The Moral Hazard of the MSM

I think the criticism of the President's speech to America's school children was overblown. That is the conclusion the MSM drew. But you might not know, if you don't watch Fox or survey the conservative blogosphere, that Democrats reacted just as hysterically, if not more, to a similar speech by Bush 41. An honest press would have pointed that out. If it did, I missed it.

Likewise with the man of the hour Joe Wilson of South Carolina. Wilson's outburst, "You lie!" was well covered by the MSM, and has been elevated to a major housekeeping issue in the House that is kept by Nancy Pelosi. It is apparently a House rule that the President cannot be called a liar in that chamber. That sounds to me like a good rule. It promotes decorum, which is one of the thing that keeps civil society civil. But one might note that President Obama accused certain unnamed parties of lying in his speech, and that the previous President was called a liar by Democrat Pete Stark. Did the MSM do that?

Joe Wilson has been celebrated by liberal pundits, and is now about to be crowned for his excess. Though Wilson apologized to the President, and the President accepted his apology (something to be ascribed to President Obama's credit), the House leadership is moving to discipline the wayward wailer. This looks to me like bad strategy. Wilson shouldn't have yelled out his insult. See remarks on decorum above.

He also shouldn't have done it because it creates problems for his party and his own political fortunes. It gives ammunition to the other side, which wishes to paint all critics of Obama and the Democrats as hysterical yahoos. It apparently allowed a potential opponent to raise $1 million in contributions in about 48 hours. But it also allowed Wilson to raise about the same amount of money at the same time. By moving against Wilson after his apology, the Democrats are turning him into a right wing hero. I am guessing he might profit from that.

Right now Americans have a very poor opinion of the American Press. This comes at a moment when that press is facing potentially mortal financial problems. I don't know how to fix the later problem, but the former might be addressed by acting more responsibly and by defending such nonpartisan notions as decorum in a nonpartisan way. If one side behaves badly, point it out. But take the other side to task as well, even when that means criticizing Democrats.

Which brings me to Glen Beck. I am not a fan of Beck. Most of what I have seen of him I have seen while waiting for the five o'clock Fox News. He strikes me as Fox's answer to Lou Dobbs, which is a much better Dobbs, and Fox's answer to its own Bill O'Rielly, which is a not so good O'Reilly.

But Glen Beck dramatically increased the value of his own stock by taking down Van Jones. Maybe you think that Jones was railroaded. I don't. But there was a legitimate story here and the MSM resolutely ignored it. Howard Kurtz has the story, on his WaPo website:

By the time White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned over Labor Day weekend, the New York Times had not run a single story. Neither had USA Today, which also didn't cover the resignation. The Washington Post had done one piece, on the day before he quit. The Los Angeles Times had carried a short article the previous week questioning Glenn Beck's assault on the White House aide. There had been nothing on the network newscasts.

Kurtz is right. One doesn't expect better from the New York Times, but surely one of the other newspapers or the major network news organs might have bother to inform the public of a problem that would in short order lead to the resignation of one of President Obama's Czars. Why didn't they? The answer is pretty obvious: they were acting in a partisan fashion to try to protect the President when he was busy with healthcare reform. This is journalistic malpractice.

There was a time when a few network organs could kill a story by ignoring it. That time has passed. The contemporary news world is much more democratic, and that means a lot of angry voices are now audible. Beck didn't do his work alone. Most of the much that was raked up against Jones was raked up by Beck fans by means of Google.

If the Main Stream Press doesn't like such persons as Beck pushing into their territory, if it thinks it is above gotcha journalism, then it can't afford to leave gaping holes for Beck to move into. This might be a moment for the MSM to begin to redeem itself. If it wants to defend decorum, and it should, it has to defend it against all assaults from the left as well as the right. If it wants to stand above the Becks and Dobbs that nip at its heels (and occasionally, its jugular), it can't afford to let the latter do its work for them.

UPDATE: A reply to Cory's post at Madville Times: Obama's Right: No Benefits for Illegal Immigrants in H.R. 3200

This discussion shows why calling people a liar in such cases is a breech of decorum. What is at stake here is not truth or falsehood in speech, but differing interpretations and expectations.

