« Should We Stay or Should We Go? | Main | Originalism »

June 24, 2005

With Apologies Like These...

At the risk of kicking off another unwinnable debate over the perceived slant of the media, I couldn't resist taking a look at Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley's response to the uproar generated by her claims that the U.S. military was deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq a la former CNN chief Eason Jordan. Glenn Reynolds says she has backed down. I'm not sure where he's seeing that.

Before I could even read Foley's response it was hard to miss the 'top story' listed in the right-hand column: Right-wing attack-dogs savage TNG president for comments on Iraq deaths. A good header, I think, that explains the situation without being inflammatory, right? After all, what could be inflammatory about right-wing attack-dogs? Most people are right-handed. Our national symbol, the bald eagle, has wings. Everyone loves dogs. OK, attack generally has some negative connotations, but for the most part that phrase has nothing at all that could be considered objectionable. Clearly claims of a liberal bias in the U.S. media are overblown.

But we're here to examine Foley's words, not those of her organization, so let's see what she has to say. Well, her opening sentence is as follows: "Note to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (or whatever you’re calling yourselves these days): I was just re-elected president of The Newspaper Guild-CWA, and I’m not resigning." In other words, her remarks have the backing of her union and they're not backing down. (Those remarks, btw, are available here.) She then turns her attention to those who really matter: the newspaper guild. I suppose it should be to her credit that she so freely admits that her guild is quite far-removed from the Right; normally the media swears up and down they're not biased.

The rest of her essay is little more than an attempt to justify her words without ever addressing the question at hand: what is her evidence that the U.S. military is deliberately targeting journalists, as she claims? (The companion essay neatly elides this issue as well.) But the piece de resistance is her final paragraph.

That’s why I hope Americans who actually care about democratic discourse and public debate will support independent, fact-based journalism and professional journalists who strive to practice it. Please refrain from attacking reporters who are trying to get to the truth. Focus instead on re-creating a media climate where a future Woodward & Bernstein can investigate abuse and speak truth to power without fear of government retribution or an orchestrated deluge of hate mail calling for their demise.

Foley isn't backing down on anything. She's just preaching to her choir to establish herself as a noble truth-teller, using an unsurprising reaction to a scurrilous accusation to create a self-aggrandizing myth about herself. I don't expect the Newspaper Guild to note this, because they're coming to the party with the same preconceptions she does. But those who claim the media is scrupulously balanced have one more data point to explain away.

Update: I am informed that several of my inferences regarding the Newspaper Guild are inaccurate and therefore invalidate parts of my conclusion. I will give more details once I'm sure I can do so accurately.