There are statements journalists can make without need for attribution: The Allies beat the Axis in World War II. Federal spending is on the rise. Cornbread cooked to exquisite crispness in a cast-iron skillet and served scalding hot with butter is nature’s perfect food.
What news reporters aren’t supposed to do is take sides when there is serious public debate. They aren’t supposed to go around begging the question.
Of Barack Obama, The Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein writes, “He shows a fascination with science, an all-too deliberate decision-making demeanor, an adherence to logic … .”
Now, some of that is innocuous enough: The president may like science, and he does seem deliberative. But the “adherence to logic” thing is exactly the sort of assertion of fact that often leaves journalists ranked alongside door-to-door roof repairmen in the public’s mind.
Seth Borenstein may think Mr. Obama has a hearty respect for reason. You may share that view. But some people don’t and, to make their case, would cite everything from the president’s support for the failed stimulus to his weird attempt to act shocked that the raving pastor who was his spiritual leader for decades thought America deserved 9/11.
The point isn’t that Mr. Obama’s detractors are right and his supporters are wrong. The point is, there’s a nationwide debate and there are sharply divided polls on whether his actions make sense — whether they’re “logical.”
Not convinced? Try turning it around: Imagine a universe in which the AP said Ronald Reagan showed “an adherence to logic.” That’s different, you say, because you don’t think Reagan was logical. Great. You’re making the very point you challenge — that such matters are disputed.
When elite journalists beg those questions in the president’s favor — over and over — they oughtn’t to look about in surprise when large segments of the public just don’t believe what they say.
If it quacks like socialism …
“No he’s not.”
Ever notice how that is almost the sum total of the defense of the president against charges that he is moving America toward broad-based socialism?
Rather than bother to refute the evidence, his supporters launch ad hominem attacks. It’s as if outrage over the very idea of Obama the Redistributionist were itself a rational defense.
The administration’s and congressional Democrats’ seizure of control of banks and car companies and their attempted medical takeover do not faze Mr. Obama’s backers. Whatever that is, they declare, it’s not socialism, and that’s that. The denial is magically deemed proof.
So I ask those proponents of the administration: What precisely would the president and this Congress have to do before you would say, yes, that’s socialism? Must your fellow citizens be thrown in prison — as is proposed — for refusing to pay a fine in lieu of buying government-approved medical insurance? Will you then acknowledge that the president and some lawmakers are heeding the siren song of collectivism?
Seriously, what will it take?
Sonia!
I always thought it best for Supreme Court justices to be heard and not seen. So I refuse to read an article that came across the wire under the heading “Sotomayor adds celebrity to court.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor a celebrity? Really and for true?
It’s not enough that we’re surrounded by celebrities 24/7 on television and in movies, books and magazines, and that many of them generously go above and beyond the call of duty by not merely “entertaining” us but by telling us how to live. Now they’re deciding policy on abortion and eminent domain and interstate commerce and, well, everything.
Neat!