The View from the Middle
I feel it is my responsibility to point out when our politicians actually slip and tell the truth, so that you can see how much the relationship between them and the media has disintegrated. Yesterday, a friendly reporter asked why Nancy and her minions were having a hard time peddling their $3.5 Trillion Break the Country’s Back bill. Nancy’s response revealed the inappropriate relationship that has developed over the last 50 years in this country between the mainstream media and the Democrat Party.
Again, when asked why she was having such trouble, Nancy actually shot back this comment, “Well, I think you (the media) all could do a better job of selling it, to be very frank with you.” It’s amazing to me that the reporter didn’t fire back that “selling her legislation” was not the job of the media. In fact, it should be argued that the media’s job is to be a cynical skeptic of our government, no matter which party holds office, and to hold them accountable.
Other definitions of the responsibility of The Fourth Estate (the media) would include “the guardian of veritas (truth)”. Another widely accepted function of the print and electronic media is to, “act as a counterbalance, a systemically opposite force that is to report, verify and question matters of governance.” The media has an obligation to be neutral, objective and critical as it performs its job of gathering and disseminating the news to us, the public.
One of the best explanations of the 4th Estate’s responsibility said this, “We rely on the press to record, investigate, interpret and publish facts truthfully and without bias. We have to be able to trust our journalists. If they fail, we fail.” And they are failing. A recent Gallup poll shows that the overall trust of our media has fallen from 72% in 1972 to only 36% today, and only 7% of Americans have a “great deal” of trust in the mass media.
But no matter how hard I searched, I could not find a definition of the media that even hinted that the they should be involved in “SELLING” any legislation or even any particular political ideology. Nancy Pelosi’s statement just demonstrates either her total lack of understanding of the role of our 4th Estate or her utter disdain for the fundamental principles of that institution. And the lack of a follow up question or statement by that reporter suggests the same lack of awareness from her. Nancy’s suggestion should shock and even frighten all of us, no matter what your party affiliation is. Nancy, you’re in your 80’s. You are obviously losing your mental faculties as well as your moral compass. It’s time for you to go. Do the right thing for the country and term limit yourself.
1. You should quit calling every statement you don't like by an elderly person evidence of their mental faculties slipping.
ReplyDelete2. After years of attacks, including very personal ones like making fun of a reporter with a disability, and walking the line on inciting violence against the media by Trump with you saying little other than excusing his conduct, this is somewhat of a humorous criticism.
Way to miss the point of the article.
DeleteDidn't miss it at all. It was usual MSM GOP bs. Effective marketing for them, but old news, whether you believe it's fake or not. If people buy into it, you're not going to change their minds. Like trying to talk someone out of believing this Q nonsense.
DeleteMatt,
DeleteActually, I agree with Michael, and since I wrote the article that should mean something. The point is that them lame stream / mainstream media has abdicated their true role in our society as unbiased purveyors of truth and a skeptic of government and now are just a marketing wing of the Democrat party. Nancy is just saying it out loud.
The fact that you're using the term "lamestream" or even "mainstream" tells me that you're not going to like anything that doesn't agree with you. Under any definition of "mainstream" Fox News qualifies. More people get their news from social media today than traditional media, so how is that still "mainstream."
DeleteThe phrase had a good run, and it certainly worked to separate people from reality or even opposing views, but changing information consumption habits are going to make it obsolete.
"Unbiased purveyors of truth." Tell me, when was this magical age when all people agreed that (pick a media source) was an "unbiased purveyor of truth"?
Matt why do you contstantly defend liberal politicians peddling awful legislation? If you are a true libertarian as stated previously the 3.5 trillion bill should make you cringe.
ReplyDeleteWhat is awful about this legislation? It's about half our defense spending, which is dripping with waste.
DeleteThis money will be spent, and there is no party that opposes it. So I'd just as soon it be spent improving American lives.
If you have a party or politician I should support that doesn't believe in big spending and growing the deficit (based on their record, not their rhetoric) please let me know.
DeleteAbout the only party I can find close to my views is the American Solidarity Party.
arkansascpa, the other thing that I can't escape right now, and really no one can if they're honest with themselves, is that "liberal" politicians is all we have. There are no "conservatives" in the Reagan sense. There are the Democrats, big spending liberals who for the most part believe in democracy and the Republicans, big spending liberals who for the most part don't believe in democracy and would undermine it for more power.
DeleteGiven those two choices, I choose democracy. Hopefully the efforts to create a third party out of those conservatives who still believe in the US Constitution will bear fruit, but as of now, it's the party of Trump.