reporting and the state of the nation
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:
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.
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?
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