Monday, October 27, 2008
Tank Watch: Is the press buying access?
Jonah Goldberg makes a very smart point that goes a long way to explaining why the a major newspaper would bury a video that casts Barack Obama in a bad light, the entire national media would ignore his campaign's uncontrolled donations process, and this year's myriad other offenses to the craft of journalism:
[A]s a general proposition I think there's an additional explanation why the press has been burrowing deeper into the Obama camp: post-election access. This is certainly not news to you, but most of the reporters covering these campaigns want to be rewarded with White House correspondent jobs. Others just want access to the next administration. Many figure that ripping into the Obama campaign now would be like wounding the king without killing him.
It is essential that the Obama campaign sustain that dynamic for the next week, and it explains why it has so harshly cut off those few journalists who do not hew the line.
8 Comments:
By 
John Butler, at
Mon Oct 27, 04:13:00 PM:
reminds me of CNN and their covering for Saddam Hussian in Iraq- if they told the truth they lost access, no different here.
This is a despot at work
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Oct 27, 05:25:00 PM:
Well, that is a little harsh. Access control is a favorite tactic of both parties. The interesting point involves the dynamic toward the end of an election that will put a new president in the White House.
By 
, at
Mon Oct 27, 07:28:00 PM:
Sooner or later the worm(s) will turn.
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 09:05:00 PM:
Greetings:
So, you're telling me you thought that Freedom of Information was a two-way street? A value as opposed to a law?
What media organization likes to be investigated?
Wait until the "Reporter Shield" laws are implemented.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Oct 27, 09:05:00 PM:
If the press was just worried about access, then why in the Newt era when the Republicans ran both houses of Congress did the press suck up so much to the party out of power?
Ok, I answered my own question, but still...
By Andrew X, at
Mon Oct 27, 10:26:00 PM:
Georg is onto it. IF that theory were correct, and IF McCain just hypothetically were seen as ahead and likely to win, then the press would be donning their kneepads for him, hailing Sarah Palin as Joan of Alaska, and putting Ayres, Rezko, Wright, and Obama's five-year-plans front and center, every day.
Anyone out there believe there are ANY circumstances where that would happen?? Other than replacement of all journalists with Heritage Foundation seed pods?
ANY circumstances where the press would balatantly shill for ANY Republican based on expected future access? Any now? Any in the past? Ever? Bueller?
Nope. That ain't it. The theory may be correct in that it is nice frosting for people to have along with the cake they are going to eat no matter what, but it ain't the cake.
They are doing this because they are the post-60's modernists who became journalists to chaaaaaange things (ugh). They are there for a narrative to achieve ends, not to just provide facts so that other (lesser) people can use those facts to consider policy and vote. How boring! And leave these important matters to others?!?! Horrors!
Some have also written that it is about 50 year old editors trying to save their asses via a future "fairness" doctrine or whatever, but these all might be too clever by half.
They do this because they want leftists to win, and no alleged journalistic ethos is of any higher importance than that. The lessons of the 60's intellectual, and they have learned them well.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Oct 27, 11:07:00 PM:
I've been wondering... how would a 'Fairness Doctrine' which would, in my understanding, effectively force people and institutions to voice opinions that are not their own stand up against a Constitutional challenge?
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Oct 28, 01:45:00 AM:
Fairly easily using this rough argument: Radio/TV spectrum is a State object, auctioned off to private companies with strings attached. One of those strings is "equal access", defined as allowing all points of view, equal access to the medium. Obviously conservatism is only one of many points of view, therefore it is only "fair" that all other points of view be given equal time. Each. And since Government determines what's "fair", they can remove the license from radio/tv stations that are not obeying the rules. And a radio station without permission to broadcast is crippled.
So go ahead and buy a station, hire people, sell commercials, but if you say something we don't like, we'll bury you.
Signed, The Government
ps: You know that loudmouth who criticized us yesterday? Might want to have a little talk with him, if you know what is good for you.
