Media Bias in 2010: A Top 7
Dear Scott Brown: Well, we’re almost here, aren’t we? The end of a long, arduous, four-month campaign for a Senate seat that you have approximately the same chance of filling as you did the pilot’s chair of the Starship Enterprise. … [The] notion that Massachusetts would elect a Republican to fill the seat left vacant by Edward Kennedy was the property of people who buy interesting mushrooms in interesting places. You might as well expect the House of Windsor to be succeeded on the British throne by the Kardashian sisters. … I would like to make you the permanent Republican candidate for US senator. Seriously, you’re good at the job of being a candidate, and it’s going to be hard enough for your party to groom another state legislator every six years. Think about it. It beats working for a living.
~ Charles P. Pierce of the Boston Globe in a January 10, 2010 piece taunting Scott Brown about his all but inevitable upcoming Senatorial defeat.
I can’t think of a better way to kick off a retrospective on the media follies of 2010 than the Pierce’s remarkable prognostication above. Apart from the fact it obligingly occurred at the beginning of the year, it contains most if not all of the major characteristics of any good leftist offering:
- Not only is it wrong, it is completely wrong. It is – to paraphrase Evan Sayet – 180 degrees from right.
- This completely, utterly, obviously wrong analysis is delivered with blithe self-assurance and a sneer.
- It is ideologically driven and thus completely impervious to fact. (At the time Pierce was playing Taps for Brown, the two candidates were virtually neck and neck in the polls.)
- It contains no logical arguments, as we understand the term, but a series of unsupported assertions presented as fact. (In fairness, more ambitious pieces of the Left do attempt to simulate logic with sophistry and fallacy, but they arrive at more or less the same place.)
- Despite self-conscious attempts at wit there is no evidence of a functioning sense of humor. Attempted zingers are artless, predictable and clumsy, rather like watching someone trying to dance by following the numbered feet on the floor. The author’s obvious tin ear is only a partial explanation – it is impossible to be dogmatic and funny at the same time.
- It contains at least one cheap popular culture reference to prove the author is a regular guy.
- It contains at least one reference to a Left icon (or appropriated historical event like the Civil Rights Movement) as if its very invocation should reduce the reader to reverent silence and foreclose all further debate.
- It is infused with a sense of denial and unreality that evokes in all but the most doctrinaire readers rapid head-shaking and exclamations of “huh?” and “what?”
- Above all, it tells us much more about the author than his subject.
There probably was a time when the Charles Pierce's of this world would have been consigned to some dank corner of the microfiche library to write obits and wedding announcements for more or less their entire careers, but these days we give them Pulitzers.
And thereby hangs our tale.
As a result of growing reversals of fortune and the undeniable devolution of the talent pool (which is what you get when you allow the Left to hollow you out), the media has progressively dropped all pretense of objectivity and exposed themselves in ways that would have horrified the more sophisticated and accomplished obfuscators that preceded them. This is never been more evident than it was in 2010.
Accordingly, here is a list of some of last year's stories where the media dropped their masks and/or pants and revealed a great deal more about themselves than the subjects they were attacking.