A Tale of Two Scandals
I'm still at a loss now that we've been discussing media bias in a focused way for several years and with multiple books written on both sides of the political spectrum, to understand why any news org that professed "objectivsm" or at least taking on all comers and not playing favorites STILL practice such blatant bias.
Case in point, this last week, Chris Matthews held a full panel discussion on Karl Rove in the Valarie Plame case. Given the primarily left-leaning panel, it was no surprise that they spent much of their time skewering Rove and other players (and perhaps rightly so). Although I've still not seen the definitive evidence that Plame was actually an undercover operative at the time (certainly likes to get her picture in Vanity Fair), if she was indeed still on those roles and her name was intentionally leaked, that's a crime. It's just dirty partisan politics, and if Rove is found complicit, he'll get what the law meets out.
That being said, I'm still not convinced Rove is the puppet master boy-genius that those on the left make him out to be. I think he's a shrewd politico, but you have to be if you make it to working in the White House, but I think the fact that most on the left can't conceive that Bush might actually be smart and wily enough to run the country has over-inflated Rove's abilities and importance. This of course follows the "stupid" chain. We'll sidebar to that for a second. If you follow the reports on US Presidents over the last fifty years or so, you have the intellectual giants Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton (jury's still out on how smart the left thought LBJ was) and the simpleton morons of Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and W Bush. The notable exceptions were Bush 41, where Dan Quayle deflected most of the "stupid factor" and Nixon who was "Tricky Dick". The pattern of these is that "if you thought that last guy was a simpleton, this next President is _really_ a retard". W Bush is just the end of that long train of an intellectual bankruptcy on the left that can't understand how people they view as intellectually inferior keep tarring them come election time. It must be the result of a political mastermind behind the throne and Rove has the current title.
That little diatribe aside, let's acknowledge at least that this is a potential scandal and news worthy. Does it deserve the mountains of print and TV time it's gotten because of it? Probably not, but it's received it all the same. Now, one could argue this is just because it's about a Republican and a member of a Republican administration. Therein lies the bias. Not possible, you say? I present people's exhibit #2.
Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, has released a statement to rebuff Louis Freeh's accusations of scandal in Clinton's presidency that will be read when Freeh appears on 60 Minutes this week. No mention has been made, nor I doubt will it during the hatchet piece on Freeh, of Berger's own recent scandal invalidating him as a "character witness" for Clinton. One may recall Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents from the National Archives of which he was found guilty (not just assumed by the press), ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and put on parole with community service. Let's look at this in perspective. The National Archives are nigh unto sacred, even in this increasingly secular world. It's like going into the Library at Alexandria in Ancient Rome and burning some scrolls that said Augustus Caesar knowingly let Brutus escape even though one of Rome's most hated villains was residing in the Seleucid empire who tried and were rebuffed in getting Augustus to take him off their hands.
Ok, maybe that was a little too in-depth of an analogy. Putting it simply, Berger destroyed documents that constitute a part of our nation's history in a pathetic attempt to rewrite it. He should have gotten the chair, but that's just my opinion. How is what he did any less of a national scandal than Rove allegedly leaking the name of a person who may or may not have been a covert agent at the time. A case that hasn't even been brought to trial yet has received more coverage than the Warren Commission compared to a case where an extremely high-ranking member of the last administration was found guilty of a heinous crime. If you were to do a Lexis search on MSM stories on Berger's scandalous activities, you'd likely get a return of crickets chirping. There wasn't much mention.
So, revisiting our initial point, why is bias still so prevalent in the MSM, even in pundit shows like Hardball which claims to go after everyone with equal vigor, after all the attempts to highlight, expose, and correct it? Perhaps no one in a position to do anything about it cares. It doesn't matter much since most viewers who dislike the bias vote with their remotes and watch other programs. Still, it deserves to be exposed even after the horse has been beaten to death and turned into glue. The reason for that is, our vaunted watchdogs, the defenders of the 'people's right to know' are just as corrupt and scandal-ridden as those they supposedly scrutinize.
Who watches the watchers? These days, us bloggers do, and apparently quite a bit of the general public. The point to this particular rant is, don't let your guard down and ignore anyone who says there is no bias in the media or if there is it's only conservative bias. They're either ignorant, blind, or have their own agenda and bias they're trying to sell to you. Stay objective, and Question Authority, even the authorities of the talking heads with the well-coiffed 'do's on your nightly news and pundit shows.
