The Red and Blue Media

The "Old Media" sees red

by Vincent Fiore
10/01/04

Eight years ago, an obscure little cable outlet debuted by the name of Fox News. Shows like "The O’Reilly Factor" and "Hannity and Colmes" were not to be confused with anything on the then-present day alphabet media empires of ABC, NBC and CBS. One can imagine the suits of the elite media chortling amongst themselves, while thumbing through the op-ed pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.

But soon, nobody in the board rooms was laughing anymore. “Special Report” with Washington veteran Brit Hume had become the number one political news program in its time slot. Bill O’Reilly, besides being one of the most hated political commentators among the left, has the number one political talk show on all of cable.

But it does not end there, for success breeds success. Fox’s prime time political shows have spawned massive radio audiences as well. The “Radio Factor” is syndicated on over 400 stations nationwide. Sean Hannity is syndicated on over 500 stations, second only to the matchless Rush Limbaugh.

So now, instead of laughing, the old media is dying. Hemorrhaging viewers and ratings for years, the once inviolate liberal media have seen the future. In that future, and one cannot help but read the writings within the blogoshere, they are fast becoming yesterdays partisan and agenda driven dinosaur.

The troubles that Dan Rather and CBS are experiencing have only hastened this.

One week after the “60 Minutes II” broadcast which accused President Bush of being the recipient of political favoritism to get him out of going to Vietnam, among other charges, Rather and CBS have only expanded their problems. Predictably, it has also cast a light upon the entire liberal media as well.

Opining to the New York Observer on September 15, Dan Rather tells Bush “with respect” to “answer the questions.” Yet, it has fast become a reality that it is Dan Rather who needs to answer some questions. Like, what does a “Kinko’s” in Abilene, Texas, have in common with Dan Rather’s “60 Minutes” broadside against Bush?

Answer: They both deal with copies.

With an effrontery that seems almost pathological, Rather, and CBS News president Andrew Hayward continue to peddle an increasingly worthless bill of goods to the public. None of the allegations against Bush -- the “disobeying a direct order” to report for a medical exam, or the “sugarcoating” of his record by the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian -- have ever been proven to satisfaction. Rumors and hearsay abound, but hard proof is still lacking.

Now, we are asked to believe the substance of the charges. We are told that Bush has never answered these questions. And according to Dan Rather we are, in essence, asked to believe and act upon the seriousness of the charge:

It’s never been fully, completely denied by the Bush-Cheney campaign or even the White House that he was suspended for meeting the standards of the Air Force or that he didn’t show up for a physical. The longer we go without a denial of such things — this story is true.

Really? So if I were to say that Dan Rather is prone to jumping atop tables, droping his draws and singing Ethel Merman show tunes every night, it would be true until proven otherwise? Hardly.

In 1991, we witnessed this same pointy-headed liberal arrogance when Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas was accused by Anita Hill of sexual harassment. After three days of incendiary yet baseless charges, the Senate voted 52-48 in favor of installing Thomas to the Supreme Court. The press rightly dubbed the hearings the “He Said, She Said” sagas.

But you see, that’s really what it’s all about with Rather and the anti-Bush zealotry of the media elite. The charges may never be proved, or disproved for that matter. What really matters is the seriousness of the charge. It is the type of game the liberal media has been playing, and winning, for years.

After the 2000 elections, America became intimately familiar with the terms “Red States” and “Blue States.” Conservatism claimed the red, while liberalism abided in the blue. Within today’s political polarization, it is only natural that the media should follow this color-coded stigma of the electorate.

CBS has done more for the new media than all the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Fox News programs could ever hope to. By doing what they are doing with regard to Bush and his National Guard exploits, they open a window into whom they really are, and just what is important to them. Dan Rather is giving the average viewer an education into just what not to do when your story is as full of holes as his is.

The natural conclusion of anyone looking and listening is that there is something else besides a news agency’s pride or an anchor’s reputation at stake here. You cannot row a boat without oars, can you? Nor can you charge a sitting President with an accusation so unsupported by the facts as to think no one will take notice and actually do something about it.

Here’s a theory that is beginning to take root: All roads from Dan Rather and CBS lead to the Kerry campaign. The Democratic Party power base is up to its eyeballs in forged documents, and retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett would say and do just about anything he could to defame Bush.

Sound unbelievable? Well, prove it. After all, if Dan Rather can continue with this grand canard under the guise of investigative journalism fifty days out from an election, than I can certainly echo the beliefs of many a converted “red state” audience that is telling Rather that it is fast becoming high-noon for the media intelligentsia, and the way America learns its news is changing.