Journalism, liberalism and war coverage

By Bruce Walker
web posted December 3, 2001

Few debates more clearly reveal the shallow arrogance of
liberals than the current "debate" about what role reporters and
correspondents should have in America's war on terrorism. Most
prominent is the notion that somehow lavishly paid celebrities of
multi-billion dollar corporations have superior rights under our
Constitution to ordinary citizens.

Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and their ilk are not
entitled to special privileges because of these handsome offices
and convenient Teleprompters. What makes the whining
demands so galling is that these same corporate liberals are the
first to savage any business that makes lots of money and
controls much of the market share.

Liberal ideology should require that these economic giants are
scrutinized closely by government, but when the mega-billion
dollar private concern is a mouthpiece of Leftist propaganda,
then the same rules do not apply. Liberals should be
championing the rights of less heavyweight and more
independent interrogators of public affairs. Well, there are many
such small and interested presses in cyberspace. Why should not
Enter Stage Right be taken more seriously in asking tough
questions of government and other taxpayer-supported
institutions than, say, CBS Evening News?

The argument that somehow Dan Rather is more "serious" than
our illustrious Steven Martinovich could be resolved very quickly
in a debate or pop quiz on facts (those bothersome numbers that
liberals hate) or editorials actually written by either. The
intellectual tone, the concern about facts, the interest in truth are
much greater in those publications whose purpose is not to
entertain, but inform.

Who, by the way, determines which leaders are accountable?
The liberal establishment says that the war on terrorism is
important - and indeed, it is - but was it not also quite important
that Bill Clinton and Hillary! just left an administration that
resembled an organized crime syndicate, rather than a
presidential administration? Has Hillary! ever faced a tough
interview? Has Bill?

If that was history, then what about today? Why should not
Tommy Daschle submit himself to a series of pointed questions
from a roomful of conservative journalists? His position as
Plurality Leader makes him a very important official. Should not
Daschle be pummeled with questions? Does the Constitution not
give the people a right to know?

Ask Gary Condit, who carefully set the parameters of his
interview. Ask the Clintons, who carefully controlled who got
into their "town meetings" and only took very friendly and
sympathetic interviews. The whole idea of a professional of
journalism that is endowed with sacred rights and privileges is a
giant joke. Liberalism is a seamless web of government, non-
profit, "educational", journalistic, and entertainment organizations
flush with wealth (often taken without market choices by
consumers) and constantly demanding special legal treatment.

What is the duty of "the press" during war? One might as well
ask about the duty of one citizen to another in any public matter.
Because the pampered princesses and spoiled sultans of
unearned respect would not comprehend those duties from their
life experiences, here are a few points for them to ponder.

They should first care about the pure, unvarnished truth - even if
it makes their ideological enemies look noble and makes liberals
look shabby. Wars, of one sort or another, rage across the
plains of public life already. Lying or poisoning information with
half-truths is a violation of the ethical duty we owe each other in
a free society.

They should second care about the preservation of those
common people of America and the civilized West whose toil,
valor, and honor make putative "rights" which so enchant
hothouse liberals into reality. This is not just blood in the sands of
Okinawa and Omaha Beach - although that is much of it - but it
is also appreciation that ordinary lives well lived are the core of
all the fragile, derivative rights that liberals worship.

They should care about lively debate on important issues (which
does not mean a gaudy and yet dull repackaging of old,
wheezing liberal nostrums). This means the comparative merit of
different cultures should be argued with final conclusions possible
(e.g. Caribs were worse than Quakers) and about whether
grotesqueries to most people should pass as art using the tax
dollars of the offended majorities.

They should care about the excesses of their colleagues. When
Dan Rather declined on the delusional notion of "journalistic
independence" to cover the story of liberal Democrat Gary
Condit, then was it not incumbent upon networks and journals of
the establishment to note the blatant partisanship of Rather? The
question "who watchers the watchers?" is as old as the Roman
Republic, but it is still always vital.

It is fair for us to expect that these "rivals" who "compete" for
"scoops" would be the first - not the last - to expose the horrific
abuse of consumers (those saps who watched CBS Evening
News) by a powerful corporation. Where is the sense of censure
for these professional crimes? Gone, gone - gone if ever there.
We have the right to expect real journalists to report on each
other and their competition, to correct errors, to make the
sloppy pay a price for sloth. These are not real journalists,
reporters, or even commentators. They are hacks.

These self-appointed protectors of our rights should care about
the level of actual integrity in government, particularly when those
least honest are those most helped by soft treatment of their
policies failures. This last failure is the most troubling.
Functionaries of these giant information industries drone
endlessly about the social responsibility of corporations, but
more than that, they foist men like Clinton and women like
Hillary! on us. Then, instead of defending them from these blots
of soulless mendacity, the establishment media guards them,
throws blocks for them downfield, and shouts down anyone
concern with honest government.

So what do American citizens and their constitution owe in extra
rights and privileges from the likes of Rather and Jennings?
Judged by their own standards, the liberal media and
entertainment industry - along with the "wink and nod" bigotry of
Leftists in government and tax supported institutions owe us
hundreds of billions of dollars. They owe us thirty years of
affirmative action - only hiring very conservative people to read
the teleprompter, produce the movie, spend the tax dollars on
"research."

Judged by their own standards, liberals deserve exile to Siberia.
They are not more to be trusted with facts, answers, and ideas -
but rather not to be trusted at all. Thankfully, however,
conservatives do not believe in "retributive justice" and so let us
just grant liberals this: equal rights with any other corporate
empty suits, thoughtless rock-star millionaire types, and immature
old people. They can call themselves whatever they choose, but
we should give them nothing special. And certainly not a running
commentary about the hows and whys of brave men and women
who are actually keeping us safe and free.

Bruce Walker (feb6@enterstageright.com) is a senior writer with
Enter Stage Right. He is also a frequent contributor to The
Pragmatist and The Common Conservative.

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com