Does the Bill explicitly extend health care coverage to illegal aliens? You say no and provide text. I am inclined to believe you.

Does the bill provide any actual mechanisms to prevent illegal aliens from enjoying it's benefits? As I understand it, Republicans pushed for such mechanisms and Democrats refused. Why?

Will the bill actually extend coverage to illegal aliens once enacted, regardless of what it explicitly says? Yes. Even with verification mechanisms that would happen. Without them it will happen frequently. Consider the recent ACORN scandal. You don't think that there will be a lot of community organizers out there instructing illegals on how to game the system?

Joe Wilson shouldn't have called the President a liar. It was bad taste in that setting. The President shouldn't have talked about the lies of unnamed others because it isn't the lies that are the real issue here. It is such questions as I raise above.

And by the way, I think we should extend health care insurance to everyone regardless of immigration status. But I understand that that won't sell.

Comments

[caheidelberger]

"just as hysterically"? Um, where does the article you link indicate that Reps. Gephart, Frost, et al. set about organizing a natinowide classroom boycott to protect children from Marxofascist indoctrination at the hands of the scheming President? Your comparison is inaccurate.

Your comparison of Wilson's outburst to the President's statements is also inaccurate. President Obama referred to certain political statements as lies while he had the floor. Same with Rep. Stark. Wilson's breach of decorum lies in the violation of our parliamentary tradition, not in his inaccurate assessment of the veracity of the President's words. Wilson is welcome to point out the falsehood of various Presidential statements and back up his claim in his own floor speeches, on his blog, in press interviews, whatever. But an outburst during a Presidential address to the nation is not the proper format for such accusations.

Of course, Rep. Wilson is flat wrong... but that's another issue:

http://madvilletimes.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-right-no-benefits-for-illegal.html

[caheidelberger]

Whoops -- you were right: there are indeed House rules that prohibit referring to the President as a liar, even in floor speeches. Go figure. I'm still o.k. with calling a lie a lie. But Rep. Wilson's outburst is still a greater breach of decorum than any example you cite. (Plus, Wilson lied.)

http://www.congressmatters.com/story/2009/9/11/1554/-More-on-the-rules-regarding-Wilsons-outburst

[KB]

And besides: Stark is a Democrat so it's okay. I agree with you that Wilson's outburst was a greater breech of decorum. I simply think that if the Press is going to report on one they might think to mention the other. Moreover rules is rules. If Wilson should be official reprimanded, then so should Stark.

As to the school speech, again it's just worse if its Republicans, no. Congressional Democrats used their investigative powers to try to damage the Administration of Bush 41 over his school speech. How, exactly, is that worse than organizing grassroots boycotts? I think both responses were silly. You seem to think you have to show that it only counts when its the other side.

My point was specifically about decorum in the press, but I suppose it applies to us bloggers as well. If you want to defend decorum you have to defend it honestly. The MSM isn't doing that. You aren't doing it either.

[Anthony D. Renli]

One portion of the problem is that most of the 24 hour “News” stations (ok – all of them with the exception of C-SPAN and The Weather Channel) at some point decided that they wanted to make massive amounts of money by drumming up viewership as opposed to reporting the news.

This has meant that that people who have no business being taken seriously as legitimate sources of news and information are. They have degenerated into opinion channels that have their primary goal set as make as much noise as possible while appealing to the lowest common denominator. There is no reason that Bill O’Reily, Glen Beck, Keith Oberman, Ed Schultz, or Lou Dobbs should be given a “serious” platform from which to pontificate.

You rail against the Main Stream Media. Glen Beck is (God help us) the Main Stream Media. Much like as of right now John Stewart and Steven Colbert are the Main Stream Media. This is not citizen journalism. This is slickly produced, big budget, that which today passes for “News.” The only difference is Colbert and Stewart admit that they are making jokes and unfairly picking on their victims.

