The Sunday Tribune has one of the dumbest headlines I've seen in a while: "True or false: Blogs always tell it straight" with the sub-head "Sites reflect beliefs and biases of authors." Gee, what a shock! Anyone who has spent five minutes reading blogs knows that they are biased (except mine, of course). The article goes on to say that blogs don't have the same journalistic responsibilities and integrity as the mainstream media. So? Those factors do not eliminate mainstream media bias, anyway. All media are inherently biased, and this holds true for the Tribune, CBS, and Fox News as much as it holds true for my blog. I'm tired of the mainstream media's "holier than thou" attitude toward the masses. Why does a non-story like this deserve front page coverage?
A University of Chicago law professor weighs in to say that people get distorted views from reading only blogs on one side. And I suppose people don't get distorted views watching Fox News or reading the Chicago Tribune. There is a funny thing about alleged "media bias"--people only see it when it doesn't match their own beliefs. That's why Alan Keyes thinks the Tribune has a liberal bias -- because he is further to the right than the newspaper is -- while I see it as having a conservative bias because I am more to the left. And as another person notes in the article, a biased source isn't necessary wrong, either. Even Rush Limbaugh tells the truth sometimes, if only by accident.
As for the Dan Rather issue that inspired this article, here is a thought that I haven't heard mentioned (although I admit that I haven't followed the story closely). The littlegreenfootballs.com guy said that he typed a letter with Microsoft Word's default settings, and it exactly matched the letter CBS claimed was typed in the early 1970s. Has anyone talked to the people who designed Microsoft Word? I ask because word processors are designed to imitate typewriters. If the designers used an IBM Selectric as a model for Word, then a document typed with Word's default settings should look the same as one typed on a Selectric--that would merely be proof that the designers did a good job. Just because the Word document matches the memo, that does not mean that Word was used to create the memo.
What has been glossed over is that the officer's former secretary said that although she questions the authenticity of the documents, the allegations within them are essentially true. In an editorial on Friday, the Tribune said it is old news that Bush got preferential treatment and that the "new news" is the documents. It galls me that the Republican spinmeisters are trying to use Vietnam against Kerry when Bush didn't even show up for his gravy assignment. Bush's neglect of duty may be old news, but if Kerry's service is suddenly an issue, then Bush's non-service should be as well. The truth is that the memo controversy isn't so much "new news" or real news at all, as it is "B.S. news," a red herring that distracts the media and the nation from what is really at stake in this election. All of the stories about Vietnam and the national guard are irrelevant distractions. The media get suckered into this again and again by the political parties (I'd say particularly the Republicans, but only because I'm biased). Is "Rathergate" really more important than American soldiers dying in a war started under false pretense? Is anything that happened thirty years ago more important than choosing the direction of this nation for the next four years?