Why Am I Not Surprised...
...that a book claiming President Bush and White House staffers mocked evangelical Christians is being published less than a month before the election?
Along with Bob Woodward's book, it seems part and parcel of the attempt by the mainstream media -- in cooperation with publishers who are happy to have the publicity -- to dishearten Republican voters in advance of the election.
According to the Corner, the author calls on Christians to pull out of the political process to "reflect."
Uh-huh. What interesting timing.
Update: Need I add that this book was spotlighted on 60 Minutes? What a surprise (not).
Further Update: More on the media coverage of this book from NewsBusters.
posted by Laura @ 12:41 PM
2 Comments:
Laura, once again I must offer my perspective. :)
For the record, Woodward's book was published by a subsidiary of CBS, which is owned by Viacom. Viacom does have high-ranking people who contribute to the Democrats.
But news is news. The Mainstream Media (which is not united under any grand plan) were also extremely cooperative when Bush was trying to sell the Iraq war. The Mainstream Media is also complicit every single day by not showing us the gruesome realities of what we are engaged in in Iraq.
The Mainstream Media is dedicated to one thing: profit. That's not exactly noble, but not exactly bad either. Yes, there are political agendas that influence the timing or selection of stories. But just because someone doesn't like it should it be categorized under "Media bias."
Should Bob Woodward not publish his book? Have you read it? Should the newsmedia not cover the book? (I think it should as it reveals very stunning truths about the lies we were told, in which the Mainstream Media helped.)
The fact is, it is news. It is information that Americans need to know.
"Should Bob Woodward not publish his book? Have you read it?"
I have not yet read the entire book, but have read lengthy excerpts as well as numerous articles and analyses. (I did read one and possibly both of his previous books on Bush, I forget if I read the second one. I also read his Clinton-era books, so I am well acquainted with his work in general.) I find Woodward sometimes interesting but I also question his interpretations and emphases and whether he is completely trustworthy.
The main issue here, as I see it, is timing and the intended use of the book(s). Woodward has specifically said his publishers felt it was OK for him to withhold information about the administration he had months ago so long as it was available to the voters in time for the election, and thus it was intentionally published as a tool to be used in the run-up to the election. This information comes direct from Woodward. Yet (as was stated on Special Report with Brit Hume) Woodward's previous 2 books which had a much more complimentary focus on the administration were not published in such a pre-election time frame (I believe at least one came out weeks after an election, so it conceivably could have been published earlier). Was Woodward's *good* perspective on the President not equally important to have before the public prior to an election? Not in the eyes of Woodward or his publisher. Only "bad news" which would be a detriment to Republicans is considered "news."
The Mainstream Media may not be be "united under any grand plan" but there is an institutional "groupthink" which informs all their decisions. As anyone in the media will admit, probably 90% (if not more) of those in newsrooms vote Democrat. Publishing also leans toward being a heavily liberal industry. Most of these "players" would be very happy to see Democrats take control of Congress. They make individual decisions but they tend to be the same kinds of decisions -- the kinds of decisions that lead to there being a (Republican) elephant's rear end on TIME one week and Democrat Barack Obama headlined as "The Next President" (in the biggest letters) the very next week. The same kinds of decisions which lead to horrible photos of President Bush being regularly used on AOL's main Welcome page (such is the case today) or which lead to Michelle Malkin videos being deleted (or placed behind offensive content "barriers") from YouTube while clips of the Bush "assassination" movie are approved. The same decisions which ignored Harry Reid's story last week on major network newscasts, and which ignored comparisons between how Democrats treated the recently deceased Rep. Gerry Studds (who had actual sex -- not "just" instant messages -- with a page yet remained in Congress and received standing ovations) and how they reacted to Foley. And so on and so on. These biases define what is considered "news."
It's not as simple as saying "news is news." There are always choices to be made about what is news, and the MSM choices are largely reflective of the liberal biases of those who work in the media. That's the simple truth.
And I suspect that as long as the networks and major newspapers continue to ignore this (because of the reluctance to let go of their own agendas and views of what is "right" in favor of greater balance), the more their ratings and subscription numbers will go down. Because they are also, as you say, a business. And they are *choosing* to go the way of the dinosaurs because they are putting agenda ahead of fairness and greater profits.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Best wishes,
Laura
Post a Comment
<< Home