In the chummy corridors of the liberal media establishment, no self-satisfying myth is more prevalent than the notion that there are two types of national news networks. The first is FOX, the fiendishly opinionated, Roger-Ailes-manipulated Republican Party organ. The second is the non-Fox establishment, serenely gliding above the political fray on a magic carpet of nonpartisan open-mindedness.
The conventional "wisdom" further insists that in cable news, Fox is the feisty right-wing upstart, while CNN is the underappreciated grande dame of objectivity. But then something always seems to come along that bursts that silly bubble.
The June 18 edition of CNN's "Inside Politics" addressed Senate action to add a costly new prescription-drug subsidy to the Medicare program. Anchor Judy Woodruff interviewed ultraliberal Sen. Ted Kennedy on the bill, advertised as the largest expansion of Medicare benefits in the program's history. Now, a good, objective news anchor would play devil's advocate and hold Kennedy's feet to the fire, asking him challenging questions from the right. For example: How astronomically expensive would this new entitlement become when the baby-boom generation starts hitting the age of Medicare eligibility in the next decade?
That's not what Ms. Woodruff asked. Incredibly, she argued the bill wasn't liberal enough .
As they say, This ... is CNN.
Instead of inquiring about rising deficits and a mushrooming supply of Medicare beneficiaries, Woodruff worried out loud that this massive new program wasn't big enough. Even its supporters admit it will cost a whopping $400 billion over the next 10 years, and its detractors say it will be much more.
Woodruff explained her first question to Kennedy: "I began by asking him about his signing off on a plan that would leave some seniors with less drug coverage than they need and whether he undercut those seniors and some of his own Democratic allies." Ted Kennedy is hereby nominated by CNN as a senior-citizen sellout for not making a new entitlement 100 percent subsidized from the very beginning. The senator quickly defended himself by pointing out that he knew seniors would be spending $1.7 trillion on their prescriptions in the next decade. "We're only providing $400 billion. That's only 22 percent. I'd like to do much better." Of course he would, with our money.