Bad, Not Biased
I return back to CampaignDesk.org for a hearty reminder of the real problem with the media ... not crass, craven, liberal agenda-seekers. But, rather ... just the fact that they're bad. There's still good reporters and editors in the biz, but as Susan Stranahan points out in the link, the results don't often reflect that despite the best of intentions. The closer says it all, for moi:
Campaign Desk has bemoaned the tendency of lazy or hurried reporters to offer up little more than the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and their surrogates. They do no service for their readers. Based on today's sampling of coverage, some of that blame should also be showered upon the folks running the newsroom, who make the decision to give the precious space of their newshole over to any and everything except for informative and detailed coverage of the news of the day.
But I guess that's not as much fun as spending millions to berate the alleged overuse of the word "strident" in articles discussing conservatives. I mean, hell, we all know THAT'S the real problem with the media, right?
ADD-ON: CD is delivering the goods in its analysis, it seems. Steve Lovelady offers up a post in slamming Weekly Standard for dubbing Rathergate "the biggest media story in recent memory." Yeah, that really puts to shame the non-debate on Iraq that happened before we went in. I think its time to put an APB out for the last shred of intellectual honesty among the right.
Comments
Did the "non-debate on Iraq" involve an concerted malicious effort from the Media to influence an election and deceive voters with documents CBS knew to be fraudulent?
No. This story goes to the heart of the credibility of the media itself. If the extreme bias of CBS drove them to knowingly deceive the public and malign the president with known forgeries, we can't trust them at all.
Posted by: susan | September 15, 2004 01:21 PM