|
from his book, "What Happened-Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception", Copyright 2008 Scott McClellan, PublicAffairs a division of Perseus books.
p. 157
In this case, the "liberal media" didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served,
I'll even go a step further. I'm inclined to believe that a liberal-oriented media in the United States should be viewed as a good thing. When I look back at the last several presidential administrations-the two Bushes, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford-I see a succession of conservative/centrist leaders, either right of center or just left of center, who pursued mainstream policies, designed to satisfy the vast bulk of middle-class American voters. All of these presidents were at least moderate on economic policy, generally pro-business in their orientation, and within the mainstream on most other issues, from foreign policy to education to the environment. And the congressional leaders they worked with were, generally speaking, from the same mold-conservative or centrist. Over the past forty years, there have been no flaming liberals in positions of greatest power in American politics.
Under these circumstances, a generally liberal or left-leaning media can serve an important, useful role. It can stand up for the interests of the people and causes that get short shrift from conservative or mainstream politicians: racial and ethnic minorities, women, working people, the poor, the disenfranchised. As the old saying goes, a liberal reporter ought to take up the cause of "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable," speaking out on issues that otherwise would be neglected or ignored, exposing wrongdoing, and helping to keep the powerful in government and business honest.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
