Bias or Control

Tom Maguire picks out a telling quote from former President Bill Clinton to serve as the title of his post wherein he argues that "old media organizations" are not just guilty of liberally biased reporting, but that their liberally biased reporting is deliberate as well.  The Clinton quote appeared in the Washington Post yesterday.  Here is Maguire's presentation.

Bill Clinton joins in the media-bias debate, by way of the old-media WaPo:

...[Bill Clinton] said Democrats of his generation tend to be naive about new media realities. There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies -- and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses.

"We're all that way, and I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate," Clinton said. "Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."

"Almost" unrealistic.

The more significant conclusion you can draw from Clinton is not the one about mainstream press having a liberal bias, which is really hard to miss, anyway.  It's the admission of who's been in the driver's seat all the while.  "The press led us." 

Clinton's presidential ambitions go back to his college days, and master politician that he is, he learned early on who were the people who made up his target audience.  The press.  Successfully playing the press, though, means having to say things folks in the press like to hear, and everybody agrees, Cinton's been pretty good at that.  But the question ought to arise, when a politician continually shapes his message to appeal to the press -- Who's in charge?  When Clinton decided being president was his heart's desire, he planned on being a president in the fine Kennedy tradition, whatever that might be.  No worries, the press would tell him since they'd know that sort of thing.  The point is, being is not doing.

When George W. Bush became president, it wasn't altogether clear if he became president because of something he wanted to do, or if president was something he wanted to be.  The question has been moot since September 11, 2001.  The attack on the World Trade Center refocused his presidency on something he had to do, something he still has to do -- fight the war on terror. 

But the Democrats are still thinking about what they want to be.  Primarily, they want to be in the majority, and they will be whatever they have to be to get there.  Mostly that means being not George Bush.  And it also means being what the mainstream press want them to be, their support being so crucial. 

Unsurprisingly, this has lead to a nearly hilarious incoherence on the part of the Democrats.  There are not enough troops, we need a draft.  There are too many troops, we must withdraw.  Saddam Hussein is a threat, therefore regime change in Iraq is national policy.  Besides, we know he has weapons of mass destruction.  Or is Saddam Hussein a victim?  After all, Bush illegally invaded a sovereign state, and he lied about weapons of mass destruction.  Listening in on electronic communications is criminal, even if we're listening to the terrorists.  But if it's a Republican congressman we're listening to, then it's OK.  We must protect the children at all costs, the ones that get to be born.

For the mainstream press, there's nothing contradictory here.  There's unmistakable loyalty to press ideals in those Democratic hearts.  Constance.  Democrats steadfastlly follow along where the press leads.  And for candidates who are so true to press whims, the mainstream press promotes.