Monday, June 26, 2006
Except perhaps to add a question. It strikes me as far too obvious to say that the liberal media has it "in for" the Bush Administration. I tend to think they have it "in for" authority in general, and seek to weaken it wherever possible, regardless of party. The same MSM weakened Clinton when he contemplated or utilized military action in Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This wasn't partisan, simply anti-war and anti-authority.
During World War II, members of the press were available to be drafted. They certainly knew or were often close to members of the military. They undoubtedly respected the challenges the military confronted. This was equally true during the Korean War. However, with the advent of professional draft avoidance during Vietnam, and the subsequent elimination of the draft, the US military has ceased to be connected in a personal way with the press. The current editors of the major liberal media organs have no personal connection to today's military. They act with a blatant disregard for the safety of American military members (or, for that matter, American civilians, but that's a separate matter). To reveal the various classified, clandestine programs the liberal press has revealed endangers the lives of real people. There is now no doubt about this claim. It is easy to make. Any banking system dollar now that converts to weaponry used against our soldiers can legitimately be argued to have been at least in part a consequence of the disclosure of this program. Money is fungible.
Not long ago, an LA Times reporter foolishly, but honestly, said he "hated the troops." He felt it was intellectually dishonest to say he was anti-war, but supported the troops. Eason Jordan, the former head of CNN's News Division, accused the US military of "targetting journalists." He lost his job over it. I think the flap this weekend over the financial transactions tracking program is evidence of the same latent (or overt?) hostility to the military.
Here's the botton line. The liberal press detests authority, save for its own. It views its mission as eroding authority. Press freedom erodes authority, except that of the press of course. Well, to the press, what has more authority that the Executive Branch of the United States Government, and the US military? Taking on these forces of authority drives knuckleheads like Dan Rather, for instance, who blathers on about "courage" and "speaking truth to power." It's all the silliest, most arrogant crapola I can imagine. It's like some of the stupidity you deal with when you have children. Small children.
One almost thinks the liberal press would delight in the next act of terror on US soil almost as much as they seem to relish body counts of our military.
"The liberal press detests authority, save for its own. It views its mission as eroding authority."
I agree with this but doubt Keller would have gone to press with this and the NSA "eavesdropping" story had a Democrat administration presided over these programs in a war on terror. But beyond a hard partisan smack-down quality of the NYT's editorial decisions, there is that soft-headed sixties holdover mentality of 'taking down the Man' that you describe.
Only, in their obsession to disclose classified anti-terror programs to hurt Repubs and to bravely defy *Totalitarian-Lying-Corrupt-Father-Figure-Goliath Government*, Keller and his press of elite Davids are taking down the man next door and across the street, in schools and offices across America and on the front. Not to mention potentially the one in the mirror.
May I add: the War on Terror isn't an elective war post 9-11, as was Bosnia/Kosovo in the "peace dividend" 90s. Where there was some latitude then for the press to appear like independents and contrarians, which was important for a veneer of legitimacy when big papers so often shilled for Clinton and other Dems, there isn't that editorial leeway now in a terror war forced upon us.
And still they take what we as a nation cannot afford, exercising their "rights" and telling us they're doing us a favor as they inflict incalculable harm. But I believe they only run this risk because Bush and other reviled Repubs are running the show. Were it Democrats in power and responsible for our safety and not that of eastern Europeans, it's highly unlikely the NYT and LAT would undercut their hometeam so determinedly, IMO.
Charlotte makes a good point.
In researching posts about the NSA scandal (and now this one) I've run into instance after instance of similar "outrages" during the Clinton administration that were reported once or twice, but then dropped.
This 'below the fold' coverage allows them to say they covered it. But saturation matters to. We've all seen the media relentlessly hype even old stories when it suits their advantage.
It is not coverage of 'bad news' that I resent so much. It is the sheer disproportionality of coverage. News has a short shelf life. If you report something once or twice it is quickly forgotten, but if day after day you hammer on a story, even when there've been no new developments, it sticks in people's minds and assumes outsized importance.
"One almost thinks the liberal press would delight in the next act of terror on US soil almost as much as they seem to relish body counts of our military."
No doubt. I can see the lead sentence now.
'Despite two wars on foreign soil, harsh interrogation methods, length detainments for terror suspects, and many secret (some would say sinister) 'defense' programs, the Bush administration has failed to prevent Such-and-Such Catastrophic Terrorist Attack Exhibit A.'
Mark my words.