One of my major criticisms of the corporate media, aside from their general tendency towards dumbing things down and "infotainment," is their skewed concept of "objective" journalism (no wonder why the corporate media is in a death spiral). According to Wikipedia, the "objective" style "emphasizes eyewitness accounts of events, corroboration of facts with multiple sources and 'balance.'"
Sounds good, right? Well, mayyyyybe, except that often "objective" journalism descends into an absurd, almost self-parodying concept of "balance," in which there are two equal sides and no hard truth on any issue.
For instance, on articles related to global warming, studies show that this ridiculous "'he said/she said' reporting" - whereby 99.99% of the scientific evidence that there IS anthropogenic global warming is "balanced" by the 0.01% of "evidence" against - "has allowed a small group of global warming skeptics to have their views greatly amplified." You can see this on many other issues as well, just open your daily newspaper today and if you look, I almost guarantee you'll find it. (by the way, I had a chance to talk with famed reporter Helen Thomas about this subject, and she was scathing in her criticism)
The latest example of what I'm talking about here appears in today's Washington Post editorial, "A Double Negative: Frank Wolf and Judy Feder trade barbs."
Now, admittedly, this is an editorial - an opinion piece - not "journalism" per se, but it's typical of the Washington Post's "fair and balanced"/"objective" style, in which each side is always half right and half wrong, even if "objectively" speaking that's far from the case. In this case, one side in the incident - the Wolf campaign - physically assaulted two video "trackers" from the other side in the incident - the Feder campaign. The former, of course, committed (at least potentially) criminal actions, whether or not the victims end of pressing charges (which is their right to do or not do, as they see fit). The "trackers'" behavior in this case may be have been obnoxious, pushy, whatever, but it certainly was NOT criminal or violent. "Caning" someone and pinning them against a wall IS criminal. This is not difficult.
As I've mentioned many times, George Allen's trackers were in Jim Webb's face - including asking him questions - almost constantly from the spring of 2006, and nobody ever hit them or assaulted them in any way. Also note that celebrities and public figures have reporters, cameramen, "trackers," etc. on them all the time these days. The celebrities and public figures can say "go away." They can order them off of private property. They can tell them to get lost. They can calmly answer their questions (what a concept!). Or, they can seek restraining orders if it gets to that point. But if they physically assault the reporters and/or cameramen, they're in big trouble, or at least they SHOULD be in big trouble. This isn't a difficult concept, it's the law.
Apparently, though, this concept is too difficult for the Washington Post editorial board to comprehend. Instead, in their infinite wisdom (not!), they charge "both Mr. Wolf and Ms. Feder" with "deceptive attacks." Even worse, the Post justifies the violence, repeating almost verbatim the Wolf camp's ridiculous talking point that "the Feder campaign staffers following Mr. Wolf peppered the congressman with questions for longer than what is shown in the original clip, provoking Mr. Dutton, a former Winchester City Council member."
Provoking? Again, for the sake of argument, let's just say that the Feder trackers were the most obnoxious "trackers" ever in the history of politics, planet Earth, whatever. I mean, let's postulate that they were worse than the trackers George Allen sicced on Jim Webb (anyone remember Hunter Pickels and his antics?), worse than the reporters screaming questions right in politicians' faces - with cameras and tape recorders rolling, inches away as well, etc. Even if that were the case, however, it still would not justify the Wolf campaign's violent actions against said "trackers." This is really not a difficult concept to understand, as I'm sure the Post could find out if it called a few attorneys, the police, or anyone who knows anything.
Now, I WILL give credit to the Post for criticizing their beloved "moderate Republican" (in quotes because Frank Wolf most certainly is not "moderate" on social issues, the environment, etc.) pal. Here's what the Post has to say about Frank Wolf's ridiculous, deceptive ads running against Judy Feder:
...a Wolf television spot broadcast widely in Northern Virginia asserts, "On tax increases for suburban families, Feder said, 'Tax me now.' " The quote is taken out of context. As the Northern Virginia Daily first reported, Ms. Feder's remarks came at a congressional hearing on entitlement spending in 2005. Ms. Feder, acknowledging that more revenue is needed to keep entitlement programs afloat, said, "So my plea is, tax me now. I can give now. It would reduce burdens on future generations." Mr. Wolf, who has proposed establishing a panel to examine entitlement spending, should know better than to attack Ms. Feder for her honest assessment of the parlous fiscal state of programs such as Medicare. As we've noted before, some combination of increased revenue and decreased spending is necessary to keep entitlement programs solvent.
Yes, Wolf SHOULD know better, not just in his absurd, over-the-top charges against Judy Feder, but also in his staff's violent behavior against Feder's staff. I wonder what the Post would have said if the roles had been reversed, if a Wolf "tracker" had tried to ask Judy Feder questions, and Feder staffers had hit them with a cane, pinned them against a wall, etc? Would they have responded at all, let alone with a false moral equivalency editorial as their "double negative" piece in this morning's paper? Hmmmmm....