What Liberal Media?

The right wing of American politics and Republican politicians has taken a very interesting and tactically successful stance when it comes to the news media. They have come out of the blocks attacking its very core belief that it can present an impartial objective view of the events it observes and report accordingly. By attacking the basic integrity of the media, irregardless of any real facts, they have destroyed the ability of the media to present any contrary or damaging news or opinions without sounding mean spirited and partial. If the news media presents a story that is critical or reflects poorly on the conservatives the chorus of liberal bias is brought out and drug through the streets. Consequently the media seems to be caving into what is pressure to be fair by simply avoiding any real controversy. If the media had a liberal bias before now it has a conservative bias due to its new position. Conservative commentators are free to push their position without any real opposition.

The American public however has encouraged this by not engaging in a substantive dialogue but rather seeking out stories and media that does not expose multiple perspectives of a situation. Quite the opposite they have sought stories and commentators which support the position that fits their own personal leanings. Blogs are a perfect example. Here in this blog I am free to write my opinions without editor or substantiation of the facts. I guess if I were to slander or libel someone I could be sued, but for all essential purposes I can drone on self supporting my position. If I have any audience at all they will likely be people who agree with my position. This puts the traditional media at an extreme disadvantage. If a large portion of the public have been preconditioned to mistrust anything that is critical of their own personal position or their favored politician then the news media's ability to present the facts are greatly weakened. Anything that appears to be negative or critical becomes immediately circumspect.

In that environment, factual reporting of any kind is placed at a disadvantage to the ranting diatribes of individuals, individuals who may rant solely to support their own favored political opinion irregardless of the facts. The internet has changed information and the way we view it. While it is available in vast quantities from a broad range of sources the quality of it is now more questionable and less trustworthy. For example I can get medical information about a condition that I have. But can I trust the information as correct? The information my not come from a credible source but rather from a source seeking to sell a product or profit from my belief in a particular treatment. Science and medicine have traditionally followed a process of research, and verification to substantiate their claims. Over time various organizations have developed a reputation that the information they present is factual. Why? Because they have conducted rigorous studies with controls and presented the information from a non-compromised position. If however say a drug maker wishing to sell a particular type of medication first started out by conducting a campaign that said all medical journals were prejudiced from the beginning everyone would be suspect about negative reports.

This tactical position leaves the critic with a distinct advantage especially in an environment where the public has little perspective from which to glean a more truthful understanding of the subject.

In this environment it is hard to believe that Carl Rove will face any close investigation by the press. If we can go to war for false pretense then Mr. Rove can likely feel safe that any criticism by the press will be tossed out or never reported at all. If you were in the media and you already felt discredited why waist the paper or time to fight an uphill battle? If you report the facts about unpopular subject your work will simply be branded as liberal bias and discounted.

Things Never Seem to be dull in the land of news!

Well folks it seems that past few days have been rich with real news. By that I mean stories about things that have real world impact. Not Michael Jackson. Although I would guess that historians will look at all of this from a very different perspective and the Michael Jackson story will likely become part of some larger societal transition that become clear with time and distance.

What I am talking about is the fact that we have a Supreme Court justice announcing retirement as well as now another major terrorist attack. This time on London. As a person who has lived in London I must say that it brings back memories of my time in that city. The attackers then were the IRA and they approached things from a more civilized perspective as, if memory serves me right they always announced or gave some warning of an attack, terrorism could ever be called civilized. All of this challenges the way you look at the world and its controlling orders. Was London attacked because of the G8 summit or because they are allied with the US in our war on Iraq? Was it a warning that it will come again during the Olympics? The problem with terror attacks is that, by design, the attackers have no physical presence. They are not a nation state or organized army. They can lay low or be completely silent like a never fired gun. Dormant terrorists in theory may never attack in fact or be traceable by any terrorist organization. They might simply wait until some coded message is sent via any form of arcane communication.

It is my real concern that we in the US have been duped into believing that we are making progress against our attackers. That while we are busy fighting this war in Iraq the real enemy is slowly carefully moving their chess pieces into place. I do think that our president honestly thinks he is fighting evil. But by sending in our army, by expending massive amounts of human and financial resources we unfortunately might be getting drawn further and further into the terrorist form of an ant trap. The more we work the further down we go. I wonder what if we had not expended all this energy attacking Iraq? How much stronger our nation would be if we had remained calm and saved our energy for a more calculated, more strategic attack in the future. How much stronger might we be today if we just left Iraq go its own way. Might we have gotten some other country to do our dirty work? No doubt that Saddam was an evil deranged misguided leader. One that brought this on his own people and was able to convince at least some that he had weapons that we now know he did not. I fully understand how good it can feel to burn pent up anger through bold flat out revenge. But I wonder after the initial feeling of good are we now not stuck in an even bigger, longer quagmire? I am not calling for our leaders to present a timeline for pull out. We must finish correctly what we started. I am in complete agreement that timelines would be bad strategy. But I do think that some clear definitions of win, loose or draw need to be put down so that we have a way of judging. Who among us can order dinner without asking at what price? A hamburger for a couple of bucks seems like a good deal. A hamburger for twenty bucks doesn't and a hamburger for a hundred bucks feels like a screw job. The Iraq war for the original stated price tag in terms of time, money and most importantly human life was much more tolerable. But what if the price in terms of life, time and money rises one fold or more, is it tolerable and worth it then? To not begin establishing this context is pure folly. Anyone have any thoughts? We have the best army in the world. The most dedicated solders. It would be a true shame if they had been sent to chase mirages in the desert while the enemy put the real attack into place waiting for a time of weakness on our part.