"We are in a time when the very diminution of the importance of network news leaves some old news hands to drop their guard and announce what they are: liberal Democrats. Nothing wrong with that, but they might have told us when they were in power. The very existence of conservative media--of Rush Limbaugh, of Fox, of the Internet sites--has become an excuse by previously "I call 'em as I see 'em/I try to be impartial" journalists to advance their biases. Actually, it's more Fox than anything. The existence of a respected cable network that is nonliberal and non-Democratic (or that is conservative, or Republican, or neoconservative--people on the right have polite disagreements about this) is more and more freeing news outlets, encouraging them actually, as a potential business model, to be more and more what they are. Is this good? Well, it's clearer."
Following the body of her column, I agree that most folks in middle America today dismiss a Kronkite, Rather, or a Clooney with a brush of their hand. However, I suppose if Carps writes another email, then I'll again face a mental juxtaposition. Oh well. Time for a nap...
1 comment:
I don't think it's such a bad thing. If you've read the press of the Civil War, what we've got today is nothing compared to that. I'd much rather have reporters wearing their biases on their sleeves than acting like they don't exist. Especially with reporters that seem to think they have a devotion to their craft over their country. Let them be who they actually are and let the consumers decide if that's what they want. Free market baby.
Post a Comment