Obviously, the overwhelming majority
of journalists in the United
States are essentially Democrat Party
campaign operatives; their efforts at objective reporting are quite
amusing. Their utter submersion in the
Manhattan-Malibu axis is, in a way, a good thing, because it ensures that their
writing, TV, and web reporting is restricted to an audience of people who
already accept Confiscationism as a political philosophy. In other words, they’re preaching to the choir. They’re harmless inside their bubble.
It’s only during election season that
this particular brand of intellectual dishonesty becomes a powerful weapon, as
both McCain and Romney could tell you.
Here I want to briefly look at
passages from two recent articles about President Obama that will illustrate
this point in a crystal clear manner. The
first short passage is from an article by Jonathan Chait in New York magazine in April,
2014. The second is from one by
Elizabeth Drew in the most recent edition of The New York Review of Books. First the Chait article – here’s the passage:
“He’s
had to deal with race explicitly in a few excruciating circumstances, like the
2009 “beer summit” with the black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, a friend
of Obama’s, and James Crowley, the police sergeant responsible for Gates’s
arrest. (Obama’s response to the
incident was telling: He positioned himself not as an ally of Gates but as a
mediator between the two, as equally capable of relating to the white man’s
perspective as the black man’s.)”
The distortion of the truth here is
absolutely stupefying. Even leaving
aside the question of the appropriateness of the President of the United States
weighing in on a local law enforcement matter (how many thousands of incidents
like this must take place in the country every single day, and what is the
criteria he uses to pick any particular one to insert himself into?), this
video is more or less straightforward as to what Obama’s initial response was:
“The police acted stupidly” is
clearly not positioning oneself as a mediator.
The fact is that Obama only positioned himself as a mediator after
it became clear that both he and Gates had picked the wrong cop to try
and bulldoze with Sharptonesque knee jerkism:
Turning to the article by Elizabeth
Drew, this piece is a kind of standard Washington
insider look at the upcoming midterm elections but, whereas Chait at least
attempts to dress up his bias in a suit of quasi objectivity, Drew makes no
attempt to conceal her status as a Democrat Party enabler. After a few paragraphs of snoozeville
boilerplate she drops in the sentence “It’s undeniable that the president’s
race has a significant part in the destructive ways in which he is talked about
and opposed.”
This statement is just casually
dropped in as corroborated fact, like the day’s weather or telling someone what
your height and weight is. The author
apparently feels no need to give any kind of supporting documentation
whatsoever. Might it be helpful to name
a name, or give a concrete example, of such an assertion? Of course, I understand the deal – the publication’s
readership is such that there isn’t any need to do so. The contention is accepted a
priori. The President by any objective measure is not doing a very good
job, and the media is heavily invested in him, so if he looks bad then they
look bad as well. This is simple human
nature. Unfortunately it’s
preposterously slanted journalism.
This kind of Libscreech, when it
exists inside the cocoon – as New
York and The New York Review of Books obviously
do – is totally harmless. It is only
when it starts to be multiplied in every kind of media, both new and old, that
it begins to hurt Republicans. As I
said, ask McCain or Romney.
No comments:
Post a Comment