The Press Fails in Their Duty to Inform Us

            Editorials of the kind William F. Buckley and I. F. Stone wrote have become rare in today's news media.  In fact, investigative news has become nearly as rare, opinion having trumped both policy analysis and editorials.  While one may argue Opinion as Editorial, it wouldn't be called an Op-Ed page if they were the same.

            When the first Bailout package was pushed through Congress under the Bush Administration, the Republicans wanted few strings attached and their President urged immediate passage.  So did the nation's editorial pages.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats want quick action, but they want to attach strings to avoid the hapless squandering of more hundreds of billions of dollars.  Again, the editorial writers agree.  What is the value of editorial writing when the writers do not analyze but parrot the feckless Congress or Wall Street.

            Republicans in Congress are now outraged that a President would dictate salaries and other forms of compensation to private concerns who so eagerly take what the government is willing to give.  Didn't they tell the UAW to take salary and benefit reductions when considering the Auto Bailout?  Were management caps suggested at the same time for the auto industry executives? 

            Editorials across America favored union concessions, but few favoring them also advocated management salary caps.  We all know that's a "class thang" don't we, and the press is part of the ruling class—just look at salaries the talking heads earn as compared to the laboring line reporters who deliver them the news they deign to read to us.  George Will v. Paul Krugman arguing economics on a Sunday news show!  It's a testament to his egomania that Will was even on the set!

            Republicans opened Guantanamo to detainees from their Middle East campaign, and that was apparently okay with the American press, who seem rarely to understand where the story is.  Now they're just as eager to write about the positives of closing Guantanamo.  The same applies to the war in Afghanistan.

            Hasn't one editorial writer stopped to consider that problems with the cross-border Pashtuns could have been predicted by observing the problems with the Kurds, who complicated policy with Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey?  How about the fact that the Brits and Russians have both faltered in Afghanistan?

            Why is the Vietnam analogy seen as only peripheral?  Haven't we been losing and taking lives in Afghanistan for six years now, and aren't we planning to increase troop numbers significantly?  Do we think we can win the hearts and minds of the Pashtuns by killing them, even in what a "tough guy" would call relatively small numbers?  What do we want in Afghanistan, anyway?  Osama bin Laden's head on a pike, like "Chinese" Gordon's was in late-1800's Khartoum?  Can that be all we want?  Who has defined the war in any other terms?  Certainly not the press.

            Where can I read these things in America's newspapers?  Where have the Times and the Post and the Tribune and the Herald and the Sentinel, let alone the TV news outlets, been when the news has been breaking?  Der Spiegel, out of Germany, has been pretty smart, as have other print media in countries like India.  Stop telling us what we know—tell us what we need to know to fulfill our roles as informed citizens.  Who cares whether you do it in script or in pictures.  Educate and inform us.  Do your jobs, or step aside and let others lead.  Investigate, analyze, think, write, and inform!

 

February 10, 2009

An Interesting 40 Years

            Those of you who remember the 60's remember a time of social change during which participants were asked to "turn on, tune in, and drop out".  Conservatives were appalled that their children, however briefly, would actually follow those words.  Now those words paraphrase what the conservatives are doing.

            The turn on, in the case of conservative media whores like Rush Limbaugh, is painkillers and alcohol.  The tune in is the narrow focus on the conservative mythology with Ronald Reagan playing the role Zeus vacated.  The drop out is the conservative political ideology that dictates the best action is no action at all.  The social worm has turned, and it's time to ask the conservatives how they like all the negative attention.

            Instead of being the ones holding the fire hoses, conservatives are the ones getting sprayed.  President Obama enjoys a 68% approval rating which means that a lot of republicans are giving him the benefit of the doubt to take action on his agenda.  Note the distinction between republicans and conservatives, which is something the conservatives have yet to do.

            Small town republicans—even those with deeply held religious values, can do what the blustery conservatives can not: distinguish themselves from the conservatives in Congress and on the media.  Just because Limbaugh earns a fortune bellyaching about the terrors of the "left" doesn't mean he holds enough people in thrall to make the difference in an election.  That may not always have been true, but it's obvious today.  Just as many people laugh at Limbaugh as take that screed as gospel.

            Now it's time for Obama to take the power he was given by the electorate and do what he—and we—think is best.  That doesn't mean that we agree on Afghanistan, or maybe even the economic stimulus package.  It does mean that we like to hear a smart man make an effort to reach out to us in a transparent and conciliatory way for support.

            Conservatives will deservedly be called liars for years to come.  They have always seen the opposition as weak and foolish.  Now who's playing the fool, Rush!

 

February 10, 2009