Rather Slathers Blather

Read Bernie Goldberg's latest book for more information on media bias.

By Anthony Bialy

It’s a secret ballot. But yeah, Dan Rather voted for Barack Obama. Now, Walter Cronkite’s replacement wants something in return for having once again voted Democratic in 2008. Namely, he declared in a recent speech at the Aspen Institute that he expects the president to save the media that Dan helped ruin.

Rather wants to put the “free” in free press. That’s according to the Aspen Daily News story about his lecture: “The free press, as established by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ought to operate as a public trust, not solely as a money-making endeavor, Rather argued, and it’s time the government make an effort to ensure the survival of the free press.” The report included his non-profit-minded resolution: “’I personally encourage the president to establish a White House commission on public media.’” The good news is that he didn’t ask for a bailout of The New York Times, although we probably shouldn’t give him ideas.

Presumably, the commission would ensure that presidential candidate-maligning reports based on phony documents would be kept from the airwaves. Right, Dan? Aside from that, the problem from Rather’s perspective is that the type of journalism he admires is so good that people don’t watch or appreciate it. Therefore, he’s insisting that federal overlords intervene. We already have a media venue for people who think along such lines: it’s named NPR, and it’s despised by virtually every single person who involuntarily pays for it.

When it comes to transferring information, Dan doesn’t trust us. Of course, the feeling is mutual, but he still doesn’t have to be so condescending. It’s unfortunate that he’s unable or unwilling to admit that we’re smart enough to know that the First Amendment is self-regulating.

By and large, true nonsense eventually gets squeezed off the air or out of print; if it doesn’t, it’s our fault. We suffer when we wallow in sensationalism instead of merely dipping in it. But in the long run, we collectively have the best basic idea of what ideas are basically best.

As with every other industry, the most worthwhile options tend to prevail through the gloriously messy bazaar of competition. And, as with every other industry, involving the government even marginally is the surest path toward having fewer, lousier choices. That would be particularly unacceptable if applied to how we get information. It’s true that Rather’s career flourished when we were restricted to a limited broadcasting menu. But we shouldn’t revisit such horrid circumstances to satisfy his nostalgic cravings.

Besides, the imaginary panel is already useless. According to the story, “Such a commission on media reform, Rather said, ought to make recommendations on saving journalism jobs and creating new business models to keep news organizations alive.” That’s a nice way of saying the government should fix companies that broke themselves; just because it’s happening astonishingly frequently in recent times doesn’t make it a wise course of action.

In reality, any individual who’s abandoned the sinking forums could tell baffled news executives free of charge that they need to stop engaging in sycophantic worship of both a dangerously charismatic president and his insurrectionary policies. Next, the supervisors would be advised that they should begin offering a wide spectrum of opinions without pushing one in particular. Now fixed, media conglomerates can once again make money; thank the consumers.

Many newspapers and network update programs are hovering at comatose status. But that’s freedom of the press at work. The only outlets facing extinction as the media evolves are dinosaurs. For one, people no longer have to purchase a daily local rag whose coverage resides somewhere to the left of Pravda’s. Why would they when anyone with internet access can comparison shop for a dose of fair-minded news?

Plus, television viewers can find better coverage without leaving the couch. More channels means more anchors, which happily leads to less power concentrated at the Not-Really-Big-Anymore Three. Everyone has moved on to buying downloads; meanwhile, Rather is defending 8-tracks. And they weren’t even good 8-tracks in his case: Rather’s own work was on par with that of Terry Jacks or the Starland Vocal Band. His claims belong in the equivalent of a basement box destined to be dropped off at the Salvation Army.

Regrettably, Texas Dan’s greatest contribution to journalism came in the form of him ceasing to be a full-time journalist anymore. But he can offer more than addition by subtracting himself. Specifically, he could address viewers directly and encourage them to do things like turn off the news when, for example, a reporter details what materials were used in the construction of Michael Jackson’s coffin. He could also ask members of the public to write letters to editors and producers encouraging that time be spent on genuine news in lieu of the excruciating details regarding a weirdo pop star’s burial.

Urging the public to influence what gets covered would be a useful, if pompous, way to initiate a positive change. Unfortunately, Rather is alternately promoting federal meddling as the means to a solution. As with his lame journalistic efforts to slander every Republican president from Nixon forward, he just can’t stop thinking like a liberal.

The good news is that, if Obama establishes a boss-the-media council, it will work about as well as his schemes to fight the recession by running up debt, commietize health care, weasel the government into every aspect of the economy, stop the nonexistent spread of manmade global warming by crushing the production of everything, tax everyone into scarcity, and overpay people for their junky cars.

In other words, it’ll fail, which will in turn hasten the demise of the lousy media institutions Rather so self-righteously defends. As for the former news-yapper, it’s remarkable that someone who was such a deficient practitioner of his craft is running his mouth so freely about repairing said craft. He embodies precisely what was wrong with 20^th-century journalism. And it’s little wonder that he’s confused why practitioners with a similar mindset to his won’t last through the 21^st.

Most of us will continue to ignore those crummy newspapers or broadcasts that still feature leftward coverage. That includes when they respectively publish or transmit details of their own downfalls. But Dan shouldn’t worry: we’ll discover that the relics flunked out of existence either online or on Fox News. Naturally, we won’t really care, which will further dash his worldview. Getting to annoy Dan Rather will stand as just another great feature about the mercifully welcome ruin of ancient media.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dan Rather Wants Uncle Sam to Want to Save News (mediabistro.com)
• Publishers Profit for Wrong Reasons (newspaperdeathwatch.com)
• Cronkite remembered as honest broker of journalism (cbc.ca)
• Fox & Friends call shenanigans on Obama…for his beer choice?!? (tvsquad.com)
• Obama Joker Poster: Barack Obama Socialism Joker Picture (rightpundits.com)
• McCain to vote against Sotomayor (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• Dan Rather Calls For Commission On Media Reform (huffingtonpost.com)

Popularity: 1% [?]