"I think that the press will choose the president this year; I hope that they have chosen wisely," Northwestern University law professor Jim Lindgren emails University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds:
If one were just watching the network news, one would think that Bush was the one with the honesty problem. Why doesn't the press just cover the stories on both sides and let the voters decide whom to vote for? Frankly, I find the press bias this year pretty frightening, not because Kerry as president will be so terrible (I doubt that he will be), but for what it says about the future of democracy in a world where traditional media still dominate public discourse. Kerry would not stand a chance if the press bias were reversed.
"Evan Thomas famously told us that the press wants Kerry to win," notes Professor Reynolds, quoting Newsweek's unabashed assistant managing editor:
They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.
"That's enough to swing almost any presidential election, and -- if it's right -- it raises the question of whether we can have an established press, and democracy, at the same time," notes Reynolds. What bothers us most is what all of this says about the vaunted good sense of the American people. Do they, indeed, allow media hysteria to tell them what to think? Of course we're talking here mainly about the mushy middle, the 10 to 20% of our fellow citizens -- the swing voters -- who don't seem to think that much at all. If we're lucky, they won't think to step into the voting booth in November.
Churchhill said it about democracy's being the worst form of government except for any other form.. Disgusting as the established press may be, it is a free choice, not government controlled. It is free to change.
Posted by: goomp | August 10, 2004 at 08:08 AM