It seems every day there is another example of media deception in America. With the Fourth of July approaching, it is well worth remembering why the Founding Fathers gave the press special privileges. They wanted journalists to report honestly, to give the folks accurate, unbiased information so they could make informed decisions about who should hold power. Many of the Founders, like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, didn't much like the press, but they understood that, for a democratic Republic to work, voters need honest information.
Unfortunately, the vision of a free and honest press is fast disappearing in America. Let me give you yet another vivid example. This week a poll by The New York Times asked: "Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance?
Fifty-seven percent said they were willing, 37 percent were not willing, and 6 percent had no opinion.
So, according to the Times, Americans overwhelmingly want government financed health care. That's what the poll says, right?
But if you read all the way down to the bottom of the poll, you see another question. "Who did you vote for (in the presidential election)?"
Forty-eight percent said Barack Obama, and just 25 percent answered John McCain. The rest, 19 percent, did not vote. Wow, that's almost two to one for Obama.
But the popular vote tally in the election last November was 53 percent for Obama and 46 percent for McCain. Wait a minute. That's a lot closer than two to one. Apparently The New York Times skewed the polling by offering the questions to mostly Obama voters. I'm shocked they supported higher taxes for federal health care, aren't you?
This kind of dishonesty is not uncommon in the media. The Times says its poll is "scientific." Sure it is. Scientifically stacking the deck.
I believe very few people read the entire poll before digesting the health care headline. The result is a flawed perception of what the American public really wants. The folks may indeed support Uncle Sam paying some heavy medical bills, but this poll is not a reflection of anything other than a New York Times deception.
By the way, CBS News also had its name on that poll.
As a media guy who wants accurate information, that kind of stuff tees me off. As soon as the pollsters learned that most of the respondents were Obama people, they should have thrown the results out. But the Times ardently favors national health care and a huge federal government. So the con played out.
The most frustrating part about this is that nothing can be done. The Times has an ombudsman, but he's a joke, and no outside agency has any power over the paper. It can pretty much do what it wants, and does.
It is true that the Times and some other media outlets, most committed left, are on the brink of bankruptcy. The liberal papers say the Internet is to blame, and that's partly true.
But the folks are beginning to understand that the informational fix is in. What good is "all the news that's fit to print" if the news is bogus?
The Times might want to poll that question.
by Bill O'Reilly
-------------
Press Finally draws first blood on their turf
President Barack Obama made news at a press conference last week – by planting a question with a blogger, not by offering anything new in spite of taking his sharpest questions to date.
The sharper edge of reporters’ questions had much to do with the setting, one White House press corps member said afterward: “It was our turf, in our seats … no formality of the East Room or even (the) Rose Garden. So I think when we're comfortable, we're more likely to fire back at him for follow-ups.”
Obama coming unarmed with news led to more probing, analytical-style questions which can always tie up presidents.
The planted query (the White House denies it being planted) came from Huffington Post blogger Nico Pitney; an administration official phoned him ahead of time to suggest that Obama would take a particular question from him.
“Planted questions undermine the integrity of the process,” says Mark Rozell, professor of public policy at George Mason University.
If the president wanted to offer a response to a communication from an Iranian citizen, Rozell explains, that would have been fine. “But citizens are led to believe that the questions in the press conferences are not known in advance by the president and his staff and that the process has some degree of spontaneity.”
To be sure, presidents and their staffs spend serious time anticipating likely questions and preparing answers. They have a really good record of being able to anticipate most of what a president is asked by reporters; not a lot of surprises occur.
Every so often, in response to an unanticipated question, a president will give a candid answer – and then the press conference becomes especially newsworthy.
But if “the questions are planted, then what is the point, really?” Rozell asks.
Presidential historian Joel Goldstein says the press should play an independent role and its independence is compromised if reporters simply serve up questions provided to them.
“I think there are real concerns regarding the future of the media,” he says. “Bloggers provide access to many (readers), yet much of what then passes for journalism lacks the professionalism of the good political reporters and columnists, whose experience provides a context in which to present current events.”
Part of the problem, though, is with Americans. Just look at our obsession this news cycle regarding the Gov. Mark Sanford story.
“Surely the Sanford story has many tragic dimensions, but was it really the most important story last week to justify the sort of coverage it got on CNN and MSNBC?” Goldstein wonders.
“For my money, the Senate's cloture vote on Harold Koh's nomination, Iran, health care, Korean threats, (Cap-and-Trade… ah Cap-and-Tax) etc., will have more impact on our lives than the fact that yet another ‘family values’ politician has acted in a manner which is inconsistent with what he preaches.” And as big the loss of Ed McMahan, Farrah Faucet and the the King of Pop, Michael Jackson… virtually ignoring the House’s latest snow job of slipping in another unread bill on Cap-and-Tax that will change America’s way of life forever if not stopped in the Senate is deplorable!!
Villanova University’s Lara Brown offers two reasons why this particular press conference is just the beginning of what we can expect between the press and the president: Obama’s slipping popularity numbers, and the roughing-up of his policies on Capitol Hill.
Obama and his staff, she says, may be increasingly concerned about too many substantive questions from reporters who may smell blood.
Perhaps it is not so surprising that Team Obama might create a diversion at a press conference, to get everyone talking about the diversion instead of reporting on substantive issues – health care, energy, the economy, the budget deficit, Iran, the president's lack of engagement on many of these issues – that do not reflect well on Obama.
It’s a political strategy that can be summed up as “Look at my right hand, so you don't watch what my left one is doing.”
Remember that old song, “Smooth Operator?” Obama is just that – the smoothest operator that Purdue’s Rockman says he has ever seen.
While such tricks may not jeopardize a free press, Rockman is “worried about the decline of traditional media and reporters without axes to bear.
“There is no doubt that the ‘new media’ is actually leading us back to a 19th-century party-press, where we read only what we agree with,” he says. And that “is a genuine concern.”
Since last week’s press conference, three things have emerged that will probably change how Obama approaches a microphone.
First, there definitely will be more scrutiny of blogger questions from Obama-friendly websites. Second, since first-blood has been drawn, the press will engage in a frenzied feeding.
And third, that probably was the last time Obama will step to the podium without real news to take queries about.
by Salena Zito
Source: TownHall.com
Posted: Knowledge Creates Power
Related Resources:
No comments:
Post a Comment