If there's one thing that was demonstrated by the media during the last presidential election season, it was that newly minted President Barack Obama could do no wrong.
Whether it was digressing on inquiries about his father's citizenship or deflecting questions regarding the length of his term in the Senate, the majority of news media outlets chose not to pursue these potential angles, instead they embraced the message of hope and change that Obama promised to bring. Well it seems like the change train is indeed rolling down the tracks, but likely not in the way that most people are anticipating. For the first time in the age of the Internet we have a president with overwhelming support from the media in a decidedly non-objective stance. You don't have to look far for the sort of aggrandizing I'm talking about -- this very paper said in a controversially constructed editorial that, "Now, new hope for the people came, But the president and his administration don't trust his name," obviously referring to our new president.
I am not saying that it's wrong for people to be placing hope in a public figure, much less a president; I'm saying it's wrong for a supposedly unbiased newspaper to be taking such a stance. I can type whatever I please into this column because there's room enough in the paper for fundamental liberals to counter my fundamentally conservative viewpoints. Take heart, however, that there's not just one paper clinging to the Kool Aid pitcher; news media all around the country are jumping to drink it up as well. I don't claim to be a seasoned journalist compared to the writers and editors at these papers, but unless I'm wrong, the core belief of a journalist in reporting is one of unbiased objectivity. My simple request is that the vast majority of media pay the same amount of scrutiny to the president entering office as they did to the president who threw us headlong into Iraq.
The real litmus test of objectivity, or rather demonstrated subjectivity in this case, was throughout the entirety of the Governor Blagojevich affair. I couldn't believe the sheer amount of leads that were being passed by media outlets in what seemed to be a thought-out attempt to put as much distance as possible between President Obama and the exposed corruption of the governor of Illinois.
In this case, it was enough for the connection of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's meetings with Blagojevich to be practically ignored by the above-mentioned outlets. Though I do commend the Obama transition team for being able to smooth over such kinks easily with the public, the newspapers should be deeply considering their standard of objectivity.
The president's transition team has also managed to play favorites with the media in the White House Press Room. Major news sources were handpicked to be included in press conferences, while others were excluded. On this note you have to wonder if the media would have let President Bush divvy them up in such a fashion -- the quick and easy answer is no. If our ex-president and his staff had tried anything of the sort it would've been more likely to run across the headlines of America as "Bush Attempts to Censor Voice of Journalism." Under President Obama, it's accepted under the shroud of the greater good.
Don't let me fool you into thinking that the exact phrase "greater good" would ever be used, however, as it's a politician's phrase and usually not indicative of actual good, in itself it tends to make college students like us have an instantly negative reaction. Was it for the greater good that we established democracy in Iraq, nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, grasped hold of what's left of our free-markets, or pumped another trillion dollars into them? Well the people making these decisions believe it to be so; however, it is our decision alone whether to support or decry the actions of politicians.
During this last week, we've seen President Obama transition admirably from a cult of personality to the primary occupant of the White House. What we continue to see is the rose-colored lens of the job that the news outlets continue to feed the public. What we have failed to see, however, is our media, supposedly representing the people, giving no-nonsense, straight news coverage.
I will provide one last example. When the president and his staff picked Carol Browner to head the Environmental Protection Agency, one detail that was notably missing in the description of her was her membership in Socialist International as a commissioner for a sustainable world society.
You probably didn't hear about this. I know I only got wind of it because I happened to see the headline on The Drudge Report.
Most people don't read The Drudge Report, and that's OK, but MSNBC, CBS and ABC should've at least run a story on this. Of course the general public didn't see or hear anything.
In the event that the media fails to inform the people and hold a presidential administration accountable, it then becomes the job of the people to inform themselves.