Liberal Media Bias Acknowledged and Shrugged Off By 2 Well-Respected Journalists
Below is a great excerpt from Bernard Goldberg’s new book. This is very disturbing, but it seems to now be just a given that the media is biased and that there’s nothing we can do about it. We no longer have a fair, unbiased press that just reports the news. We have people with an agenda and we need to put a stop to it!!
Liberal Media Bias Acknowledged and Shrugged Off by 2 Well-Respected Journalists
By Bernard Goldberg
From his book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media
Chapter 17 – It Is What It Is
A few days after the election, on November 7, two big players in the world of political journalism shared their veiws on the campaign at a seminar in Washington. I listened on C-SPAN, and what struck me was how cavalier they were about the media bais – how readily they accepted it as a simple fact of life.
Charlie Cook, a well-respected, long-time journalist who specialized in election forecasts and politcal trends, told the audience, “I think a lot of people in the news media were too young to cover Camelot and John Kennedy, they were too young in most cases to cover Bobby Kennedy and so I think they were star struck by this Obama phenomenon.”
And how did their fascination with the celebrity in chief play out during the campaign?
“Let’s face it,” Cook said, “is there a Democratic and a liberal bias in the media? Of course there is. But they also love a good story. And the first African-American serious contender for the presidency was a great story.. And a lot of people in themedia absolutely loved it. I think you can say that the media had a finger, more than a finger, on the scale on the Democratic side.”
The other journalist was Stuart Rothenberg who, like Charlie Cook, is an inside the Beltway politcal junki. “I agree completely,” Rothen berg affirmed. “I’m sure they (journalists) preferred Obama. They liked Obama. They’re Democrats. Obama got better treatment.”
Yes, Rothenberg and Cook were only stating the obvious – that the mainstrea media wanted Obama to win. But then Rothn berg uttered a few more words that psoke to just how CORRUPT journalism had become.
“But, you know,”: he said, “it is what it is. It’s the nature of the political environment…Republicans ought to know that.”
Then Cook chimed in, “As Stu said, it is what is is.”
It is what it is? Five little words that constitute the grouwnup version of one little word that kids say when they don’t give a crap: “Whatever.”
But were these two guys really so jaded that they were willing to write off this bias so dismissively? Were they really saying that Republicans have to understand how corrupt journalism is in the real world, and they just have to suck it up?
I couldn’t get those words ouf of my head. It is what it is. Rothenberg and Cook, I fugured, are the kind of guys who are always thinking about politics…And yet these politcal mavens didn’t unterstand what nay middle school social studies teacher grasps: that in a country like ours we really do depend not just on a free press, but on a fair press.
But what really got m was how they just shurgged if off. It is what it is. Conscientious people don’t say that about any other kind of bias. Conscientious people never said, “Sure, blacks have to sit in the back of the bus, but hey, it is what it is.”
No, nothing is quite the same as race in America, so my analgoy goes just so far. But I trust you get the point. It simply is not good enough to acknowledge bias then wave it oaway with an indifferent, “It is what it is.”
This is why the bias problem persists. Because journalists haven’t had the guts to stand up and say “It is what it is just won’t cut it anymore.”
But I’m not holding my breath that anything will change anytime soon. After all, they are who they are.