I’m probably the last person on earth to read Bernie Goldberg’s “Bias.” What is striking to me is how little real information I’ve gleaned from it. The anecdotes are funny, the bias is both real and sad, but I’ve constantly found myself saying “Well…duh!” Perhaps the only eye-opener is the degree to which the majority of journalists can’t see that they are completely out of touch with mainstream America.
What amazes me more is how most of my liberal friends can’t see how biased journalism is. To them, the Wall Street Journal is a right-wing nut collection and Fox News is downright evil. But somehow, CNN is fair. National Public Radio is centrist. The New York Times is a voice of authority and reason. They'll start commentary with “I was reading in the Boston Globe this morning and it said…”, without it even crossing their minds that maybe, just maybe, there’s a serious agenda behind the story.
As for the conservatives and their new Bible, talk radio, all I can say is that while I disagree with the vitriol and some of the short-sighted “all big media is evil” speak, they at least should be applauded for coming out up front and admitting their political leanings and objectives. I find the Sean Hannitys and Bill O’Reillys of the world to be unlistenable, but you can’t say they’re misleading the listener by acting as if they’re objective, and I respect that a lot more than Maureen Dowd or Peter Jennings trying to convince me that they have any inkling of objectivity. However, that doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh et al should be your information source, because it's just as short-sighted and ludicrous when someone starts with "Rush was talking about..."
If we are truly going to be an informed society, then it is incumbent upon us to start holding the media’s feet to the fire. Since I don’t expect any major news organization to suddenly start hiring capable reporters & commentators of the other side or even true centrists (since they all think they ARE centrist), then we must actually start pulling news from a variety of sources, even ones we might disagree with initially. If all you’re reading is the Hartford Courant or the Indianapolis Star, and all you’re watching is the local & network news, then it’s time to broaden your horizons a bit. A few suggestions, all of which are online in part or in full:
-The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com). They are pro-business, and they are definitely conservative when it comes to world politics. However, they are still New York City journalists, and there is a lot more liberalism in their slant than most people realize.
-U.S. News and World Report. (www.usnews.com ) Possibly the single best print publication in America when it comes to balanced reporting. Gloria Borger, Michael Barone, John Leo, Mortimer Zuckerman and Lou Dobbs are regular columnists. It doesn’t get much more diverse politically than that without retaining extremists.
-The Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com). Yes, Matt does lean conservative. However, there are regular links to Maureen Dowd, Dick Morris, Helen Thomas and other liberals, as well as the BBC and the major news outlets (ABC, CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc.).
-NPR (www.npr.org) – They’re liberal and yes, they have an agenda. But they do try hard to present both sides of the story and they keep alive what liberalism is supposed to be about, instead of the elitist version that is currently practiced by the Democratic Party, the Bay Area, and the entire northeast corridor.
The Chicago Tribune (www.chicagotribune.com) – Liberal by Midwest standards, conservative by coastal standards. Enough said.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Thursday, January 20, 2005
INAUGURATION OBSERVATIONS
Ahhh, the 2nd Bush term. Panacea if you’re a hard-core Republican, the end of the world if you’re a hard-core Democrat. Almost like the 2nd Clinton term in reverse.
Watching the inauguration yesterday was an interesting character study. The behaviors and images shown may not tell the whole story, but they do shed light into a few likely future and past politicians:
Hillary Clinton – Could she have looked more bored? It was quite obvious that at best she was taking mental Cliff’s notes. It was as if she felt too smart to be there and besides, what would that evil man at the podium have to say of note anyway? To all of you Bush haters who think Hillary is a savior, examine your criticisms of Bush’s personality and tell me where Hillary’s style is going to be an improvement. You may not wish to believe it, but she’s unelectable and will bring the Dems down further nationally if she’s nominated. Or as the former Indianapolis city treasurer diplomatically told me today, “She’ll definitely ensure a big turnout.” And he wasn’t talking about Democrats.
Bill Clinton – A study in contrast from his wife. Say what you will about him, but as he hung on every word Bush had to say. Not because he may have agreed, but because he understood: the place, the reason for the message, the gravity of what Bush is dealing with. A prediction: unlike what I previously believed, Bill Clinton will continue to grow in stature as an ex-president.
