6/14/2008 07:37:00 AM
As Fair as it Got
Tim Russert, 58
Obviously, reporters are used to being labeled 'unfair.' Some of these allegations are accurate, but frequently they're without substantiation. Often little more than rallying cries pundits wield against legitimate reporting. Partisans unable to offer logical criticisms of a journalist's work will typically defer to the tired old "liberal bias" or "media whore" labels.
The most common of these is the "bias" tactic; the right owns this one. Characterized by a selective recollection of the reporter's work, it usually falls apart once fleshed out logically (Bernard Goldberg's [confirmation] Bias is the Rosetta Stone of selective-memory-as-'science'). Most on the right never seem to mind the pseudoscientific nature of their favorite complaint. Then again, most accept the story of Noah's Ark, Lott's wife, and the rest of the Bible's mythology as literally true.
Recently these accusations have arisen from the left, as well. However, due to the difference in thought patterns, these manifest themselves as allegations of corporate sell-outism. I.e. a journalist being 'unfair,' to a liberal, is a "media whore" -- the implication being he or she has traded principles for a fat, corporate news salary. Often, as in the case of Dick Morris, it's an accurate description. But in some instances the characterization stems from critics' fundamental inability to discern between reporting and editorializing.
Mr. Russert caught it from both ends. Those on the right unable to find a hole in Russert's work would pull out the "liberal bias" card; those on the left who confused his reporting with editorializing loved to call him a "media whore."
In reality, however, he was neither. Tim Russert was as fair as it got.
..!..
Tim Russert, 58
Obviously, reporters are used to being labeled 'unfair.' Some of these allegations are accurate, but frequently they're without substantiation. Often little more than rallying cries pundits wield against legitimate reporting. Partisans unable to offer logical criticisms of a journalist's work will typically defer to the tired old "liberal bias" or "media whore" labels.
The most common of these is the "bias" tactic; the right owns this one. Characterized by a selective recollection of the reporter's work, it usually falls apart once fleshed out logically (Bernard Goldberg's [confirmation] Bias is the Rosetta Stone of selective-memory-as-'science'). Most on the right never seem to mind the pseudoscientific nature of their favorite complaint. Then again, most accept the story of Noah's Ark, Lott's wife, and the rest of the Bible's mythology as literally true.
Recently these accusations have arisen from the left, as well. However, due to the difference in thought patterns, these manifest themselves as allegations of corporate sell-outism. I.e. a journalist being 'unfair,' to a liberal, is a "media whore" -- the implication being he or she has traded principles for a fat, corporate news salary. Often, as in the case of Dick Morris, it's an accurate description. But in some instances the characterization stems from critics' fundamental inability to discern between reporting and editorializing.
Mr. Russert caught it from both ends. Those on the right unable to find a hole in Russert's work would pull out the "liberal bias" card; those on the left who confused his reporting with editorializing loved to call him a "media whore."
In reality, however, he was neither. Tim Russert was as fair as it got.
..!..
