Aubrey T. DeVera once observed, “Prejudice, which sees
what it pleases, cannot see what is plain.”

Notwithstanding the obvious liberal bias of the
mainstream media, many of us continue to wonder at what
point will either embarrassment or territorial imperative
compel the dominant media to return to the journalistic
foundation of actually reporting Who, What, When, Where,
rather than obfuscating the Why and the How, and/or
committing mortal sins of omission.

This past week we have seen two stories which
should spark, if not moral outrage, at least righteous
indignation. Of course, I may be assuming facts not in
evidence: that there exists a sufficient foundation of
morality in newsrooms of the media elite:

  • Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch noted that
    despite the supposed gag order in the Paula Jones case
    (mutually agreed to by lawyers for both sides), the
    Washington Post reported privileged discovery
    information, apparently obtained from President Clinton’s
    legal team. Now there are two sides to this coin. If
    the Post can get the information, good for them and
    attaboys all around. However, what, if any, sanctions
    should be anticipated (or reported) over someone on the
    Bob Bennett team having apparently violated the mutually
    agreed to gag order?

  • Patrick Shepard wrote an AP piece on the Ron
    Brown investigation (or un-investigation), and
    specifically omitted facts he knew, in an effort to
    presumably diminish the credibility of those
    questioning the procedural errors which had/have occurred.

A frequent discussion I have had with callers to
my radio talk show concerns fairness, and the ability (or
inability) of people to “…not want to be confused with
facts which contradict their preconceived opinions.”
People incorrectly assume that the mainstream is
reporting objectively. They are not. Last year, the
California EPA actually had the unbridled audacity to
order scientists to destroy data which contradicted or
did not conform with policy. Meanwhile, critics of those
who have reported and commented on the Clinton
administration “problems” claim there is “nothing to these
unwarranted charges..” Another case of failing to
acknowledge the growing abundance of facts which
contradict that partisan preconceived opinion.
Indictments, jail sentences, and the ever popular game of
“Name the unindicted conspirator” (second in popularity
only to “Name the indicted Cabinet member”).

Last week I asked who and when “some” Democrat
would rise and reject defense of the indefensible. Now I
ask, when will the presumed keepers of the fourth estate
acknowledge their responsibility and report a full and
complete journal of the facts, and permit the people the
luxury of making their own fully informed decisions?

A recurring theme on my radio talk show has been
the malfeasance of journalists who symbiotically join
themselves at the hip of some “source” only to become
agents for whatever department, agency or office they
have been assigned to cover. “Leaks,” which include the
invariable attribution of “…according to an official
source reporting on conditions of anonymity,” reduce the
reporter to the status of house organ writer.

Ambrose Bierce was right when he said “Politics
is the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
Hell, the current administration has raised that axiom to
an art form. However, I hope and pray that journalism
has not regressed to the point where it has been reduced
to reporting selective facts for private advantage.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.