Rudy Giuliani – He was visibly freezing, but also paying close attention. Rudy seems to be unpretentious (for a New Yorker), and no-nonsense. He’ll tell you what he thinks, but he’s extremely smart, and his mannerisms at the inauguration say the same thing. He’s my early pick to win the GOP nomination.
John McCain – Looked confident and statesman-like. Quite electable on the national stage. If I only believed that the RNC would actually fund him I’d have more confidence in his chances. But I don’t think the conservative wing of the Republican Party will allow it, and that’s too bad. He deserves a shot. Note to Republicans: quit paying undue attention to the religious right. They will be your albatross, just as the fringe groups are to the Democrats.
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter – They both looked like ministers, especially Jimmy, as if the weight of the day was all they felt along with compassion for the man behind the microphone. Side note: I know she’s at least in her 70s, but Rosalynn looks like 55. What is she eating? Or not eating?
Watching the inauguration yesterday was an interesting character study. The behaviors and images shown may not tell the whole story, but they do shed light into a few likely future and past politicians:
Hillary Clinton – Could she have looked more bored? It was quite obvious that at best she was taking mental Cliff’s notes. It was as if she felt too smart to be there and besides, what would that evil man at the podium have to say of note anyway? To all of you Bush haters who think Hillary is a savior, examine your criticisms of Bush’s personality and tell me where Hillary’s style is going to be an improvement. You may not wish to believe it, but she’s unelectable and will bring the Dems down further nationally if she’s nominated. Or as the former Indianapolis city treasurer diplomatically told me today, “She’ll definitely ensure a big turnout.” And he wasn’t talking about Democrats.
Bill Clinton – A study in contrast from his wife. Say what you will about him, but as he hung on every word Bush had to say. Not because he may have agreed, but because he understood: the place, the reason for the message, the gravity of what Bush is dealing with. A prediction: unlike what I previously believed, Bill Clinton will continue to grow in stature as an ex-president.
Rudy Giuliani – He was visibly freezing, but also paying close attention. Rudy seems to be unpretentious (for a New Yorker), and no-nonsense. He’ll tell you what he thinks, but he’s extremely smart, and his mannerisms at the inauguration say the same thing. He’s my early pick to win the GOP nomination.
John McCain – Looked confident and statesman-like. Quite electable on the national stage. If I only believed that the RNC would actually fund him I’d have more confidence in his chances. But I don’t think the conservative wing of the Republican Party will allow it, and that’s too bad. He deserves a shot. Note to Republicans: quit paying undue attention to the religious right. They will be your albatross, just as the fringe groups are to the Democrats.
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter – They both looked like ministers, especially Jimmy, as if the weight of the day was all they felt along with compassion for the man behind the microphone. Side note: I know she’s at least in her 70s, but Rosalynn looks like 55. What is she eating? Or not eating?
John Kerry - Gracious but extremely tense. Only Al Gore, on the podium as the outgoing Vice-President at the last inauguration and in full glare of the cameras, could have been in a worse spot. Teresa should have suggested he not show up to this one.
Jenna and Barbara Bush – I’d like to see them replace Paris & Nicole on “The Simple Life.” Seriously, they seem imbued with a great mix of confidence borne out of both worldliness and youthful ignorance; Jenna seems to possess it in spades. As with all presidential children, it will be interesting to see where they end up in a few years.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION - BLOG MORE
It’s amazing how much havoc the holidays can wreak on your everyday routines. ‘Tis way past time to get back to my regular postings.
Watching a new Indiana state administration (Mitch Daniels) and a returning national administration (George W. Bush) already has me looking ahead to 2008. Some early predictions:
-Hillary Clinton is unelectable. If the Democrats wish to re-take the White House they must find someone who can win in the Republican strongholds, like Evan Bayh. I must say though, even being from Indiana, there is something about Bayh that makes me question whether he’s actually presidential material. But he is a Democrat who can win in normally Republican country. Unlike John Edwards, who had zero influence even in his own home state (as was also the case with Al Gore), Bayh would likely take Indiana and swing Ohio over to the Democrats, which would almost assuredly win the race.
-The game is no different for Republicans, even with the apparent success in the last election. The country is almost white-knuckling over how conservative it’s become. A centrist candidate would have wiped the mat with Bush, and only the provincialism of the Democrats kept any real candidates from even getting into the game. It will take a Republican who can grab the center. Since I don’t believe that John McCain will actually get the financial support from the GOP coffers (for lots of obvious reasons), look for someone like Rudy Giuliani. If Giuliani merely holds the current “red states” and takes New York out of the Dems column (which he would) it would a 62-point electoral vote swing…a landslide. One downside of Giuliani: I doubt that he has national coattails.
