We shall begin by assuming as true that the mainstream media (MSM) is neither liberal nor conservative. Much of the erroneousness of its analysis, especially among the worst offenders, comes not from any bias but rather from a lack of understanding, either of the core issues involved, any possible nuance that exists outside its own closed, solipsistic understanding of Washington. I do not wish to get into any debates about "the liberal media" because there is enough data and evidence to disprove it. If we are to consider the failings of the media, we need a new paradigm, which I am shamelessly stealing from Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media?.
Washington-based journalists are part of the governing class, whether we wish it or not. From the lowliest stringer to Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert, all constitute part of the vehicle of governance because it is through them that the three branches of government send out information, set possible policy directions (the infamous "trial baloons"), and wage the vindictive war of anonymous sourcing. There is nothing wrong with any of this; government would not function without the flow of information. The problem is that, rather than fostering an adversarial relationship between the press and those it covers - not in any personal sense, but professionally - over time journalists see themselves as players, part of the inner workings, and as such able to make comments and even suggestions concerning policy and politics that they might otherwise keep silent on.
This is nothing new. Since the early 20th century, through their heyday after the Second World War, journalists like Walter Lippmann, the Alsop brothers, and William Allen White (who lived in Kansas but was as much a Roosevelt booster as any insider) were seen by many, and understood themselves to be, part of the governing class. Lippmann, especially, with his aloof manners, his crisp, concise writing style, and his ready access to a variety of powerful, important people became a model for many to follow. Indeed, I have often felt that George Will has always wanted to be, and seen hismelf as the natural heir to Lippmann's thoughtful, conservative commentary.
That these men - and a few others - were exceptional, and in crossing the line between journalist and (at least in Lippmann's case, I think the term is appropriate) public intellectual and policy advocate, has not lessened the desire from hundreds of wannabes to someday be heralded as the next Great American Commentator. Thus we have the specter of Cokie Roberts, Mara Laiasson, Wolf Blitzer, Candy Crowley, Judith Miller, Tom Friedman, Joe Klein, among the worst offenders, too often trying to sound wise and all-knowing but usually sounding condescending, haughty, and (when pushed or proven wrong) petulant. All of these people, and many besides, were wrong before the election, continued to be wrong on election night, and since the election was such a public display of their erroneousness, have decided to continue to be wrong over and over and over . . . One often reads or listens to what these and other members of the MSM say and wonders if they even pay attention to what they are saying. I believe that, with the elections proving them all spectacularly wrong, and the post-election continuing their string of losing, rather than adjust their understanding of what has been and is going on, they feel that if they just continue to repeat the same tried-and-true nonsense enough they might actually create the reality they claim is happening.
Except, of course, there is this wonderful check on all that It is called us. The people. Not only have we rejected their obstinant refusal to cover the world as it really is; not only have we acted, not like uninformed rubes, but as thoughtful citizens; not only do we consistently refuse to accept their advice as to what we should think and why - we have a wonderful technological outlet for making sure that the Fourth Estate does not get too out of control. You're reading it. Whether left-wing or right, populist, libertarian, communitarian, even if you refuse to subscribe to a label - the Internet is a great place to make sure the national conversation takes place the way it was envisioned by our founders: with no limits, no unacceptable political positions, no dominant narrative or conventional wisdom.
The most surprising thing about much of the political commentary on the Internet, regardless of political ideology (or lack thereof) is its depth, its understanding of the stakes involved, and its dismissal of cant and sloganeering for thoughtful analysis. Whether you live on K Street or Kansas City, Pennsylvania Avenue or Athens, PA (my father's home town), the discussions on the Internet are consistently better than anything on television or in the major print outlets. This proves another little shibboleth of the MSM wrong, that in-depth, thoughtful, probing discussion is beyond the average American.
With the victory of last week's elections very much that of the people, and expressed partly through the liberal end of the Internet, I believe we shall see that rise even further in esteem. Rather than Walter Lippmann, I am looking for the next Atrios.
Virtual Tin Cup
