A friend recently asked me to write about the lack of integrity on the part of some bloggers - Andrew Breitbart in particular. In the spirit of "fair and balanced", I thought that I'd broaden the political spectrum and the discussion a bit.
First, obtaining an objective opinion requires work. My reading ranges from the Huffington Post on the left to the equally ideological Drudge Report on the right, with several other sources in between such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I regularly watch MSNBC and Fox. The most noteworthy difference is what is not covered - on the left you wouldn't know much about the Justice Department's alleged policy of not pursuing discrimination complaints (such as those against the New Black Panther Party) on behalf of white clients; on the right you would have missed the latest dozen scandals in Sarah Palin's family.
As to Breitbart's edited video of Shirley Sherrod's NAACP speech, the difference has been in emphasis. There has been virtually no defense since he misled everybody; however, the Left has taken a delayed pound of flesh for his earlier exposure of Acorn and offers of rewards if anyone could prove claims of Tea Party racism, while the Right has preferred to focus on The White House's latest personnel ineptitude, completing the cycle from shoddy background investigations, to delayed hiring, to knee-jerk firing.
A more troubling media event has been much less reported (except by Rush Limbaugh and Fox) - the exposure of JournoList, a group of some 400 liberal "journalists" started by Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein, who share e-mails about talking points to protect Obama and attack conservatives - including encouragement to fabricate stories of racism on the part of Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, or whoever. Being paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't after you. (For those who doubt, read the Fred Barnes article.) At least Breitbart was acting alone.
Even the "fact checking" sites can contain a bias. Snopes.com leans to the left; Factcheck.org is more to the center. Try both to see which Truth you prefer.
Finally, some advice as to integrity in widely divergent polls, most of which serve an ideological audience. The results become more conservative as one moves from "adults" to "eligible voters" to "likely voters." The whole range is available at www.RealClearPolitics.com, along with averages. Rasmussen (likely voters) has historically been among the most accurate.
But, it doesn't have to be that hard; for those seeking objective interpretation of the week's events without doing the work, there is always www.RightinSanFrancisco.com.
-----
In keeping with today's theme, here's Charlie Rangel offended that an MSNBC reporter (Tim Russert's son) would ask him real questions. With any luck for the Republicans, the country will get to spend a good piece of the campaign season watching Nancy's swamp get drained.
bill bowen - 7/29/10
Interesting political season: it appears the Dems will play the race card and the Repubs will play the immigration game. could that be the opposing strategies emerging?
On the Democratic front: Everywhere you turn the Dems seem to want to talk racists and racial profiling. That will be the likely defense from the ethics charges. That seems to be the strategy to degrade the Tea Party movement. That seems to be the logic to keep from enforcing immigration laws.
On the Republican front immigration is front and center. every Republican Governor or Attorney General in the country is challenging the administration by passing laws similar to the Arizona law. This seems to be keeping the Obama forces on the defensive trying to make sure that their unwillingness to secure the borders stays front and center.
Republicans seem to have opened a second front with their lawsuits against the Healthcare bill. While the Dems won one in Arizona on the immigration bill the Republicans evened things up with a similar victory in Virgina on the healthcare bill.
States rights versus Federal rights seem to be heading to a showdown in the Supreme Court. With the current bias 5-4 conservative and Obama hoping to get another appointment soon the stage is set for a very interesting if not fightening two years ahead.
Palin,Gingrich,Huckabee emerging on the right with Obama on the left and Hillary in the shadows. Major issues being centered around racism and illegal immigration while unemployment remains high and uncertainty about the economy grows. Redistribution of income a major policy of the Administration while the opposition looks to control tax increases proposed at every turn. The polarization of America continues.
Where O where has bipartisanship gone? Where are the leaders who appeal to the center? How long can we tolerate this yo yo existance of plaing to the radicals and ignoring the middle?
Posted by: Bill McCormick | August 03, 2010 at 02:13 PM
Interesting stuff, Bo. Modern times make getting the news very difficult. Everything has an opinion slanted into it. And, whatever news reporting there is seems to be mixed in with all the opinion shows. O'Reilly claims to be watching out for us. And, I'm sure he is. However, just about the time I think he might actually be somewhat open minded about both sides of an issue he invites someone on and steamrolls right over them without ever letting the person complete a thought. I admire him for his wilingness to stop the political gamesmanship of switching off subject and rambling on about something not relevant to the question asked. But, not listening to a point just because you are convinced they are wrong is doing the listener an injustice and I find he does that too often.
The news media we grew up with: NBC, ABC and CBS went in the
tank a long time ago. So I have little respect for them. The competing cable shows to Fox seem to have no choice but to line up on the far left and attack everything Fox says. So, even when they make a good point I cannot trust their logic to be true.
It is interesting that Fox seems to employ many of the leading candidates for the next Republican Presidential nominee: Palin, Gingrich and Huckabee are all Fox consultants.
Savy Democrats are beginning to use Fox as a place to get exposure and tread softly in that audience to gently slide some of the listeners to their side. Hillary is beginning to show up there.
I wonder if an old time "tell it as it happened and not as we think it happened or as we want it to happen" news network would work? Or in these days of reality TV and talk radio do we have to have everything interpreted for us? And what are the dangers of competing networks actually trying to influence American politics through collusion and involvement? The release of the Afghanistan tapes is something the old time press would never have done during times of war. Yet, the modern press was on the scene in almost every aspect of the Iraq war and kept the secrets faithfully. What is the balance we should expect?
Posted by: Bill McCormick | August 02, 2010 at 02:14 PM