I must confess that I no longer have a clear understanding as to how many of our major newspapers operate.
It had been my assumption -- and you know what they say about assuming things -- that a large percentage of the employees at these papers were actual reporters who, in an ethical, professional, and totally unbiased manner, aggressively investigated stories, looked at all sides, followed the facts to their natural and honest conclusions and then wrote about their findings for their loyal readers.
That is what I thought. But now when I review The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal, I can find very little evidence, at least of political reporting.
It’s important to note that these five newspapers are not only the largest in the nation in terms of circulation, but also - leaving aside the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal - arguably the most liberal as well.
They are also still quite powerful in their ability to influence and direct the vast majority of the liberal mainstream media. Read something of consequence in one of these papers today and you will most likely see and hear it parroted by the three major network “news” outlets the next day.
These papers in fact still do some very good reporting. But when it comes to political reporting - especially if honestly following those facts to their natural conclusion will have a negative impact on the Democrat Party or the Obama White House - they seem shamefully compromised.
And they seem enthusiastically willing to not only carry water as needed for pet liberal causes, but to look the other way if that would also be of service to their ideological masters.
One case in point here is the ever-escalating Solyndra LLC government loan guarantee scandal threatening to root itself in the West Wing of the Obama White House.
With this scandal in mind, The New York Times just had a headline which read: “Republicans Suggest White House Rushed Solar Company’s Loans.” This story was in relation to the question of whether The White House purposely flushed and then tried to cover-up $500 million of taxpayer money going down the toilet as a way to fabricate “green” jobs for political gain.
I know it may sound crazy, but I have a suggestion for The New York Times. Instead of taking the word of the Obama White House, its energy department, or even the word of Republicans for that matter, why don’t you simply gather a team of your investigative journalists, remind them of their professional responsibility to be ethical, honest, and non-biased, and then unleash them to do some actual reporting for a change instead of insultingly regurgitating White House spin?
The same advice holds true for the other papers. Don’t they have any reporters? Are these “reporters” accepting a salary under false pretenses? Shouldn’t they do their job no matter which political party is in power or under the spotlight?
To be sure, if your name was George W. Bush or any other Republican or conservative politician, then these same reporters would not only investigate you since birth, but literally sift through your trash and that of your children to find any dirt they could use to damage you and your policies.
Others, like a certain disgraced former evening news anchor for CBS News, might go so far as to use forged documents to try and bring you down.
Beyond the Solyndra scandal enveloping the White House, these liberal reporters may also actually want to investigate the facts surrounding the under-funded and failing Social Security program. They may actually want to report on the damage Obamacare does to small businesses and in turn, the job market. They may actually want to investigate how and why greedy public-employee unions and their members are destroying the financial security of a growing number of cities, counties, and states.
In other words, they may want to reclaim some of their self-respect and not be the obedient lap-dogs for the far Left of the Democratic Party.
But, like the fiction of “green” jobs and a bursting-at-the-seams Social Security trust fund, this too will be yet another wish unfulfilled.
To bad, for us all.