Logic Times

The Importance of Rathergate

Commentary by Aslan, 12/04/04. Comments (1)

The Rathergate fraud is a big deal and not just as it relates to the upcoming election. In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal hinted at the evolution of the media from monolithic bias to a chaotic and diverse stew of opinions, and this trend is breathtaking in its potential for toppling liberalism.

The modern incarnation of liberalism exists because the fourth estate has abrogated their fundamental responsibility to avoid disinformation. The Center for Democracy and Governance defines the constitutional role of the press: “First, it ensures that citizens make responsible, informed choices rather than acting out of ignorance or misinformation. Second, information serves a ‘checking function’ by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them.”

Liberalism is built upon misinformation. Consider President Bush. In my personal encounters with Bush-haters, I have yet to be exposed to a single fact supporting such vitriol. Certainly there are some – an ardent socialist, for example, would be vehemently opposed to tax cuts on philosophical grounds – but such arguments are never advanced. Instead, the Goebbels-esque propaganda of Michael Moore is thrown in my face, or rampant Halliburton corruption is described to me with all sorts of aggressive body language.

The media is responsible for the nurturing and proliferation of this sort of disinformation. By trumpeting their constitutional purity, they seduce well-intentioned liberals, who must still believe that the media lives in the world of facts. Yet, they have long ago walked away from any pretense of informing the electorate. The media does not want to inform, only persuade.

Consider Kitty Kelley, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson…Michael Moore. The facts all disprove the claims of these people to even a casual observer. A properly functioning media would have speedily relegated these types to the tabloid papers where they belong. Yet these fools sit next to former presidents and enjoy record-setting exposure on widely watched programs.

Rathergate is exposing the failure of the press to do its constitutional duty. This is a tremendous boon for conservatism, and the louder the crash of CBS, the more will take notice that the old edifice of the fourth estate is crumbling and seek their news elsewhere. Such alternative sources, which are more closely linked to reality and the world of facts, may very well suck the life out of liberalism.

Comments

1: Trekram

October 9, 2004 09:23am EST

I share your frustrations on the media's leftist slant, however, I see misinformation and distortions all the time on conservative sources such as Fox, talk radio, politicians, and even the White House. I'm not happy with either side. Questions:

1) Has not this been a problem throughout history, especially in the US? What's so different today?

2) Isn't there an inherent relative-ness in the interpretation of facts that is entirely based on an individual's perspective? People see things differently and thus have different opinions. It often comes down to ideology and who’s to say one is better than another.

3) Any suggestions on how the public can get to the truth?

{Aslan: Before your questions, I reject categorically that there is equivalent distortion on either side of the political spectrum. Take for example the Iraq-Niger uranium yellow-cake connection. When this story was going against Bush (when it was believed that his State of the Union declaration about Saddam seeking nuclear raw materials was proven to be false), the Washington Post reported on the matter 96 times. When it was proven that the story was, after all, quite true, the Post reported on this development 2 times. That’s 96-2, folks (this according to the Washington Post itself). The three elite papers (NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times) and the three networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) faired almost as well, with a 302 to 9 score. CBS has not ever reported that the Iraq-Niger connection was, in fact, proven to be true. Consider also the recent ABC memo instructing news coverage to favor Kerry. Conservative distortion cannot compare. On to your excellent questions…

Question 1) You make an interesting point, as the tabloid tendencies of the press were even worse in times past. Perhaps our republic has never seen a properly functioning press. Consider the first campaign of Grover Cleveland, where he was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock with a loose woman whom he actually later committed to an insane asylum. Yet, while the sensationalism of the press was alive and well in 1884, I would argue it was better understood and defended against. Newspaper men were active in politics, at times king-makers, and few read certain newspapers of that day thinking they were reading cold, hard facts and not political opinion. Today’s news, more prevalent by a factor of ten at least, claims with frantic insistence that they are unbiased purveyors of facts, and I think that a portion of the electorate accepts that claim.

Question 2) Certainly this is true. But consider the reporting on the Iraq-Niger connection and ask yourself how much of that distortion can be chalked up to “perspective.”

Question 3) Visit the Logic Times every day!}