The Mainstream Media - Part Two

It was as if journalists were no longer happy to report the news. That was not good enough for the post-Vietnam War journalists. In the new world of celebrity journalism the elites who made up the media wanted to be the story or at least wanted to shape their stories with a political bias.

In January 2006 a lobbying scandal broke in Washington. Jack Abramoff, a powerful lobbyist and Washington insider pleaded guilty to violations of lobbying laws. The mainstream media presented the story as a “Republican” scandal despite facts that revealed both major political parties deeply involved. Abramoff and his clients, some of whom were Indian tribes seeking gaming advantages from Congress, donated money to members of Congress from both political parties. But the media reports rarely mentioned the contributions given to Democrats. The Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, was one Democrat implicated in the scandal. According to the Washington Times[1] Reid and his staff had numerous contacts with the Abramoff firm. One of Reid’s legislative aides resigned and joined the Abramoff lobbying business. There were Republicans involved and their names were splashed all over the news.

Other scandals involving Democrats rarely made the news. Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, was under federal investigation for corruption. One of Jefferson’s staffers pleaded guilty to corruption charges. But the mainstream media downplayed this scandal and refused to give it equal air time. Democrat John Conyers of Michigan was charged with using his staff for personal business including driving his kids to and from school, tutoring, and performing other personal services. Yet there were no splashy headlines or evening news stories about Conyers’s actions. Since the Abramoff scandal was considered big news, an objective news consumer would think a sitting US Congressman under investigation would also be newsworthy and would appear on the front pages of the Times and Post. In late 2006 Senator Harry Reid, the Senate’s Democrat Minority Leader, (and now the Majority Leader of the Senate) was in trouble for not reporting a one million dollar profit he made on a real estate sale in Nevada. Reid made his huge profit three years AFTER he sold the property. But this story was downplayed or ignored by the liberal media in comparison to the headline coverage given to the Republicans who made the news.

Did you sale a piece of property in the past three years? Perhaps you can convince the buyers to give you an additional, say, $500,000, as a token of friendship. Hmmmmmmm?

The suppression of positive news by the liberal media was apparent. The unwritten code was to downplay any news that reflected well upon Bush and to accent news that cast Bush in a negative light. Economic news was especially suppressed for political reasons. Bush’s economy in 2005 produced more than 2 million new jobs. Inflation was low, interest rates were at historic lows, unemployment rates were very low, home ownership was at historic highs and the stock market neared a historic high at 12,000. Yet the mainstream media boycotted this wonderful economic news. Under the previous administration such great news was splashed in bold headlines and presented as the lead stories in the evening news rooms with great praise given to the President Clinton for his skill in handling the economy. But that was during a Democrat administration. In February 2006 the Bush economy created 243,000 new jobs. The news, which would have been touted by the media for days during the Clinton era, got a passing mention – end of story.

Many Americans wondered about the mainstream media’s constant emphasis of negative news. There were countless stories about the homeless (all of which started on January 20, 2001 if one believed the liberal media). The Times[2] ran a story on the homeless just hours after Bush was sworn into office in 2001. It was as if the homeless had not existed during the eight years of Clinton and as soon as Bush took office, the homeless somehow multiplied overnight. Foreign news was doom and gloom. The liberation of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan was rarely mentioned by the liberal media. Instead the news consisted of a body count and reports of how the wounded Americans now had to survive with disabilities whereas in previous wars they would have died on the battlefield. Battle field medicine was so good that it was saving thousands of lives, yet the media presented the story as one of survivors having to live the rest of their lives with handicaps.

Bush’s tax cuts which spurred super economic growth was presented as the cause of rising deficits. Most of the mainstream media had opposed the tax cuts from the start and had reported in dark terms the dire consequences of cutting taxes. Rarely did the media report the rising spending habits of Congress. But when the tax cuts worked to stimulate the economy and dramatically increased the revenues flowing into federal and state coffers, the media ignored or downplayed the positive news. Most journalists wrote that the American people should pay more in taxes.
[1] www.WashingtonTimes.com, Associated Press story published 10 February 2006.
[2] For more information on “reporting” by The New York Times, see www.mediaresearchcenter.org)