I enjoy ideological debates, but ideological wars I have no use for. It implies that someone's view of the world makes them a bad person. That I have no use for. I believe people should reject corruption at their core. To make an ideology something akin to evil is exactly the sort of corossive thinking that has infected our politics. Those that do it become heroes in certain quarters but in fact all they do is preach to the converted. So, this is exactly the sort of story that I believe is everything that's wrong with politics today.
In fact, just a few miles away and across the Potomac, in Alexandria, Va., one of the groups Clinton was talking about, the Media Research Center, founded in 1987 by L. Bent Brozell III, is engaged in a longer-running attack on the media from the right.
Shortly after launching Media Matters, founder David Brock said he hoped his group would some day be as influential as Bozell’s, and that day appears to have arrived. They have roughly the same budget ($10 million) and staff, and are equally adept at provoking the other side.
The MRC, as a rule, doesn’t comment on Media Matters. Conservative publisher Andrew Breitbart, though, has no such rule.. “I’m 100 percent at war with those people,” he recently told POLITICO.
This sort of thinking means that one side of the ideological aisle can do no right and the other can do no wrong. All these sorts of groups exist to do only two things: expose every flaw of their ideological opponents and hammer home why they are right. That's it. That's boring and it accomplishes nothing.
Breitbart, on who's site my work appears on occasion, has become a hero on the right. That's because he takes every opportunity to expose each and every corruption or mistake of the left. He gives the right a total pass. In fact, Big Government stipulates that you "don't go after your own". So, on such sites, stories are important because they fit into a proper ideological box. By that token, the folks at Media Matters are largely the same, only their targets are different.
Michelle Malkin, in talking about the Pentagon attacker made sure to mention that he's a registered Democrat.
www.Electorates.us has 180 million registered voter records available online (thanks to Anne Horrigan). Thirty-six-year-old John Patrick Bedell’s voter registration records in Hollister, CA are available for any journalist before he/she goes off and labels him a “right-wing extremist.”
Guess which party he registered under in 2005 and was actively registered under as of 2008?
How sad? A man shoots up a government building and what does Michelle Malkin think is important? What party the shooter belongs to. Meanwhile, Daily Kos is convinced that reconciliation is perfectly fine now even if it was an aversion to all things good when Bush used it for tax cuts.
The Founding Fathers realized when they structured this they wanted checks and balances. They didn't want things rushed through. They saw the parliamentary system. They knew it didn't work. So they set up the place, as George Washington described it, where you take the hot coffee out of the cup and you pour it into the saucer and you let it cool a little bit and you let people look at it and make sure it's done correctly. That's why we have the 60-vote situation over here in the Senate to require that things get full consideration.
Ah, yes. Because the Founding Fathers obviously didn't want a simple majority of the Senate to be able to ram through anything as unconstitutional and downright un-American as health care reform.
But passing a bill to permit drilling in Alaska? Well, that's obviously different.
Personally, I think a story is important if it's fascinating. That's a much better standard because that which fascinates someone is difficult to define beforehand. As such, any number of stories would then become important. If you engage in an ideological war however, the only thing that becomes important is that which makes your ideology good and your opponents bad. That is inherently a corrupt way to practice journalism. If hard core liberals think conservatives are the devil and vice versa, then one has to be wrong. Yet, both are equally sure it's the other. In such a case, it usually means both are wrong.