EYES AND EARS OF THEMSELVES

Journalists love to boast that they're the "eyes and ears" of the public.  They are not, as I found out in my years in the business.  They are the eyes and ears of themselves.  No one elected them.  They were not appointed by a body of our representatives to extend our eyes and ears.  The questions they ask are not ours, but theirs.  Their views, as a profession, decidedly do not reflect the divisions in public opinion.

Lawrence Spivak, who co-founded "Meet the Press," used to caution viewers that the questions asked by reporters on the show did not necessarily reflect their point of view, but was "their way of getting a story for you."  Such cautions are rare today, and in too many cases would probably be laughable. 

So it's not surprising to see the mainstream media go to work on Sarah Palin.  Consider this, from the reliably liberal Jonathan Alter of Newsweek:

Reporters are already winging their way to Alaska to probe what Alaskans call "Wootengate," the story of the dismissal of former Public Safety commissioner Walt Monegan, who says he was pressured to dismiss state trooper Mike Wooten. Wooten was engaged in a nasty custody fight with his ex-wife, who is Palin's sister. As soon as Palin was selected, the Web was already buzzing with Monegan's claims that Palin is lying about her role in the personnel matter. And the beautifully named Steve Branchflower, the special counsel appointed by the state legislature to probe the mess, has opened a tip line for Alaskans who might know if the governor and possible vice president of the United States abused her power.

What strikes me is the obvious enthusiasm here.  The same mainstream media that ignored for months, or years, serious questions about Barack Obama, cannot wait to jump on Sarah Palin.  And when Joe Biden was selected as Obama's vice-presidential choice last week, did you see a single probing report on his foreign-policy judgment in his 36 years in the Senate?  We were told he was a foreign-policy expert, and it was left at that. In fact, many of Biden's judgments are open to the most serious questions, but those questions are not being asked.  Indeed, if Biden's advice had been followed, the Cold War would still be raging and Saddam Hussein would be running Kuwait.

Or consider this, from today's editorial in The New York Times:

Governor Palin’s lack of experience, especially in national security and foreign affairs, raises immediate questions about how prepared she is to potentially succeed to the presidency. That really is the only criteria for judging a candidate for vice president.

Is that a serious statement?  Has The Times raised the same question about the top of the Democratic ticket, one Barack Obama?  His experience consists of some trips and some offhand remarks, such as declaring Iran a small country, or pledging to end missile defense.  And he won't have to "succeed" to the presidency.  If elected, he'll be there.  Further, he's surrounded himself with some of the worst foreign-policy retreads we've seen in decades.  Comment from The Times, please?  (Oh, and by the way, New York Times, the word is "criterion" when a singular is called for, not "criteria."  To avoid confusion, use "standard.")

We've expressed our fear here that the media can elect Barack Obama by the way it filters the news.  We're seeing more proof of that threat in the initial response to Sarah Palin.

August 30, 2008.