story lest it harm Clinton.
Morris then proceeds to lamely call on the MSM to " examine their own bias and correct it" - as if it were possible that the MSM had some doubt as to the political tendency it projects.
Morris makes half of a fine analysis. The truth is not only that the above facts are indisputable, but they omit such jewels of "objectivity" as
- wrongly calling of the Florida 2000 vote for Gore while Bush was ahead in the reported vote and polls in the panhandle were still open, and continuously insinuating afterward that Bush's win was tainted even after their own recounts showed otherwise.
- continuously portraying the impeachment of Bill Clinton (for lying to a judge under oath in a case he could have honorably settled out of court) as hypocritical harassment of Clinton's "personal life."
- And, worst of all IMHO, allowing FBI Filegate - between 900 and 2000 felony counts committed in the White House, and no Administration figure held politically or legally responsible - to fade away without even being an issue in the 1996 renomination and reelection of Bill Clinton.
That is not the behavior of an independent press, that is the behavior of a political party. "Objective Journalism" is an establishment which can get "Campaign Finance Reform" laws passed to eviscerate First Amendment freedom of the people for the enhancement of its own relative influence. The fact that it behaves as a coherent politically motivated entity is in plain sight. And anyone who is responsible for preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States had, and has, an affirmative duty to remove from our laws and precedents any trace of favor to any member of the MSM.
That is the only challenge which really matters. And, be it remembered, it was Ronald Reagan who killed the Fairness Doctrine which was suppressing all serious examination of the MSM from the airwaves.
Newsweek is biased like the rest of the media elite [Dick Morris]
The Hill ^ | May 18, 2005 | Dick Morris
The Establishment which wishes to be thought of as "objective journalism" coheres in the idea that nothing matters but PR, and PR is under the control of journalism - that journalism can sell anything so long as journalism sticks together. To be a member in good standing of the Establishment you not only must refrain from attacking the credibility of another Establishment propaganda organ, you must actively attack the credibility of anyone who questions the objectivity of any other member of the Establishment. The Establishment is not merely an non-agression pact but a mutual defense organization. IOW, it behaves as a political party is expected to behave - because, de facto, it is the head of the Democratic Party. The "objective journalism" Establishment does not itself have a mastermind at the top, and it is a "pact" only in the sense of a tacit agreement. But the Establishment is the wind beneath the wings of the Democratic Party, which has no other principle than to go where that wind takes it. Howard Dean is the Chairman of the DNC - but that is not a leadership position any more than Democratic Presidential Candidate is a leadership position. Would Kerry, Gore, or Clinton have been nominated for president by the Democratic Party if they were leaders? All they were was political operatives. The very last thing the Democratic Party wants is a leader.
GIVING NEWSWEEK COVER(John Podhoretz on the NY Times article)
National Review Online ^ | John Podhoret