JANUARY 12, 1998--Selective reporting and the state of the nation

JANUARY 12, 1998
Selective reporting and the state of the nation
© 1998 WorldNetDaily.com

Aubrey T. DeVera once observed, "Prejudice, which sees what it pleases, cannot see what is plain." Notwithstanding the obvious liberal bias of the mainstream media, many of us continue to wonder at what point will either embarrassment or territorial imperative compel the dominant media to return to the journalistic foundation of actually reporting Who, What, When, Where, rather than obfuscating the Why and the How, and/or committing mortal sins of omission. This past week we have seen two stories which should spark, if not moral outrage, at least righteous indignation. Of course, I may be assuming facts not in evidence: that there exists a sufficient foundation of morality in newsrooms of the media elite:

Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch noted that despite the supposed gag order in the Paula Jones case (mutually agreed to by lawyers for both sides), the Washington Post reported privileged discovery information, apparently obtained from President Clinton's legal team. Now there are two sides to this coin. If the Post can get the information, good for them and attaboys all around. However, what, if any, sanctions should be anticipated (or reported) over someone on the Bob Bennett team having apparently violated the mutually agreed to gag order?
Patrick Shepard wrote an AP piece on the Ron Brown investigation (or un-investigation), and specifically omitted facts he knew, in an effort to presumably diminish the credibility of those questioning the procedural errors which had/have occurred.

A frequent discussion I have had with callers to my radio talk show concerns fairness, and the ability (or inability) of people to "...not want to be confused with facts which contradict their preconceived opinions." People incorrectly assume that the mainstream is reporting objectively. They are not. Last year, the California EPA actually had the unbridled audacity to order scientists to destroy data which contradicted or did not conform with policy. Meanwhile, critics of those who have reported and commented on the Clinton administration "problems" claim there is "nothing to these unwarranted charges.." Another case of failing to acknowledge the growing abundance of facts which contradict that partisan preconceived opinion. Indictments, jail sentences, and the ever popular game of "Name the unindicted conspirator" (second in popularity only to "Name the indicted Cabinet member"). Last week I asked who and when "some" Democrat would rise and reject defense of the indefensible. Now I ask, when will the presumed keepers of the fourth estate acknowledge their responsibility and report a full and complete journal of the facts, and permit the people the luxury of making their own fully informed decisions? A recurring theme on my radio talk show has been the malfeasance of journalists who symbiotically join themselves at the hip of some "source" only to become agents for whatever department, agency or office they have been assigned to cover. "Leaks," which include the invariable attribution of "...according to an official source reporting on conditions of anonymity," reduce the reporter to the status of house organ writer. Ambrose Bierce was right when he said "Politics is the conduct of public affairs for private advantage. Hell, the current administration has raised that axiom to an art form. However, I hope and pray that journalism has not regressed to the point where it has been reduced to reporting selective facts for private advantage.