RSS
Home
The mainstream media's role as Obama's Praetorian Guard
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
A new Pew Research Poll confirms the continuing erosion of the mainstream media’s credibility in the eyes of the public.
While this particular finding made no distinction between news gathered from all sources (internet as well as print and broadcast media), its finding are consistent with many similar polls conducted over the past five years — none of which bodes well for the traditional outlets of journalism.
The Pew Poll is also coeval with two recent events that clearly demonstrate that the mainstream media has chosen, in the Age of Obama, not to inform the citizenry, but rather, to function as his Praetorian Guard: the abrogation of their duty to report the Van Jones story and their continuing disinterest in the ongoing exposure of the criminal activities of ACORN.
The mainstream media was not interested in pursuing the Van Jones story for the same reasons they did not assiduously inquire into the past radical associations of Barack Obama when he was a candidate. Disclosure of these unpleasant facts would have been inconsistent with the Obama narrative they carefully created and fostered. Having shamelessly debased themselves, and squandered what was left or their eroding credibility, by unabashedly acting as an advocate for his election, now that he is president, they have a vested interest in the success of his Administration.
The Van Jones story was uncovered and revealed to the public largely through the work of bloggers, FOX News’ Glenn Beck, and other groups unaffiliated with the mainstream media. Indeed, if one’s exclusive source for news was the New York Times, you would have first learned of Van Jones only after he had resigned.
Jill Abramson, managing editor of the New York Times, recently acknowledged that the Times indeed was “a beat behind” on the story, but she laughably attributed it to a lack of resources in that paper’s Washington D.C. bureau. She further added that the Times had caught up with the story on September 7th — long after the episode was over. As Kyle Smith of the New York Post notes, The EMS equivalent of this statement would be, “Sorry I didn’t take your 911 call for four days. At least I was in time for the funeral.”
ACORN is an organization that has been ripe for the application of precisely the kind of investigative journalism, for which, as their industries face extinction, the media never tires of telling us they are indispensable. Many states have ongoing investigations into alleged voter registration fraud conducted by ACORN during the previous election cycle.
Yet, in terms of investigating ACORN, where were the tenacious reporters of 60 minutes, those legions of New York Times’ journalists of Pentagon Papers fame? The investigative spotlight teams from the big city dailies? All missing in action.
Uncovering the illicit and sordid activities of ACORN was a job that was conducted by two young, non-descript journalists. The intrepid duo of James O’Keefe, and Hannah Giles continue their undercover work exposing the nefarious activities of ACORN branch offices — the latest occurring in New York City — while the story induces nothing more than a collective yawn on the part of the former institutional titans of print and broadcast journalism.
Perhaps this is because Obama's days as a community organizer in Chicago were somewhat romanticized during the campaign. Perhaps too, an objective analysis of ACORN by the media might reveal that this type of activity has a dark side, and is not always so benign and altruistic.
By their continuing failure to report stories that may be harmful or inimical to the interests of the Obama Administration, the bias of the mainstream media is no longer subtle or implicit, it is overt and glaringly obvious. Not surprisingly, news consumers have taken notice.
The rise of the internet has not only leveled the playing field, it has forever eradicated the mainstream media’s long-cherished role as gatekeeper of news dissemination to the public. And clearly, many prominent members of old media are not happy with this new reality.
During a recent appearance on “Meet The Press”, Tom Brokaw and Thomas Friedman both seemed to lament the rise of the internet and the role it now plays in news gathering and dissemination: it’s an “open sewer” decried Friedman; Brokaw said information needs “filtering”, “vetting”. All true, but how does this exonerate the media’s failure to report the Van Jones story? Van Jones was brought down by an “unfiltered” rebroadcast/republication of his own controversial statements.
How can an industry that is staffed by such Luddites as Brokaw and Friedman expect to survive, never mind flourish, in the 21st century? The sad truth is that today, for the duration of the Obama Administration, many journalists have traded in their “speaking truth to power” press badges for the pom-poms of cheerleaders.
Yes, the rise of the internet has been a major factor in the decline of traditional media, but there is another reason for its demise, and it has to do with the enormous gulf in values and ideological world-view between those who manage these outlets and the consumers they ostensibly serve.
Circulation numbers for many prominent dailies continues to plummet, while FOX News dominates the ratings amongst the Cable TV news outlets. The sins of omission in news coverage on the part of the mainstream media are simply too numerous for news consumers not to take notice. The bottom line? No business can survive, much less thrive or operate profitably, when it treats its customers with such contempt.
In short, consumers interested in news and tired of the glaring left wing bias and abuse of the gatekeeper function, have learned to search elsewhere beyond the pages of newspapers and the network evening news broadcasts to be informed.
Related Articles:
Comments