In my home state of Indiana, big changes are afoot. Mitch Daniels has come in with the same vigor and mandate for change as Ronald Reagan did some 24 years ago. The difference in Daniels case is that he must break the pattern of behavior of Indiana residents borne out over the past 200 years: provincialism, distrust of outsiders, resistance to new industries, and self-deprecation. (Or, to use one phrase, Hayseed Hoosierism.) I have no doubt that he can do it, though, as I watched Evan Bayh shift the mindset for 8 years, only to be undone by the tragically late-but-still-incompetent good-ole-boy Frank O’Bannon. For those outside of Indiana this might be a sideshow for you to watch. If Daniels is able to re-make the economy of this state, as I believe he will, it will mold new-style Republicans out of previously staunch Democratic areas and industries. This, in turn, will catch the attention of the GOP and become a model for economic and political growth across the country. IF…Daniels is successful.
On a personal side note, I met now-embattled Ohio Republican Ken Blackwell some 20 years ago. My stepfather was the chair of a Cincinnati community cable TV company, and Blackwell and Jerry Springer (yes, the Jerry Springer) came to this very small gathering to preside over their awards show, and I'm sure they weren't compensated for their time. If they were, it couldn't have been much. I found them both to be personable and very giving of their time. This from two politicians on opposite sides of the aisle who were then the most recent Cincinnati ex-mayors. I have no moral or conclusion to the story, other than to be fascinated by the paths their lives have since taken.
Go Colts.
Watching a new Indiana state administration (Mitch Daniels) and a returning national administration (George W. Bush) already has me looking ahead to 2008. Some early predictions:
-Hillary Clinton is unelectable. If the Democrats wish to re-take the White House they must find someone who can win in the Republican strongholds, like Evan Bayh. I must say though, even being from Indiana, there is something about Bayh that makes me question whether he’s actually presidential material. But he is a Democrat who can win in normally Republican country. Unlike John Edwards, who had zero influence even in his own home state (as was also the case with Al Gore), Bayh would likely take Indiana and swing Ohio over to the Democrats, which would almost assuredly win the race.
-The game is no different for Republicans, even with the apparent success in the last election. The country is almost white-knuckling over how conservative it’s become. A centrist candidate would have wiped the mat with Bush, and only the provincialism of the Democrats kept any real candidates from even getting into the game. It will take a Republican who can grab the center. Since I don’t believe that John McCain will actually get the financial support from the GOP coffers (for lots of obvious reasons), look for someone like Rudy Giuliani. If Giuliani merely holds the current “red states” and takes New York out of the Dems column (which he would) it would a 62-point electoral vote swing…a landslide. One downside of Giuliani: I doubt that he has national coattails.
In my home state of Indiana, big changes are afoot. Mitch Daniels has come in with the same vigor and mandate for change as Ronald Reagan did some 24 years ago. The difference in Daniels case is that he must break the pattern of behavior of Indiana residents borne out over the past 200 years: provincialism, distrust of outsiders, resistance to new industries, and self-deprecation. (Or, to use one phrase, Hayseed Hoosierism.) I have no doubt that he can do it, though, as I watched Evan Bayh shift the mindset for 8 years, only to be undone by the tragically late-but-still-incompetent good-ole-boy Frank O’Bannon. For those outside of Indiana this might be a sideshow for you to watch. If Daniels is able to re-make the economy of this state, as I believe he will, it will mold new-style Republicans out of previously staunch Democratic areas and industries. This, in turn, will catch the attention of the GOP and become a model for economic and political growth across the country. IF…Daniels is successful.
On a personal side note, I met now-embattled Ohio Republican Ken Blackwell some 20 years ago. My stepfather was the chair of a Cincinnati community cable TV company, and Blackwell and Jerry Springer (yes, the Jerry Springer) came to this very small gathering to preside over their awards show, and I'm sure they weren't compensated for their time. If they were, it couldn't have been much. I found them both to be personable and very giving of their time. This from two politicians on opposite sides of the aisle who were then the most recent Cincinnati ex-mayors. I have no moral or conclusion to the story, other than to be fascinated by the paths their lives have since taken.
Go Colts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
