Green Room

Big Government, Bad Journalism

posted at 1:06 am on June 26, 2010 by

Just the other day, I was discussing the challenge of maintaining cordial relationships in a highly politicized society with a friend of mine.  When politics have infused every aspect of our lives, right down to the menus at fast-food restaurants, our political opinions are often interpreted as judgments of character.  The conservative sees a diehard Obama supporter as an accomplice to tyranny, while the Obama supporter sees the opponents of socialized medicine as accessories to the murder of the uninsured.  No matter which side of the debate you come down on, it’s easy to see that the stakes are high, and participation has become mandatory.  The option to stay out of the argument no longer exists, because regardless of your station in life, this vast and activist government is not going to leave you alone.

I found myself thinking along these lines while watching JournoList, the electronic locker room for liberal reporters, collapse beneath the weight ofDave Weigel’s spleen.

Weigel has spent the last few months working as an observer of the conservative movement for the Washington Post, whose readers must wonder about the identity of the vast Tea Party crowds occasionally blocking their view of the IRS building.  As it turns out, Weigel really hates the people he’s been covering, and sees himself precisely the way conservatives see most dinosaur-media reporters: as a partisan operative of the Democrat Party.  He expressed his hatred, and loyalties, in a series of communications posted to JournoList.  These emails became an embarrassing burst of digital flatulence when they were made public.  Weigel is out of a job at theWashington Post, and JournoList is gone.

Blogger Ace of Spades wonders why the Post couldn’t find a sympathetic correspondent to cover the “conservative beat,” and answers his own question by pointing out the Post has no interest in publishing material that might lead its readers to begin grooving to that conservative beat.  The last thing they want is for their right-wing avatar to come back with a horde of angry natives behind him and lead a successful insurrection.

Here we cross the line between editorial decisions and bias.  Why would an unbiased newspaper be afraid to honestly report news that makes one side of a political debate look appealing, instead assigning a reporter to highlight fringe material to cast them in the most negative light possible?  Of course, they are biased, but it’s even worse than that.  They’re subjective. They pretend to be commentators, but they’re actually players in the game… just like everyone else.  Our fates are all controlled by the immense central government worshipped by the Post. They have a vested interest in ensuring its sustained growth, so they can make their fortune writing epic tales of its heroic deeds.

Big Government makes for bad journalism.  As I like to point out whenever someone like David Frum gushes over “moderates,” there is no meaningful way to be moderate when a carnivorous super-State is chowing down on huge portions of the private sector, while dismissing bedrock Constitutional rightswith an irritated wave of its hand.  You either resist the onslaught of the State with all your might, or bear passive witness to its expansion.

At this moment in American history, there is no functional difference between a genuine “centrist” and Dave Weigel’s right-wing “ratf**kers.”  If you think you should be allowed to keep your own medical insurance, and see your own doctor, you’re taking an extreme partisan stance.  If you don’t think the government should be able to revoke the First Amendment or due process rights of private corporations at its convenience, you are a declared enemy of the State.

For the same reason, journalists can only make the thinnest pretense of objectivity when covering the super-State.  Merely reporting honestly on its past and current activities would qualify a journalist for associate membership in the Ratf**ker Pack.  As my Green Room colleague Karl points out, some of Weigel’s most intellectually offensive emails concerned the kind of organized narrative manipulation that appears to have been the true purpose of JournoList all along.  In the immense political struggle now under way, there is no room on the sidelines.

Mainstream media figures want to pose as friendly partners in an intelligent conversation, but the size and power of the government they cover makes it impossible to analyze dispassionately.  In their hearts, journalists really hate the idea of seeing that exciting mega-government torn down, or they believe it’s impossible to do so.  That’s why they see the new breed of aggressive, Tea Party-endorsed Republicans as either enemies or lunatics.  It doesn’t help that they’re well aware of ongoing statist efforts to control or subsidize the media.  Even those reporters who aren’t True Believers are reluctant to earn a spot on the enemies list of an eternally triumphant statist elite.

It’s striking how much venom Dave Weigel directed at people who never insulted him personally.  In the pressure cooker of an overwhelming, and collapsing, centralized government, the personal and political are fused into a single identity.  Asking uncomfortable questions is an act of rebellion, and effective resistance to the will of the elite is a declaration of war.  Media operatives, who eat and drink politics with every meal, are just a little further down the spiral of bitterness and desperation that awaits us all.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

Doctor Zero: Year One now available from CreateSpace and Amazon.com!

