1 Boring Old Man

There’s a term "Mainstream Media" ["MSM"] that I don’t recall hearing before the last several years. Before the modern era, the term was "Mass Media" – referring to the News services that serve large numbers of people. I don’t know the author of the term "Main Stream Media," but it’s interesting to speculate how it came to be. It’s generally used in a negative way – implying bias. From the Right, it’s a synonymn for their term "Liberal Press" implying a Leftward bias to the news. From the Left, it’s used to imply either a Right-leaning bias, or a selective "going along with and not questioning" the version of stories presented by the government – treating "spin" as "fact." So in the blogosphere, MSM is a term implying bias or complicity with some particular view of the news.

Scott McClellan’s book has brought this issue of bias or complicity of the Mainstream Media to a head. In recanting his previous position as Press Secretary to Bush, he’s saying that he was wrong. While arguing with his excuses for being wrong is rampant, there is no argument that he’s saying that he was wrong. But he goes further. He complains that the Press [MSM], like him, was wrong too. And he says it as a complaint. There’s no question that Scott McClellan fits the classic meaning of some agages, "the pot calling the kettle black;" "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone;" "judge not that ye be not judged;" etc. But those are ad hominems, attacking the "messenger," not the "message."

What is McClellan’s excuse? He says he was in the "White House bubble" – it’s the Spellbound Defense often heard coming from abused people who stayed in abusive situations, cult members, addicts, etc. – a version of "Temporary Insanity." It’s a valid excuse, though not one that leads to full forgiveness by its victims. The Perpetrator claiming Temporary Insanity is always vulnerable to "You should have known! You should have done something!" The place I saw it was from the mother who either knew or should have known that her new husband was sexually abusing her child, and she did nothing. The abused children were not so forgiving about that even in the face of the Spellbound Defense.

McClellan’s charge is that the "Mainstream Media" let us down. They didn’t question enough or vet their own stories enough. The classic case is Judith Miller who allowed herself to be used by the Bush Administration as a propoganda agent for their war. The New York Times did apologize, and later fired her, but one could hardly see their response as "swift justice." In the Law, there’s a distinction between "the facts" and the meaning or implication of the facts. Both Scott McClellan and the Mainstream Media did participate in misleading us. That’s a fact. The question of motive must be put aside for the moment. They are guilty as charged. The part about how to react to or interpret the "facts" comes after the verdict, not during the trial.

O’Reilly [below] says, "If they all believe Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, sir: don’t you have a nerve accusing me of not being vigilant enough?" … "If two presidents of the United States (sitting), the former CIA guy who works for both presidents, Tony Blair, and The New York Times all tell me and you [Saddam has] got [WMDs], we can’t say ‘no, he doesn’t!’" No, I’m not holding O’Reilly up as being a representative of the Mainstream Media. But Tom Brokaw and David Gregory? They’re the real guys. Their excuse is "We did everything we could do." What they are arguing against is that they weren’t biased or complicit. That’s possibly true, maybe even probably true. But it doesn’t matter. Their excuse is premature. In order to be excused, they first have to acknowledge that they were wrong. Their oft repeated comment is "hindsight is 20/20." That’s what Bush says. That’s what Cheney says. In this case, I call bullshit on both the Administration and the MSM [and would call it on Scott McClellan, except he hasn’t used this defense].

^{There’s the possibility of getting all self important about being right about this war. If I saw it, why didn’t you? I was certainly no Bush supporter, but I don’t think that was why I had that intuition. I think it was the way it was presented. They had been quiet for a time after 911, setting up homeland security and sabre rattling. Then they came on strong with a campaign to go to war in Iraq. I think my intuition was about the campaign. When Kennedy made his speech about the Russian Missles in Cuba, he showed us the evidence. After 911, when the focus was on al Qaeda [which I’d never really heard of], they showed us the evidence. With Iraq, they told us the conclusions, but showed us nothing of note. When Colin Powell went to the U.N., I felt embarassed. He  had nothing. But my intuition, I think, came from the "sell job." If they’d known what they were talking about, they wouldn’t be coming out with a sales campaign. They’d have shown us the pictures.}