Yes, they sometimes get a real story out before Print Media. In a large number of cases, this is because Print Media spends time confirming with multiple sources and fact checking. Sometimes it is because they drop the ball. Sometimes it is an editorial decision based on available column inches or what the editorial board judges as being actual “News.” To a certain extent, Glen Beck (or Rush Limbaugh, or Ed Schultz, or Keith Oberman) getting all worked up over some topic could make an editor decide that something is newsworthy. On the flip side, so much of what these people spout out is such unmitigated bullcrap, a large number of editors might be somewhat put off by devoting their limited resources to researching it.

[caheidelberger]

Hang on, Ken. I'm not of the impression that the press ignored Stark's remarks. The current coverage seems more a result of the fact that Wilson did it in front of a live national audience of several million people, while Stark's comments happened on the typical daily C-Span coverage. I'm not defending either; I'm just saying I can see why there's more buzz about Wilson when he used the megaphone of live national prime time coverage.

The school speech: I will maintain that the uproar over Obama's speech is more hysterical than the Dems' response to Bush's 1991 speech. Dem leaders argued that President Bush was using DOE funds to make a political ad. Today's socialism criers were arguing that President Obama was trying to indoctrinate the kids into Marxism. Neither argument would make much headway in a Congressional hearing, but the latter is a quantum leap above the former in indefensibility. Telling your kids to stay home and ignore the President does more practical harm to the Republic than a Congressional investigation of the use of federal funds (and did that investigation happen? did it find any there there?).

[KB]

Anthony: The MSM tried to spike the van Jones story just as they are currently spiking the Acorn story. Were it not for Glen Beck and/or the blogosphere, we never would have heard about either of these. It isn't journalistic care.

I found the AP story on Acorn at the Star Tribune site, but only after I did a search for it. It was buried without a lead anywhere on the website. A story about an organization that received tons of money in Federal Grants and that was, until very recently, involved in the census process, is something of national importance. That in several cases ACORN members gave advice on how to get federal money to open a brothel, there is no way that that's not a front page story. Except when Barack Obama is President and the organization in question is a very partisan backer of Democrats.

Cory: What is the grounds for reprimanding Joe Wilson? I thought it was the fact that calling the President a liar is against the rules. Well, then, why did Stark get away with it? The question is not whether Stark committed as great a breech of decorum, it is that both sides do it and if we care we ought to care in both cases. If you can find an example of any media outlet besides Fox or National Review that mentions Stark's remarks, it will be the first I have seen.

As for the two School speeches, the latter was trigger by some poorly chosen words in a White House guide. Some of the criticism was indeed over the top. But the Democrats attack on Bush 41's speech was also very irresponsible. I just don't see why telling your kids to stay home is worse than using Congressional powers for a manifestly partisan purpose.

[caheidelberger]

school: ...because telling your kids it's o.k. to skip school undermines the educational mission. (Of course, some folks kept their kids home so they could watch the President... now I'm confused! :-) ) Telling kids to ignore the President is inimical to democratic education. On the Congressional side, since when is it manifestly partisan to investigate whether federal funds have been used for partisan activity? If you'd like to have Senator Thune spearhead an investigation of DOE's expenditures on the speech and handouts, knock yourself out, I won't complain (much!). And practically, you haven't shown me that the 1991 Dems went anywhere with that investigation.

staying home to watch Obama: http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=24787

[KB]

Cory: I can hardly believe you are denying partisan motive in the 1991 opposition to Bush's school speech. Do you really believe the Democrats would have raised the same objections in the same circumstances if the President had been a Democrat? Are they raising any such objections now? Would Republicans not have raised similar objections then had Michael Dukakis been President? Would they be raising them now against John McCain? I never thought of you as naive, but it seems naive to suppose anything else. But maybe you are right. Maybe it okay if you're a Democrat, but not if you are a Republican.

As to keeping kids home from school for one day because someone objects to a speech, would a vehemently anti-war Democrat have been justified in keeping her child home on a day when Dubya addressed the nation's school children? I might not like her decision, but I wouldn't think it a matter of the basic mission of education. I would think it a matter of parental prerogative.

I think the objections to Obama's speech were mostly silly, and manifestly partisan. If wish, the current reaction is more extreme than that in 1991. But any fair minded evaluation would find the difference to be marginal.