THIS YEAR marked the death of the major media in America. And that's a good thing.
Op-ed columns can be prone to overstatement, but a quick look at the evidence shows the truth: The mask was ripped from the allegedly "neutral" major media players this year, and hip-hip-hooray.
For years--decades, really--the major newspapers, led by The New York Times, and nearly all of the television news networks, had protested when frequently charged with left-wing bias. Methinks the media doth protest too much--and so, apparently, does the rest of the country.
In 2004, bloggers--online, independent sources of information--became power-brokers. Two instances of this stand out, one involving the network news, the second involving the print media.
In the most infamous case, CBS News abandoned even the pretense of objectivity, and went after President Bush with both barrels. It aired (and stuck with) a clearly fabricated story about the president's military service, releasing the lie at a point calculated to inflict maximum damage to the Republican's campaign.
Because of the persistent questions raised by bloggers, however, the network's agenda became glaringly clear. Its bluff was called. It lost.
Bye-bye, Dan Rather. And good riddance--though we shouldn't expect the longtime slant at CBS to suddenly change.
A second, less-known blogger impact was in South Dakota. According to an article at opinion journal.com, South Dakota bloggers played a key role in the defeat of longtime obstructionist Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader. "South Dakota Republicans decided that the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, which dominates the state's media since it's the only paper with a statewide circulation, was hopelessly biased in favor of Mr. Daschle," writes observer John Fund.
So, a local history professor and his friends "collaborated on blogs that constantly reminded voters of contradictions between Mr. Daschle's voting record and his statements in South Dakota, as well as the Argus Leader's refusal to acknowledge them."
Bye-bye, Tom Daschle. And good riddance--though we shouldn't expect the longtime slant at the Argus Leader to suddenly change.
Bloggers have begun to do the media's job. Don't forget that on election night, bloggers of all political persuasions were more accurate than networks in predicting vote results. While the networks promoted exit polls taken in heavily Democratic areas, bloggers reported actual polling station results.
In 2004, the major media began to admit its state of bias toward Democrats. Surprised? Then you missed the column by New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent.
Is the nationally renowned paper a liberal publication? "Of course it is," Okrent confessed. "If you think the Times plays it down the middleyou've been reading the paper with your eyes closed." The paper's "watchdog" editor also added that he is "an admitted Democrat." Add this to a stream of books that expose media bias--including "Arrogance," a powerful work by veteran newsman Bernard Goldberg.
In 2004, several studies confirmed Okrent's confession of naked media bias. Their conclusion? The major media in America have essentially abandoned fairness as a precept, and become something of a shill for the Democratic party.
Think that's hyperbole? Consider this analysis of the presidential campaign, done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs:
"Democrats get the breaks," it notes. "In the past seven elections since 1980, the Democratic candidate has gotten significantly better press" in the majority of cases.
In October, the month before Election Day, Kerry received a "record-breaking 77 percent positive press" rating--compared to 34 percent for the president, the study said. A different study, conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said Bush had been "battered" by the press in October, with a staggeringly high 59 percent of the coverage "clearly negative."
What does all of this--the bloggers, the admissions by leading media figures of left-wing bias, the results of studies confirming the bias--bode for the future? Perhaps simply this: a new era for news consumers in America.
The liberal slant of the major media is difficult to question. But maybe it just doesn't matter anymore. In the modern world, The New York Times is irrelevant. The networks are irrelevant. In this era, Americans can turn to other sources--and, statistics show, indeed have begun to do so as biases became more pronounced. In 2004, the networks, together with liberal cable stations like CNN and MSNBC, all found themselves behind an 8-year-old upstart, Fox News, in viewer ratings.
Americans have begun to abandon big media's sinking ship.
Perhaps revealing the lie of "objective news" from the major media is a good thing. Abandoning the big boys could help connect Americans to their local newspapers--publications more in tune with actual communities. Abandoning false pretenses allows the major media to simply do as it will, without having to pretend.
In 2005, liberals can come to The New York Times or CBS as a source of comfort, perhaps--but not news.
DAVE SMALLEY is youth editor of The Free Lance-Star.