LauraIngraham.com eBlast 12/3/2004

Laura's Weekly E-Blast
http://www.LauraIngraham.com
December 3, 2004

WHY I WON'T MISS TOM BROKAW

So, are you holding up out there? Do you think you can drag yourself through the day? What do you mean you're okay? Don't you realize that NBC's Tom Brokaw has finally--really, officially, sort of, at least until his next Dateline report--left your living room? And are you really prepared for that day in the spring when CBS's Dan Rather will trot off to that unknown frequency? The networks and their buddies in the mainstream papers have been blubbering about these stories weeks. For Brokaw's departure we had a special before and after-his departure segments on the Today show. A whining New York Times column by Maureen Dowd (what other kind is there of late?) about too many white men in the anchor chairs. And then there were the interminable opinion pieces in the press about "what it all means." The sad truth is that for most media folk, the departure of Tom Brokaw is a bigger story than the departure of Colin Powell.

And that alone tells you everything you need to know about the bubble that is the mainstream press. Of course, after their humiliating performance during Election 2004, even most media types now realize that the good old days of the big three networks ruling the airwaves with an iron fist are over. Tom Shales, the TV critic for the Washington Post, concedes that "the whole idea of the anchor as a network's top gun and flag-bearer is looking shaky and frail, and perhaps irrelevant." Maureen Dowd couldn't even find any "feminist outrage" over the networks' failure to promote a female anchor because "the nightly news [is] an anachronism." Truly, as liberals used to enjoy saying, the times they are a-changin'.

However, before we say our final farewell to the mighty dinosaurs of the old media who brooded over our landscape for so long, let the record reflect -- once and for all time -- that their dominance was terrible for this country. Not because they were incompetent -- they weren't, most of the time, although they have certainly had some problems in recent years. (Did CBS ever discover the difference between a typewriter and Microsoft Word?) Not even because they were liberal -- although they were, and they found it harder and harder to hide their bias as conservatives gained more power in this country. But because in a democracy this large and this diverse, no group of people that small should ever wield so much power over the information we see and hear.

Consider the world of Broadcast News -- a world dominated by three networks and a few high-profile newspapers. Wherever you lived in America, whatever your political affiliation, whatever your ethnic or religious background, a few people in Manhattan, Washington, and Los Angeles effectively decided what news you would see and hear. What they considered important got rammed down your throat. What didn't matter to them you wouldn't hear about.

To understand what a distorted picture of the news we were getting, just consider the events of the past year. The allegations made by various Swift Boat Vets against John Kerry had a devastating effect on his campaign. They threw him off his message and distracted him for weeks. Indeed, his claim for war-hero status never recovered. But the mainstream press seriously covered these charges only after blogs and talk radio forced their hand. In the old days, most Americans never would have even heard about the Swifties, because the networks would have effectively shut them out.
On the other hand, consider CBS's alleged records relating to President Bush's National Guard service. If anything, this little episode helped President Bush, by convincing large numbers of voters that the media really were out to get him, and that they would do anything -- up to and including passing off forged documents as legitimate news -- to ensure his defeat. But once again, this story was broken by the New Media -- particularly the blogs. With a few notable exceptions, most of the mainstream press focused on the problems with CBS's documents only after the story was too big -- and too well-known -- to ignore. In the old days, President Bush might have been forced to spend vital days or weeks trying to explain documents that never should have been considered newsworthy.

Given the importance of these two issues -- and the closeness of the final result -- there can be little doubt that the New Media may have been the difference in this election. Of course, the New Media can be reckless and irresponsible -- just like the Old Media. But the Founding Fathers believed that in a country with a free press, the people would eventually figure out who was telling the truth. Unfortunately, for too many years in this country the press was not truly free -- it was dominated by a few prominent companies who effectively set the agenda for the entire nation. Now those days are over, and we have moved into a better world. Don't let any of the fuzzy stories or teary interviews you see make you wistful for the bad old days of the past. Enjoy the new freedom and power that you have gained.

Power to the people!