I have recently written, with concern about the Libyan massacre cover-up, that the media are "in violation of journalistic ethics and standards." Charles Krauthammer writes, with more credibility than I have, that they commit "journalistic malpractice." The Washington Post's endorsement of Obama and two recent columns by Richard Cohen epitomize that phenomenon. Here is a letter I submitted today to The Daily Press, a Tribune paper.
In a recent column Richard Cohen asked, “could a worse candidate than Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain” have run for president? While not a supporter of either, I rebutted that Barrack Obama met that criterion. Cohen's column today (30 Oct.) might be interpreted as agreeing with my rebuttal, but ignoring it. He notes a litany of failures, disappointments and inadequacies of President Obama and strangely declares him “not in the mold of RFK.” However, Cohen “will vote for Obama,” his rationale being to “prevent Republicans from sacking government,” not because he reflexively supports the ideological left, even in failure.
Recently, The Washington Post ran a list of Obama failures similar to Cohen's. Not at all surprisingly, they endorsed Obama with justification no more persuasive than Cohen's, and dishonesty equal to his.
Such intellectual dishonesty is now all pervasive with most of the print media pundits and virtually all of the broadcast media – those with the most ink and the loudest megaphones with which to influence voters. I wrote recently that the media are guilty of “violation of journalistic ethics.” Charles Krauthammer calls their bias “journalistic malpractice.” So it is. How did it get this way? Is it not apparent to them that, while their influence is waning, they still influence enough people to keep us on the path to perdition if the Obama policies are maintained. Is this what they want? Where will they be if Obama transforms America according to his model? Chavez, Putin and the Castros have also endorsed Obama. Think about it!