As a matter of politics, I think it is strategically and tactically brilliant?for the White House, Republican National Committee, NRCC, and NRSC?to be sending talking points to and coordinating with the various conservative radio talk show and conservative television show hosts, which we are getting specific reports about this election cycle (though insiders and sophisticated outsiders realize that this has been going on for awhile on both sides of the political aisle). President George W. Bush has reportedly held White House meetings for some of these conservative media types that are not listed on his public schedule and the administration has approved single day, en masse, on-site, select?broadcasts by conservative radio and television shows from?the White House lawn close to election day during the last few cycles as a sort of conservative media campaign day that GOP administration members and elected representatives have made themselves available to appear on. Some of these media hosts are now even doing fundraisers for various Republican candidates across the country, and it is becoming clear that those media hosts most willing to toe the GOP talking points line are the ones who are being granted interviews with top government officials that can bolster their shows’ ratings. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow is headlining fundraisers this election cycle, which is (as far as I know) unprecedented for someone in that position.
As a journalistic matter, however, I am not certain that this is a good idea,?no matter how?much it helps the Republican Party. My assumption is that radio and television show hosts should be honest about their political proclivities (which conservatives in such positions do a lot better than liberals from my experience), but should also maintain enough journalistic independence to call things as they see them regardless and resist the temptation to become partisan conduits for specific campaigns and parties. The last thing I personally want in a media host is for them to be a knee-jerk, subjective cheerleader for any particular ideology, even the one I espouse,?before they are an objective analyst. I think Republicans would be justifiably outraged if the Washington Post did fundraisers at their headquarters for Democrat candidates.
I could identify specific media names here, but I won’t. Suffice it to say I have been most impressed by those conservative media hosts who have declined invitations to sit down with other journalists in the presence of the President for these Republican?campaign klatches?out of fear that their journalistic independence would be compromised – and let us be clear that these are not traditional press briefings as much as they are ideological communications coordination efforts, which is why only select conservative journalists are invited and the meetings?never make the President’s published schedule.
Without a doubt, you cannot trust media outlets like the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or CNN?because they cannot come close to being objective. But is the answer to divide up the Fourth Estate into an ideological civil war of battle stations right and left such that conservative radio and television hosts cannot come close to being objective either? How can?you trust the conservative media host for information and analysis who rarely has a criticism of the Republican Party, a Republican administration, or a Republican congress? Yeah, it happens on the other side as well, as the hatchet jobs CNN has done broadcasting tape?provided them by?insurgents of snipers?shooting United States soliders in Iraq and setting up Lynn Cheney for a surprise attack interview by Wolf Blitzer are the most recent? examples?of, but I have a vested interest in trying to fix my side first and think my side should be better and take the lead in any event.
I am all for partisanship because I think debate is the best way to communicate and clarify ideas and policies. I have always disagreed with those who claim that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties; I think saying such is just an excuse for political laziness and frustration. But for the sake of civility and objectivity there are components of the system that have to remain above the political fray.
Our system of government has traditionally relied on an independent judiciary, which is constitutionally mandated and protected, and media for reasons which are as efficacious as they are obvious. In a political environment where everything is becoming partisan, I think we are coming dangerously close to abandoning the latter, which is protected only by tradition and the marketplace. And if that happens, it won’t be surprising that the former will experience even more deterioration than we have seen since the Bork confirmation hearings, at which point everything related to public service and mass communication will be?effectively associated as an?advocate for one side or the other. And when that happens I think both sides and all of us will have lost.
I think this relates to the theme of this site because 2008 may be – and, again, this could well be more a matter of hope on my part than belief – a time when voters actually do reward candidates and campaigns that are different and put the health of the system above selfish ambition, and run in such a way that they can govern afterwards and avoid triumphing over the remains of a scorched earth.
