Lady Liberty
Good News, Bad News
September 21, 2009

Some of you know that I used to work in the news media. Maybe it's that insider viewpoint that makes it especially disgusting to me when I see the state of journalism—and I use the term loosely—today.

It wasn't so very long ago that news was news, editorials were editorials, and the line between the two was both clear and sacrosanct. Today, there are times I'm hard pressed to tell the difference. Worse than that are the times where the difference is obvious but the labels are backwards.

I like to catch up on the news every morning while I'm getting ready for work. I'm not entirely sure why I bother any more. I can't tell you how many times I've actually found myself, hairbrush in hand, shouting back at the TV over one inexcusably biased, or outright error-filled, report.

Just the other day, there was a short feature the purpose of which seemed to be to chastise those who were criticizing the president for his speech to schoolchildren. The reporter cut to a so-called expert who proceeded to lambaste conservatives. The president was merely going to encourage students to work hard and to set goals, he explained. What could possibly be wrong with that, he asked. The reporter shook his head at anyone who would protest such a thing. As usual, both of them selectively ignored the point entirely.

Most of those who were speaking out in opposition weren't targeting the speech itself but rather the government's "suggested" lesson plans, some of which asked children to explain how they could best help President Obama. A local school teacher I chatted with had no idea what was behind the protests. Once I explained my own objections to the speech to her, she (a pretty obvious Obama supporter) had the integrity to change her mind. Had we not talked, she would likely have continued to wonder why conservatives in general were so argumentative where anything Barack Obama tries to do is concerned.

As far as whether or not the objections were well founded, you need look no further than the federal government itself. The lesson plans were changed prior to the speech. Why? According to those in charge, the lesson plans were "poorly worded." I'm betting the wording was just fine with everybody concerned until they got caught. But unlike in years past, it wasn't NBC or the Washington Post that caught them.

Without publicity on the Internet, the propagandizing in schools would probably have gone forward just as planned. The so-called "mainstream media" fell down on the job before the event, and it just as clearly was determined to editorialize in the aftermath. Oh, it didn't call its reporting commentary, opinions, or editorials. No, it called it news. But editorializing is what it was.

The Founding Fathers included freedom of the press within the Bill of Rights because they believed an active, assertive, and frankly skeptical press was a primary defense against government gone awry. They were right, and for many years the press served a significant role in doing just that. It wasn't always perfect, and sometimes government used it and it allowed itself to be used for good or for ill (World War II propaganda, for example, followed shortly thereafter by Cold War propaganda). But even more often, the press saved the American public a good deal of grief and prevented any number of problems.

If it weren't for the media, Watergate might have been an obscure footnote in history rather than the amateur break-in that brought down a presidency. Bringing the Viet Nam war into our living rooms cut short the bloodshed there, and giving us the immediacy of 9/11 unified us. The space program—a very good thing both in terms of accomplishment and the economy—garnered no small amount of support thanks to some excellent media coverage of the Apollo program.

Today, instead of real investigative reporting or hard news, we see Matt Lauer on the Today Show being clearly sympathetic to the Obama administration. Ann Curry, who's actually supposed to do news on that show, consistently furrows her brow, murmurs, "Ohhhhh," and sometimes even sounds near tears herself whenever she feels badly about something connected to someone she's interviewing. 60 Minutes, which was famous for hard news and brutal investigative reporting, now offers up what amounts to infomercials for the Obama administration. ABC has earned the name "All Barack Channel" with its airing of "news" specials essentially promoting Obama's notion of healthcare reform. CNN reporters have been openly contemptuous of TEA party protesters.

The media has been given a good deal of credit (hopefully, it will later get a good deal of blame) for the election of Barack Obama. And we all watched while the same members of the media who so glowingly reported on the Democratic candidate summarily crucified Sarah Palin. Aside from the obvious, the one thing that stood out to me during the campaign was this: A lack of substance. Should there be any real surprise, then, that the president himself seems to suffer from a lack of the same?

I unreservedly support freedom of speech, and that includes the freedom to express your opinion whether I agree with you or not. I also support freedom of the press. What I do not and will not endorse is the gigantic soap box enjoyed by large publications or major news outlets who have in effect become the machinery of political propaganda. At the moment, this propaganda is decidedly far to the left, but I wouldn't be any happier with it if it swung far to the right. Either way, it's a betrayal of trust.

George Orwell's 1984 showed us all too clearly how the populace can be brainwashed by sufficient repetition of viewpoints by sufficient authority. Everyone who still thinks the mainstream media represents unimpeachable authority is endangering the liberty of all by believing everything they see on TV. When the late Walter Cronkite ended his nightly newscast by saying, "That's the way it is," we were all pretty sure that that's the way it was. Now, no matter what they say, those of us who are responsible citizens are forced to question it.

The mainstream media wonders why it's losing in popularity. Maybe there are more responsible Americans out there than I think. Certainly it appears there are more than the mainstream media bargained for.