Bill Clinton Expects That "Establishment Old Media Organizations Are De Facto Allies"

Bill Clinton joins in the media-bias debate, by way of the old-media WaPo:

...[Bill Clinton] said Democrats of his generation tend to be naive about new media realities. There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies -- and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses.

"We're all that way, and I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate," Clinton said. "Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."

"Almost" unrealistic.

Let's flash back to former Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent's column about whether he worked at a liberal newspaper:

THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT

OF course it is.

...it's one thing to make the paper's pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn't have to be intentional.

The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine (''Toward a More Perfect Union,'' by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that ''For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy'' (March 19); that the family of ''Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home'' (Jan. 12) is a new archetype; and that ''Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes'' (Jan. 30). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.

Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial.

This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn't appeared. Apart from one excursion into the legal ramifications of custody battles (''Split Gay Couples Face Custody Hurdles,'' by Adam Liptak and Pam Belluck, March 24), potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.

The San Francisco Chronicle runs an uninflected article about Congressional testimony from a Stanford scholar making the case that gay marriage in the Netherlands has had a deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. The Boston Globe explores the potential impact of same-sex marriage on tax revenues, and the paucity of reliable research on child-rearing in gay families. But in The Times, I have learned next to nothing about these issues, nor about partner abuse in the gay community, about any social difficulties that might be encountered by children of gay couples or about divorce rates (or causes, or consequences) among the 7,000 couples legally joined in Vermont since civil union was established there four years ago.

On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times's readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper's heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast.

Or we could pick a different topic, since the WaPo article mentions the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry.  I believe that any review of the Times coverage of Kerry's Vietnam service and the Swift Boat accusations would conclude that the Times coverage was scant, ill-informed, and slanted towards John Kerry.

Well, enough Times-bashing (for now!).  It's nice to see Wild Bill acknowledge his expectations about the role of the old media in promoting the Dem agenda.

Comments

[Bob]

"We're all that way, and I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate," Clinton said. "Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."

I love the way he use the term "WE" and "US"... once again the arrogance of the left to think we all thought the same way.

[sad]

"Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."

The key word is "almost." He still expects the MSM to carry his water as evidenced by his purple raging against Chris Wallace and Fox News.

[sad]

/b> sorry

[sad]

thanks rick

[maryrose]

AS If? The day I ever have anything in common with Hil and Bill is the day I've been mind-rayed. No Bill, we don't all remember it that way because unlike you a known draft -dodger with my brother serving in Vietnam I was actually rooting for victory back then.

[sad]

Maryrose,

Let's not forget that Bill had a personal stake in Vietnam being declared an "imoral and wrong" war. He was driven to achieve the presidency since a very young age yet took steps to avoid serving in Vietnam which he knew was not a politically fortuitous position. His actions were more easily justified in his own mind when Vietnam became a "quagmire" in the MSM's reporting.

[sad]

Clinton also has raised himself to "hero" in his own mind by claiming to be the generation that brought an end to "an immoral and unjust" war. Note how many of the lefties cling to this "heroism" personally.

[Jacko]

Daniel Okrent's major premise is horse hockey; that the NYT and most other papers are one-sided because it's so difficult to take off one's rose-colored glasses. His implication is that in a fit of zen inspired excellence in journalism they'll all become more balanced, if only we present them the right case.

Stop feeding me crap. The MSM and a significant portion of the intelligentsia long ago got caught up in a relativist / truth to power / Marxist mindset. Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, Watergate etc. all reinforced a class consciousness and conspiratorial prejudice that paved a road they were already on.

They don't detail a libertarian or capitalist or individualist or minimialist view because they don't want to. They think those views are wrong, prejudiced, immoral and at least outdated. This fall election is proof of it. As the new media voices get louder for conservatism, the MSM must get harsher. The gloves are already off. In a couple of years, they'll be saying it.

Conservatives don't realize the meaning of many of their own thoughts and words; it's a cultural war, and the left will do anything to win. There has never been any question on who's side the MSM is on; they're driving the bus!

Articles like this irk me. Okrent is either unbelievably naive, silly, too civil for his own good, or just plain daft.

[SaveFarris]

To be fair, Okrent's column was over 2 years ago, so it's not like he's describing what's happening NOW.

[fdcol63]

Liberal bias in the MSM?

Oh, nooooooo! There is NO such thing, as they've consistently told us.

LOL

[maryrose]

My dad told me years ago about liberal bias in the media. Since then I've wised up and don't believe the flat out lies and untruths promulgated by the major network channels or MSNBC or CNN. Happy 10th anniversary Fox News the only station that presents both sides of an issue.
OT:
Will someone please tell Bill Clinton to be quiet. I have no interest in what he says or thinks. His 15 minutes are up only no one has the guts to tell him because he might throw another tantrum and no one wants to be on the receiving end of that. He might poke you.

[Garnish]

What the NYTimes, WashPost, LATimes, AbcNbcCbsCnnMsNbcBlaBla have been producing lately is propaganda, pure and simple. Slick, professional, gloriously produced propaganda.

What's more... they damn well know it. They consciously slant their news stories as a part of a sustained effort to mislead their customers. This is intended to control the world-view of their audience.

What does this have to do with "journalism?" Absolutely nothing. What does it have to do with political hackery? Absolutely everything.

[Mark in Texas]

But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading.

No, Dan. I moved past "disappointment" years ago. I am now firmly into "I don't believe anything you say anymore" territory.

If we go by the Walter Duranty Pulitzer Prize still proudly on display, the Times has never been any more honest than it is now.

[maryrose]

Garnish;
You are absolutely correct in your assessment.

[MJW]

One thing I observed over the years is that if one side makes an accusation against the other, the mainstream media will jump in to investigate. The difference is, if the accusation is against a Republican, they'll investigate the accused, while if it's against a Democrat, they'll investigate the accuser.

[NBNL]

Maryrose,

One wonders whether you'd call the current President or Vice President a "draft dodger" for their less-than-stellar personal record during the Vietnam Conflict. Perhaps you could explain why VP Cheney had "other priorities" that explained his five Vietnam draft deferments?

I commend your brother's br

[NBNL]

Oops-

I commend your brother's bravery in fighting in Vietnam, but singling out Clinton for "draft dodging" is pretty unfair.

[buzz]

Well, I guess for one thing Bush was in the NG, and for another the VP was a young father with a bunch of kids when he got the deferments. Most importantly, neither ran off to a foreign country and bad mouthed this country.