Posted on 03/31/2005 4:57:19 AM PST by Molly Pitcher
Can nothing spare us from the arrogance of liberal media figures, still parading around as Guardians of the Facts and Solely Anointed Professional Disseminators of the Truth?
Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, in what reads like an early April Fools' prank, has written an article for the Post's Sunday "Outlook" section presenting himself as an objective reporter. The headline was "My Bias for Mainstream News." In it, he complains that the "cottage industry" of watchdog groups on the right and left "are devoted almost entirely to attacking the press."
The most priceless sentence is this: "Regardless of the merits, the pervasive accusations of bias are making it increasingly difficult for the traditional media to play their role of gathering and reporting facts." Media critics are wrong to criticize, regardless of the merits of their criticism? Well, yes, you see, because Milbank believes their nefarious goal is to "steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts."
The term "media elite" has its roots in insular thinking like this.
Let's take a brief look at what those of us on the alleged fact-unfriendly front have reported on Milbank lately. On Feb. 28, the Media Research Center's Brent Baker noted that Milbank misled Post readers when reporting on Page One that Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld had rudely left a Feb. 16 House hearing when he had "had enough." Milbank's whole story was devoted to creating -- actually, enhancing -- the perception that Rumsfeld is a contemptuous jerk. Congressman Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, which was holding the hearing, wrote a letter to the Post explaining he and Rumsfeld agreed in advance the hearings would last only three hours because he had another hearing commitment before the Senate. "Therefore, the article's suggestion that he got mad and left did a disservice to the truth and to the secretary."
The Post didn't publish the letter or issue a correction. Mr. Milbank, permission to criticize?
In the biggest media controversy of 2004 -- Dan Rather's unverifiable National Guard memos about President Bush -- were the mainstream media acting as Guardians of The Facts? Apparently, this is unimportant. Regardless of the merits, it is the critics who blew the whistle on CBS's fraud who are to be faulted.
When the liberal media establishment circles the wagons and whines about losing their status as the unimpeachable oracles on Mt. Olympus, with nobody caring about The Facts anymore, they're missing a key point. You can construct a news story with nothing but verifiable facts, and your report can still be unfair, unbalanced and misleading. You could report on the Terri Schiavo case by citing only the facts Michael Schiavo wants to share. You could report from Iraq, citing only the bad news about bombings, and leaving out all the other facts that might lead to hopefulness. And it's done, constantly, by Mr. Milbank and his peers.
Milbank is absolutely right that I wrote in my book "Weapons of Mass Distortion" that the liberal media's audience will defect to emerging news outlets more in tune with their perspective on the world. But he can't live with the notion that those news outlets could have just as much (or more) love for the truth as the Old Media do. He can't believe there are other facts worth sharing that he never found, or didn't imagine were worth finding.
The media elite need to come to grips with this fact: You can't present a trumped-up liberal version of "the facts" and expect everyone to see you as the only authoritative and professional journalists worth reading or watching. The audience is walking away, and the only way to fix it is with more balance and fairness ... and greater care with the facts, too.
Milbank believes the "growing volume and vitriol" of media criticism is a "new and dangerous development." And yet, last year, when the Washington Post and others were pounding the White House into dust on Abu Ghraib and other issues, he didn't see the "growing volume and vitriol" of news reporters as a "new and dangerous development." Why not? Because the media are somehow the quintessential pillars of democracy whose fine brains and large hearts and good intentions must never be questioned, even though they are self-appointed as the official questioners of absolutely everyone and everything else.
In a democracy, every player in the political system is held accountable by someone else. The media also need a check and a balance. If the media think it's unfair that there's someone "driving up their negatives" and damaging their credibility, they ought to realize they also live in that democracy. Get used to it.
Apologies in advance to any male heterosexual Freepers named "Dana".
His rude and mocking behavior to the President was detailed in Bill Sammon's book about 9/11, Fighting Back. Ever since I read that book I have automatically been suspicious of anything he writes. I firmly believe his title at the Post is "designated Buhs-hater." He is a terrible little man.
Regardless of the merits???? What would Dana have. That meritorious accusations NOT be made? And why should it be "incresingly difficult" to gather and report facts? What is becoming increasingly difficult is reporting non-facts, or half of the facts, or only the facts that Dana wants to report, which is as it should be.
Dana Milbank is just trying to prevent ABC from facing the truth about the source of their memos regarding the Republicans' 11th hour heroics to try to save Terri. This tactic is meant to draw the fire away from that by causing so much hubrus that people let the issue die out!
Milbank also led the charge to discredit the SBVFT. He has a political agenda, which is masked under "objective" reporting.
Dana Milbank is working hard to replace the absolutely disgraseful Dan Rather as the most POMPOUS, ARROGANT and CONDESCENDING media hack in America.
Lil' Dana's self-esteem has been hurt. Poor baby.
As I told some friends on another thread, I really hope to see Dana Milbank reduced to writing Penny Press garage sale ads in Terre Haute, Indiana.
He's up against some stiff competition.
Found some good articles you did. :-)
In other words, we cannot allow the truth to get in the way of our facts.
LOL. That is exactly what has his shorts in a knot.
Milbank gets up everyday hating-Bush. I also remember him attacking the Swift Vets.
Dear Mr. Milbank:
The salad days of power for you and your fellow presstitutes in the MSM are over. They will never return, Rather (pardon the pun), it will only get worse as your credibility becomes more and more lessened and you all become less and less influential. You know it too. Why else would the left be spending so much money in advertising when it could formerly rely on you in the MSM? It is a good thing. Good for America. Real good. Oh sure, you'll still enjoy some moments where your deceit will get out but not like the days of old. I am a very content conservative with the shift in sources of information and the results at the polls. Truthfully, you and the left cannot say the same.
Less than warm regards,
eureka!
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.