Lack of Transparency, or Lack of Evidence?!

Carol Platt Liebau

6/13/2013 8:12:17 AM - Carol Platt Liebau

In this WaPo story about the "incest" between Obama administration officials and the news media, there are two unintentionally amusing paragraphs:

["Media types"] take exception to the notion that complicated judgments about the news — often made by others within an organization — have anything to do with personal favoritism or familial relationships. The critics, they say, can’t point to any direct evidence that such relationships have affected the amount or tone of their news coverage.

“There is zero evidence, zero, that [ABC President Ben Sherwood’s relationship to sister Elizabeth Sherwood, an Obama national security official] has had any impact on our coverage,” says Jeffrey Schneider, ABC News’s chief spokesman.

Ah, indeed -- in much the same way that there is at present "zero evidence, zero" that NSA programs have improperly intruded on Americans' privacy.  In other words, maybe so, maybe not -- the lack of "direct evidence" doesn't necessarily mean that no evidence exists; rather, no one can make allegations with specificity because there is a decided lack of transparency about the operations and judgments of the way both outfits work.

When it comes to national security, there's a justification for the secrecy.  For the media, not so much.  And if you look at the "disparate impact" between the way Democrat scandals and Republican scandals are covered, that alone would be enough to infer that there is some signficant bias somewhere in the media process.