An op-ed by Michael Malone, a former ABC news reporter was the subject of a post by me in October 2008. It is worth repeating Malone's insightful and prophetic words:
The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.The fact that the traditional networks came to Fox's defense yesterday when the White House tried to ban Fox from the White House news pool, is a good sign. But it's only sign.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer....
So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist”, you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul....
I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers, many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S....
But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass – no, make that shameless support – they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.
Hopefully the mainstream media now realize that they created an executive branch monster by serving as sycophants for Obama. That monster -- or some Republican equivalent in the future -- could just as easily turn on any one of the mainstream news organizations as Obama recently turned on Fox.
Protecting Fox from Obama's outrageous conduct protects all news organizations, and restores some small measure of the dignity the mainstream media lost during the election coverage.
--------------------------------------------
Of Interest: Caroline Glick Not Interested in Israel's Survival?
Related Posts:
Schoolyard Bully
The Press has Destroyed Our Right to a Free and Fair Press
Obama's Fox News Diversion
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, if for no other reason than my dim hope that some flicker of independence still exists in the press. But I really do wonder how the other networks would have reacted if FNC were not footing so much of the WH press corps bill (which all the networks fund).
ReplyDeleteWell, the head-pat media did right for once, regardless of their motives.
I'm not convinced this was evidence of a change of heart in the press. I think this situation was just SO beyond the pale they could not allow it to happen. I'm not sure where I saw it, but one commentator said this was nothing more than the press protecting itself from a future Republican administration.
ReplyDeleteThe WH press pool, and rightly so, finally figured out that were they to allow this administration to play this way, future administrations would follow suit.
I wish it were more noble than this, but alas...
It's going to take this WH treating another organization in the same manner before these boneheads figure out he ain't just warning off the jackals at FoxNews. And I'm not sure they'll get it even then. They're just too much in love with the monster they've forced on this country.
How interesting it might be to turn the tables on biased media anchors and journalists ("serious journalists?bootlickers"), and make them the targets of investigative journalists.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, all journalism students are taught a code of ethics as part of their degree program. In addition, when a network hires a journalist, they expect their employees to follow ethical standards. And finally, professional organizations weigh in with their ethical expectations.
Somewhere along the way, those standards have been forgotten or totally ignored by members of the purportedly unbiased MSM.
Too many journalists have fallen off the ethical wagon. Maybe they need to enroll in a 12-step program to recovery.
Wikipedia excerpt:
A twelve-step program is a set of guiding principles outlining a course of action for recovery from addiction, compulsion, or other behavioral problems.
* admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion;
* recognizing a greater power that can give strength;
* examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member);
* making amends for these errors;
* learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior;
* helping others that suffer from the same addictions or compulsions.
I also suspect a lot of the American public doesn't realize that journalists are expected to follow a code of ethics. It's time someone educated the public, while simultaneously reminding and embarrassing the offending journalists, one by one. Pick your target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it, as an infamous radical once said.
You've got a long list of potential targets to choose from, beginning with the talking heads that recently met behind closed doors with Obama.
"this was nothing more than the press protecting itself from a future Republican administration"
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY.
Also, in the past, most administrations have not "blamed all the troubles" on the previous one. That precedent has now been thrown out the window. Plus, the next Republican administration will also have an "immediate reaction" team in place to counter any negative stories. The next Republican President will be on TV numerous times a day. "Addresses to the Nation" and Press Conferences in Prime Time will continue.
The First Amendment provides for freedom of the press. It doesn't require that they be fair or even truthful.
ReplyDeleteObama is a WATB.
As Larry Flynt said:
If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."
Here we have at least 2 very big issues that should be up for consideration and very wide dissemination. First of all, before getting into those issues, I have to say that Helen Thomas has shown the most amount of guts by remembering her own code of ethics and speaking up against the tactics of the White House. I do not like her, but kudos, all the same.
ReplyDeleteThe issues are:
1. the journalists code of ethics. By their behaviour in helping to get this man elected as President, and by not doing the necessary vetting to which they have subjected nearly all other candidates in the past, these journalists have failed in their duty of unbiased reporting.
2. The WH has been setting up a precedent for all future Administrations to run roughshod over the press corps.
It seems that it took this latest very obvious action for many of the journalists to start waking up out of their slumber.
Many of us have some memory of the Nixon years. I might be a foreigner by Richard Millhouse Nixon was very big news. Watergate was very good news. We all knew him as Tricky Dicky Nixon. What I want to point out is that Nixon was being held to a very high standard. Whilst it is true that Nixon became paranoid (I have no doubt about that), it was this very high standard to which he was held that in the end saw the departure of Spiro Agnew and Nixon himself not all that much later. The journalists who broke the Watergate scandal seem to be happy now to do nothing about the scandals of the present Administration.
Where is the holding of this POTUS to account for the fact that he was representing 2 parties? Yes, it is true. He was endorsed by the DNC but he never left the Working Family Party and if you look at the background of that Party you will find the Communists as they renamed themselves right at the top of the tree.
The fact is the lamestream media failed in their duty of care with regards to the last election. They failed to properly vet the DNC candidate. They failed to report on his relationship with Marxists and Maoists. They failed to double check his academic record. They perpetuated the myth that he was a college professor (Not, no way, nohow. He was a mere lecturer), they perpetuate the myth that he was a Constitutional lawyer, when in fact all he has ever done is community organizing. They failed to follow up his record with the Annenberg Challenge... and the list goes on.... why on earth did they give him a pass?
What really irks me is the myth that the dithering over sending troops to Afghanistan is somehow being measured. There are people who still believe the fairy story that he is a man who spends his time deliberating, blah blah blah. Well, in successful businesses, even though you need people who will do the analyzing you also need people who are willing to make crucial decisions rapidly.
BTW we have the same problem in Australia with a press corp that has failed miserably to vet the candidates. They are also just as biased when it comes to the ALP. I saw this when Gough Whitlam as leader of the ALP took office back in 1972 - the press was so much in the tank with the ALP at the time. Then it was repeated for KEVIN07 also known as KRUDD or Kevin Rudd, who is another slimy narcissistic leader just like POTUS.
What astonishes me is that the reporters' and editors' superiors don't seem interested in making money. You'll never get rich by ceding the most profitable part of the business to your competitors.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Ric
@myiq2xu, what does "WATB" mean?
ReplyDelete