Supreme, Unbridled Arrogance
By Randall Nunn (02/18/04)
The treatment by the media of the rumors of an alleged Kerry affair with a young woman should both frighten and anger all Americans. Frighten them because it is striking proof that our First Amendment freedom of the press has been subverted and twisted into an unrecognizable abstraction.
Anger them because it illustrates the supreme arrogance of our media and elitist “opinion makers” who believe it is for them to determine what is news and what is not. When this treatment is examined in the context of the current media circus about President Bush’s National Guard service, the “blackout” on the Kerry affair rumor becomes even more outrageous and insidious.
CNN’s Lou Dobbs told radio personality Don Imus that CNN had “chosen not to report it,” when asked about the Kerry rumor. Giving further emphasis to that decision, Dobbs said, in response to Imus’ remark that at some point Kerry was going to be asked about it, “He won’t be asked about it by me.” In other words, CNN’s elites considered this rumor and made a deliberate decision to keep the story from the American electorate. Are you listening America? CNN has decided to censor what you should hear because they made the decision that it is not newsworthy. Wouldn’t you think that reporters would have an interest in validating or invalidating the Kerry rumors, rather than just writing it off and deciding not to pursue it? The media has been like a pack of hounds on the trail of the Bush National Guard service but the Kerry rumor is somehow not appropriate to report or to even investigate. Could there be a clearer example of a double standard?
Dr. Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said in speaking of the Kerry rumors that “we’re slip-sliding into the sewer.” Dr. Sabato, we were slip-sliding into a real sewer with the Monica Lewinsky allegations but journalists continued to investigate and found that there was, in fact, a sewer and it ran right through the Oval Office. Americans were entitled to know about that sewer and President Clinton’s involvement. A free press ought to (1) report serious charges about our public officials, (2) investigate those charges to the best of their ability, and (3) report the results of such investigations. Sometimes the news consists of some not-very-nice allegations and those can be reported and dealt with in a responsible way. Not to deal with them, and worse, to deliberately suppress them, is not the prerogative of the media. Dr. Sabato said that journalists did not have the facts to back up the Kerry story. Have they had the facts to back up the feeding frenzy over the Bush National Guard service? Of course not. But that did not stop a daily onslaught of vicious articles and it apparently did not provoke Dr. Sabato into outrage directed at the media in that case. Dr. Sabato should remember that it was Matt Drudge who broke the Monica Lewinsky story when the liberal media was tut-tutting and looking the other way.
The issue here is not so much whether “the Kerry rumor” turns out to be true, in whole or in part, but rather the decision to treat it as if it was not happening. Do any of the networks or newspapers know what the true facts are with respect to President Bush’s National Guard service? Absolutely not. Yet they are clamoring over this as if it was relevant and material, when it is clear it is neither (Bush did serve and was honorably discharged). Let’s apply the same standard with “the Kerry rumor” and air the fact that the rumor is making the rounds and then let’s ask Kerry some specific questions about it, rather than accept a denial as the end of the matter. Is the Kerry rumor relevant? It could be, depending upon whether there is any substance to it. Let’s find out if there is any substance before we bury the news.
For the sake of argument, let us suppose that there is some substance to the Kerry rumor and that the woman in question was induced or encouraged to leave the country in order to protect Kerry’s reputation and avoid a serious setback to his campaign at a critical juncture. If that were to be the case, then such information clearly would be relevant and material to the American voters. Given that, true journalists should at least investigate enough to determine whether there is or is not substance to the story. But in this case, the liberal media and academic elitists determined that this was too unseemly and too likely to damage a darling of the liberal press to warrant further investigation. And with their quasi-monopoly over a large segment of the news, it might soon die. So instead of reporting the allegation, they determined to simply act as if it was never made. “If we don’t write about it, it never happened.” That might have worked in yesteryear but today we have the Internet.
The real test here would be to ask yourselves if this same allegation had involved President Bush, would there have been a media blackout on reporting it. We all know the answer to that. Americans should now understand that what news they get from the media today is only the news that the liberal elitists want them to have. Today’s liberal media is not the guardian of your liberties—it is, in fact, one of the most dangerous threats to those liberties.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Randall Nunn
