Media style impartiality

Posted by Saint Somebody on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:33:17 AM

A recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial surmised that Senator Reid's comments regarding President Obama's electoral prospects were no more than a clumsy statement made in support of Mr. Obama. That statement is probably accurate as I'm sure most Americans thought, both then and now, that the president has broader appeal than, say, Jesse Jackson. This is true despite the minimal differences in their policy preferences.

The editorial goes on to differentiate this situation from a remark Senator Lott made in praise of Strom Thurmond. The editorial suggests that the Lott remark was more offensive than the aforementioned because it was widely interpreted as an endorsement of the segregationist inclinations that inspired Thurmond's 1948 presidential election campaign.

The Lott remarks were made at a birthday celebration for Senator Thurmond in 2002. No one seriously thought that Lott was making public, praise for racial segregation, nor do I think that either the public or the media believed Lott to be that stupid. The remarks were not widely interpreted by the public as offensive, they were widely portrayed by the media as offensive. Neither Reid nor Lott should stray far from a Teleprompter, but the shame here belongs to the media.

This brings us to a recent editorial by David Brooks. David Brooks strikes me as a genuinely nice man and an interesting analyst. That said, his column from January 4, 2010 is a masterpiece of media self-indulgence. The singular biases of the columnist are repeatedly cast as the opinions of a movement or society.

Among Brook's observations is a that the Tea party phenomenon reflects a growing anti-intellectual bias. The educated classes believe in global warming, so the public is skeptical.. The educated classes support abortion, internationalism and gun control so the public opposes them. He doesn't say that the educated classes believe in global warming and the public holds a different view. He infers that the opposition is not a failure of evidence or persuasion, but a reflexive and emotional tantrum on the part of the protesters.

He further notes that the tea party movement is famous mostly for its flamboyant fringe. A true statement, but why is that? The idea that government has broken free from constitutional limits could foster a serious debate but the media interest is focused on the flamboyant, inarticulate fringe. Why? Who created the interest in the fringe element?

Later on, Brooks states "The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to solve the nation's problems." Opposition is credited to a lack of faith in centralized expertise and the political class generally. There is so much wrong with this statement, it is hard to know where to start. Suffice it to say, the public would be less antagonistic to the Obama administration if it paid more attention to the powers it does have and less to the powers it assumes. The lack of faith in centralized expertise is not a societal character flaw; it is a product of the public's ongoing experience with government.

The demonstrated skepticism toward centralized expertise reflects the voters doubts about the pragmatism of federal leaders, the quality of 'professional' expertise and their willingness to be constrained by the law.

Brooks concludes by noting that American history is often driven by passionate outsiders who force their way into the spotlight of American life. On this point, we agree, although I doubt that Brooks includes himself and his colleagues among them.