The Media Mocks Democracy in 2009

If a tree falls in the forest, and the media doesn't report it, does it make a sound? Hmmm...something to mull...

Hey, here's a question: Where is Eleanor Clift? Eleanor? Oh, Eeeeeeeleeeeaaaaanor?

Back during Bush's first term as president, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift called President Bush "stupid" for "overlooking democratic expressions" in the form of the February 15, 2003 anti-war protests. She wasn't alone. ABC's Peter Jennings also publicly decried Bush's response to the anti-war protests. MSNBC called the anti-war protesters the second "world superpower." And The New York Times carried headlines that spoon-fed readers on exactly how to "see" the protesters. Um, literally. "Wide Range of Ages, Races, and Parties Unite on Iraq," was actually a headline. I kid you not. As was: "Throwing a Party with a Purpose," and "A Festive Tone, But Somber Ideas." The media did not attack or debate the protesters; did not accuse them of being extremists; and did not dismiss them because their protests were encouraged by, well, the media itself in the days leading up to February 15th. Instead, the protests were lauded by the media as democratic, meaningful, and significant. And I am proud to be an American because of that...

Except...hmm...

Fast forward to 2009. Americans gathered by the thousands around the United States on April 15th for "Tea Parties" in protest of taxes and high government spending. And the media completely lost its shizz. Hardcore. CNN's Susan Roesgen, after questioning one man (holding his baby) on why he was protesting, proceeded to cut the man off, get into his face, and actually debate the man in front of the shocked onlookers. Um...did we mention the man was holding a baby? And that Roesgen is a news reporter, and therefore obliged to be unbiased and impartial? The fair and balanced Roesgen then went on to declare the gatherings "anti-government," "anti-CNN," and "not family viewing." We're still not sure what she meant by that last comment (unless she was referring to her spraying the baby with her spit). More importantly, since when is the news meant to be "family viewing"? Unless Roesgen is using the term "family" mafia-style, as in Leftist Familia?

So, suddenly, on April 15, 2009, Americans gathering in numbers to have their voices heard was no longer portrayed by the media as democratic, meaningful, or significant. And the media DID attack and debate the protesters (Ms. Roesgen); DID accuse them of being extremists (thanks to a conveniently timed statement from The Department of Homeland Security widely covered by media ); and DID dismiss them because their protests were encouraged by news outlets. CNN's Anderson Cooper made lowbrow and unprofessional statements about the protesters. The New York Times' Paul Krugman called the gatherings "Astro-turf," not grassroots. And the unbiased media laughed itself silly, when it bothered to cover the protests at all.

No matter which side of the aisle you favor, every American has the right to expect fair news coverage and not propaganda. We don't live behind a wall, for crying out loud. Whether you're against the war and for taxes, or for the war and against taxes, shouldn't Americans be able to trust that their media will give both the same level of coverage and respect?

Media, I'm ashamed of you. I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you two detentions and a recess TIME OUT. But Media, these TIME OUTs are adding up. And when a teacher notices that her punishments are becoming ineffectual, she must adopt a new strategy...

Perhaps, Media, the solution is not in asking you to change your stripes, but instead to embrace them. OK: you have biases. CNN leans to the left. Fox News leans to the right. We're humans, not robots, and our emotions and passions are expected to bubble up to the surface, whether we're viewers, reporters, or news producers...

Then, media, let us agree to this: you be straightforward about your biases (no more "holier than thou" pretenses of fair and balanced reporting), and I will agree to accept you as you are. Can you do that, Media? Can you own up to your favoritism and partiality, and allow Americans to choose their news from there? It seems the wisest solution. As it stands now, the only ones you're fooling are children, puppets, and Europe...