Perhaps a part of the CBS team felt like moving out from beneath the Bush Administration media access shadow. The term "liberal media" has been batted around forever, but in the last four years, the Bush team has been most effective in changing media from objective or even liberal reporting, to reporting the story the Bush Administration wants published. The liberal media are out there, but they are no longer the lone crusader with "the scoop."
Nowadays, If the news organizations broadcast a story that's at all critical of the Bush administration, they lose access to the White House press corps (under the guise of helping the enemy, or being unfairly critical of a wartime president). That can conceivably breed a lot of resentment by the media as they see their industry change from being independent and objective to being market-driven with the advent of cable. Take an Administration, or political party for that matter, that further constrains their ability to get the story, and you have a media that lays on its back as they're told what to report and what to downplay.
So, perhaps CBS felt an obligation or desire to level the playing field somewhat. After all, with the GOP monopoly in government, the anti-Kerry message has been given more airplay, reinforced with the constant repetition of misleading sound bites, and commentary that plays into the GOP message.
Kerry [voting for the $87 Billion war funding package before voting against] is a classic example of how the media have given the teleprompter joystick over to GOP operatives. It's pretty clear by those who are interested enough in getting the real story that Kerry voted for the funding package that made the most fiscal sense and that was most beneficial to the U.S. Likewise, it is as obvious that the bill passed by the GOP led majority was short-sighted and fiscally irresponsible. How fortunate that in an election year, Americans can be given information on who voted what, rather than information on exactly what this expensive bill contained.
John Kerry's Vietnam service was rightly or wrongly given a lot of emphasis during the Democratic Convention. It was, after all, one of the main reasons he was trotted out by the Democrats as an answer to Bush's National Security image. John Kerry has talked very little about his Vietnam service and focused more on policy issues since. The SwiftVET campaign forced him to talk about it again, but it's very clear to a lot of people that John Kerry would rather talk about this year and not what happened 30 years ago. But that isn't the message that gets out.
We hear it time and again that John Kerry is making his Vietnam service of 30 years ago part of this campaign. The truth is, by intention, he is not. John Kerry's problem or virtue is that he was a public figure 30 years ago. He made an impression and was a political force back then. How can his involvement in the Vietnam war not be an issue that is remembered, revered, reviled, whatever? It is part of this public man's history. But to say that he's trying to promote the relevance of his Vietnam experience is not accurate at all. It follows him whether he chooses to promote it or not.
What is more amazing and frustrating is that any reporting or stories that are now critical of Bush in the run up to election are always accused of being motivated by partisan politics. Kerry has resisted attacking Bush's TANG service, because he knows very well that it is counter-productive and frankly, beneath him. I think most people agree that it isn't consequential. But that doesn't matter. Any anti-Bush message, whether reported or spoken in sound bites is part of a smear campaign by the Democrats. In other words, if we hear of any news that isn't favorable to Bush, it will almost certainly be attributed to the Kerry campaign.
Perhaps CBS, or more specifically Dan Rather, tired of it all, like the rest of us, decided to stick a thorn in the foot of the Bush campaign if for nothing else than to repay a little aggravation.
No comments:
Post a Comment