I'm still at a loss now that we've been discussing media bias in a focused way for several years and with multiple books written on both sides of the political spectrum, to understand why any news org that professed "objectivsm" or at least taking on all comers and not playing favorites STILL practice such blatant bias.
Case in point, this last week, Chris Matthews held a full panel discussion on Karl Rove in the Valarie Plame case. Given the primarily left-leaning panel, it was no surprise that they spent much of their time skewering Rove and other players (and perhaps rightly so). Although I've still not seen the definitive evidence that Plame was actually an undercover operative at the time (certainly likes to get her picture in Vanity Fair), if she was indeed still on those roles and her name was intentionally leaked, that's a crime. It's just dirty partisan politics, and if Rove is found complicit, he'll get what the law meets out.
That being said, I'm still not convinced Rove is the puppet master boy-genius that those on the left make him out to be. I think he's a shrewd politico, but you have to be if you make it to working in the White House, but I think the fact that most on the left can't conceive that Bush might actually be smart and wily enough to run the country has over-inflated Rove's abilities and importance. This of course follows the "stupid" chain. We'll sidebar to that for a second. If you follow the reports on US Presidents over the last fifty years or so, you have the intellectual giants Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton (jury's still out on how smart the left thought LBJ was) and the simpleton morons of Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and W Bush. The notable exceptions were Bush 41, where Dan Quayle deflected most of the "stupid factor" and Nixon who was "Tricky Dick". The pattern of these is that "if you thought that last guy was a simpleton, this next President is _really_ a retard". W Bush is just the end of that long train of an intellectual bankruptcy on the left that can't understand how people they view as intellectually inferior keep tarring them come election time. It must be the result of a political mastermind behind the throne and Rove has the current title.
That little diatribe aside, let's acknowledge at least that this is a potential scandal and news worthy. Does it deserve the mountains of print and TV time it's gotten because of it? Probably not, but it's received it all the same. Now, one could argue this is just because it's about a Republican and a member of a Republican administration. Therein lies the bias. Not possible, you say? I present people's exhibit #2.
Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, has released a statement to rebuff Louis Freeh's accusations of scandal in Clinton's presidency that will be read when Freeh appears on 60 Minutes this week. No mention has been made, nor I doubt will it during the hatchet piece on Freeh, of Berger's own recent scandal invalidating him as a "character witness" for Clinton. One may recall Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents from the National Archives of which he was found guilty (not just assumed by the press), ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and put on parole with community service. Let's look at this in perspective. The National Archives are nigh unto sacred, even in this increasingly secular world. It's like going into the Library at Alexandria in Ancient Rome and burning some scrolls that said Augustus Caesar knowingly let Brutus escape even though one of Rome's most hated villains was residing in the Seleucid empire who tried and were rebuffed in getting Augustus to take him off their hands.
Ok, maybe that was a little too in-depth of an analogy. Putting it simply, Berger destroyed documents that constitute a part of our nation's history in a pathetic attempt to rewrite it. He should have gotten the chair, but that's just my opinion. How is what he did any less of a national scandal than Rove allegedly leaking the name of a person who may or may not have been a covert agent at the time. A case that hasn't even been brought to trial yet has received more coverage than the Warren Commission compared to a case where an extremely high-ranking member of the last administration was found guilty of a heinous crime. If you were to do a Lexis search on MSM stories on Berger's scandalous activities, you'd likely get a return of crickets chirping. There wasn't much mention.
So, revisiting our initial point, why is bias still so prevalent in the MSM, even in pundit shows like Hardball which claims to go after everyone with equal vigor, after all the attempts to highlight, expose, and correct it? Perhaps no one in a position to do anything about it cares. It doesn't matter much since most viewers who dislike the bias vote with their remotes and watch other programs. Still, it deserves to be exposed even after the horse has been beaten to death and turned into glue. The reason for that is, our vaunted watchdogs, the defenders of the 'people's right to know' are just as corrupt and scandal-ridden as those they supposedly scrutinize.
Who watches the watchers? These days, us bloggers do, and apparently quite a bit of the general public. The point to this particular rant is, don't let your guard down and ignore anyone who says there is no bias in the media or if there is it's only conservative bias. They're either ignorant, blind, or have their own agenda and bias they're trying to sell to you. Stay objective, and Question Authority, even the authorities of the talking heads with the well-coiffed 'do's on your nightly news and pundit shows.
posted by Rob Beck | 10:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home