BAD Reads
What's Wrong With A Liberal Press?
I was reading the Washington Post yesterday, and was struck by this paragraph about Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary:
Fleischer's book, "Taking Heat," is out today, and while his style isn't to smack people around, he is the first Bush administration insider to offer a sustained indictment of the media. White House correspondents, he says, are mostly liberal. Mostly negative. Mostly opposed to tax cuts. Mostly unwilling to give his president a break. Mostly interested in whipping up conflict.
Well, let's think about it:
We've got a conservative President, a conservative Congress and a pretty Conservative Supreme Court. That's not much of a balance of power.
Doesn't a so-called "liberal" press give a chance for another view? Doesn't that make things a bit more (you should pardon the expression) "fair and balanced"?
Ari, boychik, the press is NOT supposed to give ANY President a break. Their job is to hold the officeholder accountable for everything he says and does. They've done it to Democrats, and they've done it to Republicans!
The sort of press you envision is not a free press, merely an group of syncophants just telling the public how great their leaders are. Sort of what Saddam Hussein had, and Kim Il Jong, and Fidel Castro have, as examples.
And speaking of syncophants, how can a press that includes such liberal thinkers as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Robert Novak, etc, be CALLED a liberal press? For that matter, what about Fox News and their liberal policies?
Stop whining, Ari. And don't expect me to be queing up to read your book, though I'm sure that anything that came from the brain of a colleage of King George Bush must be a truly scholarly work of art......................
