More on the VNR story - part one
DragonFlyEye visited this morning to comment on yesterday's fake news story. Since he raises some legitimate questions, I've decided to elevate his comment to this post and address it here. First, his entire comment:
LB,
Due respect, but what about what's actually going on? You make a lot of critcisms about the left, myself included, for not being entirely accurate but you gloss over the entire issue of the legitimacy of the VNR's. Truth be told, this is actually a trend started by the Clinton and not the Bush Administration. I say that to forstall the inevitable "Clinton started it" rant. The fact is that they're out there and becoming more commonly used by the Administrative Branch; irrespective of what issue or policy they are being used to support, don't you think that the trend alone is worth fighting against?
Much of the media handling style of the Bush Adminstration is, in at least it's nuts-and-bolts and it's basic theory, a derivation on Clinton-era politics. Presidential politics are generally cumulative in this way. We can, therefore, make a strong case that the next presidential administration ~ be it Liberal, Conservative or whatever ~ will undoubtably employ these types of tactics if they are not squashed. President Bush has seen fit to use signing statements to go around the Constitution and around the Congress, what makes you think he won't go around an organ *of the adminsitrative branch* which he controls?
We almost certainly disagree on a wide swath of our politics, but surely you cannot be so cavalier about institutionalizing propaganda?
DragonFlyEye raises some issues that should be discussed, but first, to clarify, my original post on the VNR story in the Independent was not intended to raise those issues. The post was simply to cover a case of dishonest journalism and it's effect. I'll agree that I wasn't particularly nice to left blogs in general. DragonFlyEye was quoted simply for his contention that Fox was the leading abuser of VNRs when the report that prompted the investigation showed that ABC clearly deserved that title - if indeed, a title should be awarded, since even the Center for Media and Democracy were reluctant to opine on that issue as their sample size precluded such a determination. If my post appered to infer any other criticism of DragonFlyEye, it was unintentional.
Many of us on the right use the catchall BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) to describe the reflexive assignment of evil intent to the administration. "Bush lied" continues to be used widely by the left in spite of the evidence to the contrary and serves as the most famous example. While it applies to a lesser degree to the blogs I quoted - for example, claiming "Bush Investigated For Propaganda" when the story, as bad as it was, made it clear that was not the case, I saved the label for Hume's Ghost exclusively. He earned this because he made it clear in his post that he had performed sufficient research to know the truth yet still chose to portray the story as "the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration."
Surely there are examples of this kind of autoresponse on the right - ask any of us, I think most will freely admit it. Probably the best example is the reflexive claim of aiding the enemy that the right often hangs on the left. I've been guilty of that on occasion myself - it's unfortunate that we as humans can't more readily access the thoughts, passions, and motivations of others.
But I do see a distinct difference between various groups on the left. And it's not difficult to see a small faction that is so driven by their passions that they will go "scorched earth" on folks who least deserve it in order to make the administration look bad. Several very good examples immediately come to mind - Murtha's premature conviction of Marines at Haditha, folks leaking or printing certain classified items, for instance. There is a growing contingient on the left that applauds and encourages that harmful behavior and there's no doubt in my mind that this contingient is over-represented on the web. This makes makes such generalizations not only possible - they're awfully hard to resist.
Again, this isn't intended to be an indictment of DragonFlyEye, who seems genuinely interested in starting a dialog in which I'll engage in part two. I just think it's helpful to let all know where I'm coming from so the conversation isn't misunderstood.
Tomorrow, in part two - an honest discussion of the Bush administration's relationship with the press, and I'll answer DragonFlyEye's questions surrounding VNRs. Am I disturbed by them? Are they propaganda? Are they ethical? Are they legal? I may not please either side with my opinions.
