Ed Henry, and MSM, Disconnected
Rudy Carerra thinks I “clobbered” CNN’s Ed Henry last night. (The transcript is here, and I will replay the interview today in the first, and maybe the second hour.)
I think Henry clobbered himnself, and for the same reason that sad, old Michael Hiltzik did, and many other MSM lefties: They will not, under any circumstances, answer questions about their own political views or their votes.
This is a box canyon for MSM, and one which the allegedly “objective” reporters hate to enter because they know, going in, there’s no way out. If they admit to voting for Bush, they will be mocked or scorened by their elite media pals who are overwhelmingly on the left and the way left. If they say Kerry, the public gets a marker that matters. if they refuse to answer, they appear like Henry or Hiltzik to be shifty and untrustworthy about a question most Americans presume to be fair and easy to answer, and about which most political Americans are very open –bumper stickers and yard signs and online registries of campaign contributions etc.
But MSM refuses to talk about its collective and deep problem of deep, numerical imbalance in its ranks between left-wingers and everyone else.
This imbalance forces MSM types to cover their ears and hum, pretending not to hear the quetion or not to see the problem.
Why does Henry refuse to answer a question about the obvious imbalance on a show hosted by Bill Maher and featuring George Mitchell, David gergen and David Dreier discussing the Alito hearings?
Why not admit that crazy old Jack Cafferty is not just reflexively left but incoherently so?
Because they think this gives the game away?
In fact the denial is far more damning, an indictment not jts of the ideology of the mother ship and the news business generally, but, crucially, of their own untrustworthiness as a reporter.
If a reporter cannot see obvious things or will not comment on the most glaring of facts, how can they be trusted to get any story right?
If they won’t be candid about uncomfortable subjects, why should anyone trust their candor on any subject?
Mr. Henry hadn’t read key cases, didn’t report on key issues such as Teddy’s embrace of a parody as a serious article, didn’t want to judge any charge/counter-charge.
It appears as though he thinks he’s sort of a play-by-play announcer who doesn’t have an opinion of the game underway.
But every great play-by-play announcer does in fact have opinions –thousands of them, in fact, on the judgment and skills of every man or woman on the field. They don’t obviously root for an outcome, but they are experts on the actual events unfolding.
MSM is rooting, for the left, and the public knows it. It refuses to report or opine much of anything that might detract from their hoped for result. Whether incompetence or ideology is the main factor doesn’t matter so much as they undeniable reality that both are at work.
MSM won’t recover its credibility until it adds both the reality of expertise and transparency of belief to a rigorous balancing of viewpoint, and not just in guest selection, but in the populating of its newsroom’s producers and talent.
If you have a reaction to the Henry interview, send it to me and I’ll link here.