Journalism 101

At first glance it will appear that I am going to beat this Cindy Sheehan horse long beyond the point where it's dead, but I want to make some more general comments that stem from Professor Vic and PBryon's observations that are not specific to this particular political theatre.

The more general situation is this: you have a President that you don't like, maybe even hate, who is confronted by a protest or confronted by a criticism that you think has little merit, or is run by crazy loons. But one of your main criticisms of the President that you think is valid is that he is a phoney opportunist, an artist in making people think he's a regular guy, concerned with the everyday people, when the truth is he would sell his mother in a heartbeat if there was a market for old ladies. So when the President does not do some simple phoney act to try to quell an absurd or unwarranted protest or criticism, you criticize the guy for not being enough of a phoney opportunist. Some guys just cannot win.

I'm not picking on PBryon or Professor Vic, because I don't know that they hate the President or have accused him of being a phoney. But surely you see this general pattern in the press coverage of absurd protests led by commie morons. Here is the pattern: cover the protest, but don't show any of the actual protestors; pick out the one or two who look normal and air the one quote in their five minute soliloquy where they make a moderate point, and do your best to get the camera angle just so in a manner where the viewer cannot see the jugular vein bulging out two inches from the speaker's neck.

Now speak of the protest as if it involves a wide swath of people from all reaches of society, just spontaneously gathering to voice their concern; no need to point out the fact that there are actual organizers often involved passing out commie literature (these people are no threat of course, but pointing out how unhinged they are would normally be newsworthy). Generalize from the protest to public opinion across the board. Run this story about ten days, and then take a poll to give you numbers that support the message you've been trying to drive home for ten days. Report the poll right after day 11 coverage of the protest, and puzzle over how out of touch the President is to not respond to their concerns directly, even if it would be in an a transparently phoney manner. Never ever ever ever examine the merit of the protest's claims when they are attacking a guy you like to see getting attacked.

The rules are quite different when the guy being attacked is one you like. In that event, dig up everything you can on the attackers, and let everyone know their connections. "Bill Clinton has faced criticism from Joe Rockhead that seems to be taking a political toll on his administration, but do we know the real Joe Rockhead?" What follows is a string of loose associations, culminating in a acquaintance with a guy who once went to college with a woman who had a friendship with a guy who was once in line at Starbuck's behind Karl Rove, and we'll leave it to you to connect the nefarious dots ...

In other words, when the story is adverse to one of them, they'll tell you exactly why the story is suspect (usually on the basis of who is telling it rather than its merit as truth), or they might ignore it, but they'll certainly ignore anyone who is buying the story. When the story is a bad one harming one of us, but is one that is being bought wholesale by a bunch of people, simply report the fact that the people are buying it, and ignore the fact that they might be buying a load of crap. Thus, we get the Swift Boat Vets, ignored by the mainstream press until Kerry felt like he had to respond, versus Farenheit 911, and all of the speculation about how (with fingers crossed under the view of the camera) the film might swing the electorate.

So make up your mind - if he's a political phoney, don't fault him in the one instance where he's not being a political phoney.