The Fourth Estate

08.25.2004

Glen Reynolds (aka Instapundit) rarely writes long blog entries — he usually just serves as a blogosphere "gatekeeper", linking to especially good bloggers. But the role the media's playing in this election prompted a lengthy post. Here's an excerpt:

Just as who controlled the Senate in 2002 wasn't the most important thing in the world, who wins the White House in 2004 isn't either, except perhaps to those involved. But if the institutional press is, as Evan Thomas suggested, capable of delivering a 15% margin to its preferred candidate, enough to decide almost any election, and if they're willing to go to almost any lengths in delivering that margin, well, then, we've got a serious problem. (And we don't, really, have a democracy.) To me (and to others) that's a bigger deal than Bush v. Kerry, but it's certainly illustrated by the Kerry issues of the last few months.

What Reynolds refers to is evidence of media giants not following up on stories/controveries involving Kerry, when they do follow them up on Bush. Does it demonstrate a clear bias? It's fine & dandy if you think one candidate or the other is a total schmuck. But it should be up to voters, citizens to decide who will or won't govern this country. And, to decide, voters need objective information. Even if you think you are right (a totally subjective decision), you do not have the right make that decision for other people. Not giving voters objective information renders them incapable of making informed decisions, implicitly violating their right to full democratic participation.

I do not want to be governed by philosopher kings (no matter their intentions). I want to govern myself, in conjunction w/ my fellow citizens. I certainly don't want to live in a utopia run by The Authority.

Posted by Miguel at 11:39 PM

Comments

As biased as I agree the media is, I believe it's an inherit, subconscious bias that's always going to be there because they are sheltered from the "real" America. As to why they would delve more into the criticism of the President than the opposition candidate goes more to the fact that he is a sitting president. I'm not saying it's right, it's just that it's the more attractive content to a reporter.

--scott

Posted by: j.scott barnard at August 26, 2004 11:04 AM

Hi, just saying hi. I think we will share the same office. When I "wake up" from jetlag (I feel like being drugged or sth) feeling I will talk to you more. Nenad

Posted by: Nenad at August 26, 2004 03:14 PM

Good pint, perhaps a part of the bias is just to tear down people in office. Same as the way the media treats celebrities. But I also think there's just a groupthink mentality. I worked in a newsroom for three years. Most people were so similar in liberal orientation (including myself on most issues) that we forgot that there were other people out there, intelligent people even, who might disagree. In that context it's easy to confuse "opinion" w/ "fact."

Posted by: Miguel at August 27, 2004 12:02 PM