When the Gate KeepersCrash the Party

The recent revelations of a 'vast left-wing conspiracy' among journalists provides a reasonable hypothesis as to why certain stories 'make the news' while others never seem to burst out of the 'FoxNews bubble' and into the mainstream media.

Now we can understand why the story of Obama's 20-year relationship with the radically wrong Rev. Right never gained the traction it deserved during the campaign.  Could it also explain why Obama avoided the hard-hitting interviews we expect for any Presidential aspirant, much less one so seemingly devoid of executive experience yet surrounded by questionable associations?  By contrast, the media's treatment of Sarah Palin quickly devolved from a focus on her purportedly insufficient executive experience to the tabloid-like accusations questioning her commitment to motherhood.

Not that any of this is a surprise to me personally.   I have joined the upwards of 100,000 pro-life advocates converging on Washington to peacefully protest abortion each January.  One might think that such a massive event would necessarily entail news coverage on a similar scale.  But one would be incorrect.  When the few seconds the network news devotes to coverage is dominated not by the peaceful protesters, but by footage of eight snarly women waving signs protesting the protest - it becomes pretty clear that someone, somewhere, is behind the proverbial curtain holding the lever that determines who gets to be news and who doesn't.  In the same vein the tea party rallies were ignored for month and months, until it was simply no longer possible to deny their existence, so the mass media  instead began to subtly (at first) apply the repulsive label of racist to them, in the hopes of denigrating if not their existence, than certainly the integrity of their message.

That 'big journalism' has always tilted left is not in question, and one only has to read a daily newspaper with an eye towards the insertion of opinion to find glaring examples everywhere.  The frustration this garners among those of us who really do want "just the facts, ma'am" when we view news (as distinguished from opinion) is what catapulted Fox to the top of the ratings game in the first place.  Moderates of all stripes, conservatives, libertarians -  in fact, anyone holding to a different view of the world than a liberal lens permits, viewed the cable upstart as a welcome respite from the 'News for the Benighted' that the rest of the media outlets were producing.   And like any spoiled child used to getting their way, they don't appreciate it when one of their own quits the game or changes sides (see John Stossel's article, below).  This is why the mainstream media pundits maintain to this day, despite all evidence to the contrary, a petulant attitude of disbelief and derision at the success of FoxNews.

This is not just conspiratorial musing for the sake of thinking aloud:  even the discussion of the possibility of suppressing certain stories, or publicly disparaging those whose views would detract from the 'cause', represents at the very least a blatant and callous disregard of a sacred public trust granted a privileged few.  In the past journalistic ethics have been held in sober regard specifically because journalists have been viewed as indispensable 'watchdogs' of government (and other institutions).  But when they decide en masse to influence rather than report, then the watchdogs have become no better than ravenous wolves, and the trust we have granted to them is no longer deserved nor wise to extend.

Further Reading:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0720/JournoList-Is-call-them-racists-a-liberal-media-tactic/(page)/2
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381083191313448.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/11/04/the_double_standard_about_journalists_bias