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Doc, I just have two questions, which I expect you will answer honestly, unlike the proprietors of this blog:

1. Can you see any practical difference between where we are now and where this country was in 1859, confronted by a fundamental decision about allowing slavery, only to the government instead of plantation owners?

2. “You either resist the onslaught of the State with all your might, or bear passive witness to its expansion.” Is there any likelihood that we will defy historical precedent and roll back tyranny without the actual use of violent resistance?

SDN on June 26, 2010 at 5:44 AM

Well said. I think there is also a touch of sophomoric psychology involved as well. Cozying up to power, particularly with the kids that “let it all hang out”, making the “in” crowd is hard to resist. These kids see conservative moms and dads as out of touch. They want to re-invent the world and rebel, as if that’s never been done before. Liberal to the last drop, they feel cared for, loved, when in the groovy group’s presence. Especially when invited to the cool parties. Wow, popularity is so empowering.

Who would want to damage their chances of hanging with the cool kids by writing anything annoying about these idols? And yes, it’s worse than that. They’ll tear the hearts out of the uncool kids, mocking them, taunting them, in order to be, in their minds, admired and respected by the cool kids. So some of this is a carry-over of the irresponsible and childish behavior patterns of adolescence. Seldom do you find someone who majors in journalism that spent much time in an economics classroom, to say nothing of science, math, or more conservative disciplines, those with rules.

Robert17 on June 26, 2010 at 7:43 AM

This is my position,

http://bloghopenchangery.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/for-the-people-who-think-theyre-crazy-enough-to-change-the-world/#comment-888

I think some of us are crazy enough to think we can change the world.

elclynn on June 26, 2010 at 8:33 AM

Maybe WaPo ought to hire a REAL conservative writer. Interested, Doc? ;)

publiuspen on June 26, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Doc said: “It’s striking how much venom Dave Weigel directed at people who never insulted him personally.”

“Striking”? Could we also say “sticking out like a sore thumb”?

The Saga of Dave Weigel

Are we to create a new term for our dear liberal friends who slither around in sheep’s clothing? As more eye-popping self-proclaimed moderates are exposed as flaming liberals, can we now label them “Weigel-Miesters”?

When the true colors of an “objective journalist” reach the sunlight, (as in the case of Eason Jordan), can we expect the liberal media to purge their ideological brethren because they “accidentally honestly” exposed themselves?

The reason I bring up Mr. Jordan as an example is because I believe Jordan, in his infinite wisdom, got caught up in a similar trap of his own making. The idea of the Bush administration was to embed “journalist” in Iraq so they could communicate accurate accounts of the war to their readers back home. Eason Jordan, already a top foreign correspondent, (and as it turned out, a party to an agreement with Saddam Hussein‘s regime) had been embedded in Baghdad, Tikrit, and Mosul long before the operation Iraqi Freedom. In order to maintain his status, (and CNN’s) within their Baghdad Bureau, Jordan entered the uncharted territory of becoming a colossal part of the story, and in the process became admittedly complicit in covering up Iraqi atrocities. The end result was Jordan’s resignation.

And, while it may be unfair to compare these two “journalist” in a similar light, I would submit that both were completely dishonest with their constituents/readerships who were blatantly deceived by what was supposed to be objective journalism. In Mr. Weigel’s case, he has admittedly, (or unwittingly), confessed to being complicit in the liberal, and yes, biased ideology. Had Mr. Weigel exposed himself in any format other than the one he “embedded” himself into, there would have been no platform allowable by the Washington Post to hide his apparent bias.

Rovin on June 26, 2010 at 10:15 AM

This story, and the punditry reaction to it has left me completely baffled. Then someone writes something like

some of Weigel’s most intellectually offensive emails concerned the kind of organized narrative manipulation that appears to have been the true purpose of JournoList all along.

and the slightest glimmer of understanding begins.

In a similar circumstance, examine President Barack Obama and the befuddled punditry who seem confused by the policy decisions our president keeps making. Blunders the punditry try to explain away as simple mistakes, inexperience, naivete, or lack of understanding. It is just *inconceivable* that Obama would make those decisions deliberately, with full understanding of the consequences, with deliberate malice, and desiring the obvious results. No one wants to believe that Obama really *intends* his policies to produce those results. No one wants to believe that and everyone struggles to find an alternate explanation.

Thus the anguish over Journolist. No one wants to believe the evidence. There just has to be another explanation.

Skandia Recluse on June 26, 2010 at 11:05 AM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Ed Morrissey on June 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM