Wednesday, March 09, 2005

I suppose I have to
Tonight is the last night Dan Rather will anchor the CBS Evening News, and I feel compelled to make a few comments. Power Line seems ready to pop open the champagne, and links to a collection of Rather quotes published by the Media Research Center.

Powerline makes the clear implication that they believe Rather was partisan in his presentation of the news—I have to disagree. I don't think Rather was intentionally trying to help the Democratic Party, just as I don't think there's a liberal media conspiracy overall. These people aren't trying to tear down Republicans because they're Republicans—they're trying to tear down Republicans because they think Republicans are wrong.

What's the difference? The first way of thinking implies that these people are devoted to Democrats, the second recognizes that they're not acting on their own agenda intentionally. The problem is, the majority of journalists and television news anchors/reporters are Democrats, vote Democrat, associate themselves with liberal policies, and define themselves as moderate. They think they are looking at things objectively even though they are absolutely not.

In this context, Rather probably did not want to take Bush down, he just wanted the people to have the truth. Of course, he honestly believed that Bush must have lied about his service, and that led him to chase the story. He probably didn't even consider the fact that the memos could have been faked, because he believed they represented a truth that the American public needed to know.

Again, it's not that these people are working for the Democrat Party intentionally. They are merely trying to bring the truth to the public. Unfortunately, there's no thing as objective truth, their concept of the truth is skewed to the left, and they're unaware of that fact because their colleagues and the people they went to college and graduate school with skew the same way. So, even without a conspiracy, we find a net liberal bias.

I know the kossacks who stumble across this post will disagree and say that the corporations that own all of these media outlets are really controlling the news, but that's just not true.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I know the kossacks who stumble across this post will disagree and say that the corporations that own all of these media outlets are really controlling the news, but that's just not true."

Okay, well... Feel like offering up some evidence to that effect, or are you content just letting the claim hang out there?

RFTR said...

Perhaps I'll be willing...
as soon as you're willing to pay attention to the big, red text you had to go by to post this comment.

I don't respond to people who aren't willing to sign their names to their opinions.

D'r kepler said...

IF you are looking for information about the durg called viagra or you would like to read a Viagra Blog