Let's start with the name, shall we?
In the modern MEdia, it's all about ME, the reporter.
In a nutshell that sums up the entire problem with modern journalism. Journalists are no longer on a crusade to tell the truth; they want to change the world, fight injustice and so on If the truth doesn't fit that purpose, screw it. Make shit up if you have to. Invent sources, make up events, ignore actual news if it doesn't support your vision, because after all, it's all about you, isn't it?
Journalism today starts with the premise that the only newsworthy items are those that make the US look bad. So we get endless stories of air conditioners being turned too high and rap music being played to terrorists at Gitmo, but the beheadings of innocent civilians kidnapped by terrorists gets little attention. We get US Senators comparing our interrogation techniques to the Nazis, but stories of Hussein feeding dissidents into paper shredders go away. We get endless coverage of the minor abuses at Abu Ghraib, yet Saddam’s torture chambers, rape rooms and children's prisons go unremarked on.
Why?
Because reminding people just how bad Hussein's reign was defeats the purpose of making us look bad.
Remember during the buildup to the war, how the Bush Administration advanced multiple reasons why we were going to invade? I can remember local liberal SKbubba making fun of the administration, asking when they were going to make up their minds about why they were invading. And he wasn't alone. It was a popular game. “What reason will the Bushies claim today?”
But now, it seems that to the media, the only reason advanced by the administration was WMDs. Why? Because it’s the only reason of the many advanced pre-invasion that the press, through their coverage can claim was invalid. They've forgotten the endless debate with the UN over the violated Security Council resolutions. They've forgotten the speeches about freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous dictator, and restoring Iraq as a free nation. (Y'all remember mocking Bush over nation building? I remember it well.) But since remembering all of the reasons we went in doesn't help make Bush bad, all the media remembers is WMDs.
So much for truth, right?
It isn't about truth anymore; it's about outcome. It’s just like our legal system, which is not set up to discover the truth. In fact, the better a lawyer is at obscuring the truth, the more money he can charge per hour. It’s a simple, and no longer denied fact. If the truth is damaging to your client, you find a way to suppress it. To do less is to provide inadequate counsel and the lawyer can lose his license. The press today is the same way; if a story does not support the party line, it goes away. Oil exports from Iraq are now higher than they were when Saddam ran the place. But to find that out, you had to go to the Christian Science Monitor or Reader’s Digest. For some reason, the New York Times did not consider that fit to print. And that’s just one tiny example. As our Congresscritters went to Iraq to see for themselves, nearly every single one came back saying that the country they visited was nothing like what they’d been lead to expect by our press. While they each spoke of the work that remained to be done, they were almost unanimous in proclaiming how positively things were going.
How could the media get it so wrong?
Prior to the Iraqi election, the story was almost identical on every major network; the elections would be accompanied by massive violence and bloodshed. Turnout would be light to non-existant. The two factors together would work to invalidate any result, driving Iraq further into the quagmire of US meddling. Then the elections took place. Violence was mild. Iraqis voted in droves, and walked the streets proudly showing blue thumbs, proud that they had voted for their government. In fact, Iraqis participated in their election at a higher percentage than did Americans in one of the most hotly contested election in decades.
Again, how did the media get it so wrong?
Because the truth no longer matters. Facts no longer matter. All that matters is some nebulous ideological “greater good.“ The little truths we all live with must be sacrificed so that the greater truths will emerge triumphant. The world must be changed, and remade into the image that they hold dear. And what image is that?
Well, we all remember the liberal editor of Slate who mused about wishing things would go horribly wrong in Iraq so Bush would lose in 2004. In his mind, the slaughter of US soldiers and Shia Iraqis would be balanced by the greater good of a Democrat win at the polls.
And that’s why these bastards are relegated to the next to the bottom level of slime. They place their ideology above their profession. They place their ideology above the truth. And they place their ideology above human lives. Yet they claim to be telling the truth. At least lawyers are open and honest about what they do.
Posted by Rich at July 1, 2005 12:47 PM | TrackBack