based on the election results,
Looks like I was right you were wrong! But go ahead and just shout nonsense and point fingers; if you don’t want to change things you can just pretend.

“There have always been media biases and prejudices.” – VDH

Hanson’s concern for media biases is warranted but not for the reasons he articulates.

His contention is well known: the media (a liberal entity) have failed to critique
their own (Obama/Biden) and thereby have failed as an institution and failed our democratic society at-large. This is an important claim. Our society should be vigilant to the matter, but unless Hanson or others can mount a more persuasive argument, it will not happen in this case, for he cannot escape the gravity of his own rhetoric, his own biases. Ultimately he makes it too easy for his opponents to dismiss him and his concerns. By doing so, we miss a larger lesson: how to maintain well-functioning media in a free society.

The essay’s shortcomings are rooted, I suspect, in an unexamined or under-appreciated role of the media themselves, the fourth branch of government. When the media’s function is impeded, either by the outside censure or denial or by self-censure, then the foundations of that society are weakened and even undermined.

With this article Hanson conveys a low regard for and appreciation of the inherent
dynamic between government (authority/power) and an independent media (agents for
information). Free societies are synonymous with a free press, one ideally having
unfettered movement in and through institutions of authority (think: The Freedom
of Information Act) as well as the right to voice contrary opinions and to challenge
governmental actions, even its legitimacy. Authority is established and maintained
by two distinct ways: non-coercive and coercive force. The former is by moral force
and persuasion (as conveyed to Walter Cronkite but not, ultimately, to Dan Rather)
and by propaganda to modify behavior and belief. The latter, coercive force (police,
police states and armies) uses intimidation, the denial of individual expression,
imprisonment, etc. to eradicate real and symbolic descent.

The (independent) media exist as non-coercive societal force for general communication and exchange of ideas, ones that are fundamentally in tension with government. Autocratic and even democratic governments recognize this fact and often campaign against them. Effort is made to impede them by denying access or to de-legitimize their elements and the institution itself by chiding it, claiming it unfair and biased. Other times the media are removed all together. Governments are generally resentful of the media’s societal position, one that is not elected and some claim is not accountable. But if media ARE biased, this has more to do with their role as an adversary of government rather than their collective political leanings. We know what becomes them when they abrogate the role and become a de facto organ of government, as notably the case in the lead up to the 2nd Iraq War. Whether due to patriotism or intimidation, the media largely gagged themselves and biased the message to that of our government’s. Is that the kind of biased media we would prefer?

Studs Turkel saw little value in the work of a reporter who had no opinions. Journalism would suffer immeasurably, he argued, if we removed perspectives. Besides, few hold to the notion that “the news” is the objective realm of reporting events. However the
better organizations strive towards impartiality, for journalistic integrity and
fairness. These are still largely regarded as essential, the Hippocratic oath of the
industry. But the rules of engagement are looser these days. Groups like The Huffington Post and Fox News largely exist to promote their agendas and may be more inclined to not let the truth stand in the way of a good story. Hanson may be doing much the same.

His opinions express his own set of prejudices. He does not, however, fall victim
to the term “elite media,” preferring “media biases” but it is the same code with
the same message. He is not alone. Each party and their mouthpieces “go there.”
Unless best practices are used, the waters aren’t clarified, and they remain a swamp.

His view of the media suggested in the essay is too simplistic. The modern media do not make for monolithic voice or means. Their forms, numbers, and opinions far exceed the era of the big three networks. Ours is the time of YouTube, blogs and the explosion of information and the means to transmit it. It is more decentralized than ever. It is inaccurate to suggest today’s media pray at the same “gilded throne of CBS.”

Even if the collective political leanings of the media could be effectively measured what would it prove? If I held political beliefs contrary to the “media mean,” would
their beliefs be biased and mine not? If there is a discernable bent to the media,
is it substantively different than the cross section of the population’s? Perhaps,
at a minimum, one can acknowledge Hanson’s thoughts as “discontent” but not as “disease” for the mean opinion of the media, if such a thing exists, doesn’t reflect those from less centrist parts of society by definition.

All voices are probably reflected in today’s diverse media probably in the proportion they are held. Their opinions are the conclusions of those who historically were educated professionals, conscious of role and responsibility. Theirs remain a provocative arena, a competition of ideas, and at times, messy tricks. Hanson is loosing this battle and so is his man.

His arguments leave me unsympathetic, numb to the charges.

• Finance Reform – Modern campaign finance reform has been primarily directed at
the few who were thought to have achieved undue influence with large sums of money.
Prior to Obama (and may be Dean), large fundraising levels have not been achieved
by collecting many small amounts. Is the system broken or do we have a new paradigm?
If we deem large amounts of money achieved by these means to be a challenge to the
safeguards, then that is a separate matter. For once the Democrats clobbered the Republicans in message, strategy and organization, but they did so with financial methods largely regarded as being benign to the integrity of the democratic process. This remains to be seen, however.

• VP – Why have so few recent senators become presidents? Precisely because they have large public records. Biden not examined? Are you kidding? He has run twice for
the presidency, been examined by his opponents and the media for years. If his shortcomings don’t have the traction that Hanson feels is due, this is probably because the public has accepted him for other reasons and not because the media have given him a pass.

• The Past – is Bill Ayers, et al, a fire of raging concern or simply a light on
a man and a process, one that merely conveys the complex nature of being
a national political figure? Obama twice replied to Wright. The first will remain
one of the foremost statements on race in our history. I think the country prefers
to evaluate the wisdom and the man, one capable of such reflection and conclusions, rather than feel fear produced by the tentative associations. Why are we not examining
McCain in light of Charles Keating? Because of how well he handled the scandal’s aftermath; he has been judged and absolved or forgiven.

But Hanson is contending something IS there, and we are not getting it because of
media bias. Why doesn’t he or others uncover it in the best of journalistic traditions? In the meantime, drop the Swift Boat style of journalism, loose the guilt-by-association and innuendo. Because the claim is such a hatchet job, I doubt the sincerity of his thesis. I think the public (and the media), with more than a modicum of good inquiry, have reasonably reviewed and judged the matters, and they have elected to move on.

• Socialism – Time for a civic and economic history lesson for Hanson. That socialist
Adam Smith advocated what we call a progressive income tax. Independent tax advocacy groups favor Obama’s proposals to McCain’s for their fairness and numerical impact for the right reasons. Obama words to “spread the wealth” were wrongheaded because they were easy prey, not because they represent some new, unwise or radical tax policy for the country. Actually Obama is a socialist and a Muslim both. That is
why that communist rag, The Economist, supports his candidacy.

Respectfully,
RC

To me, his candidacy is “the emperor’s new clothes”.

I share the outrage expressed by bleacher and others.

KS

He has no record.

We only know the goofus’s he’s hung around with for the last 20 YEARS.

Convicts, terrorist Muslims, terrorist communists, and one America hating religious leader/mentor. His wife has been ashamed of this country all of her life. She should have left for Kenya a long time ago. Or England.

It’s crazy.

“Ubamas wants to create a Vietnam style fiasco in Pakistan or Afghanistan, as Kennedy did, and enable a revolution, as though it were the sixties.”

Or Iraq. Or Iran. Or Israel.

Is this what “gird your loins” Biden was referring to?

The thought of an Obama administration micro-managing any military conflict is very worrisome. It would be impossible for me to trust his intentions. Liberals should understand this, as they felt the same way about Bush.

Three months ago your statement would have seemed completely implausible. Now, nothing is inconceivable.