James Nagy – 3/3/05

This page was last updated on March 5, 2005.

Today’s new media; James Nagy; Beaver County Times; March 3, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Instead of bashing media for being liberal, we should be bashing media for only serving itself.”

[RWC] Whatever we do we need to get the spotlight off liberal bias in the old media – not.

“Broadcast’s news profit centers eliminate ‘free press’ safeguards. The guidance for keeping our media pro-democratic should come from Republicans as well as Democrats. Not holding the media accountable to a high standard seems dishonest, Machiavellian or even fascist.”

[RWC] Mr. Nagy offers no support for his statement, “Broadcast’s news profit centers eliminate ‘free press’ safeguards.” The fact is, it’s more likely the exact opposite is true. People expect news – as opposed to commentary – to be relatively dependable. When it is not, readers/viewers go elsewhere, as CBS and CNN are learning. Therefore, the profit motive actually promotes news accuracy. When you are not constrained by profitability, ideology is more likely to taint your reporting.

I’d like to know how Mr. Nagy believes we can have a free press with “guidance” coming from “Republicans as well as Democrats?”

What is a “pro-democratic” media? Although Mr. Nagy wrote “pro-democratic,” I believe he meant “pro-Democrat.” What does Mr. Nagy consider a “high standard?” I know, pro-Democrat.

Mr. Nagy must like to use the word “Machiavellian.” This is the second letter in a row he managed to work it in.

I like the way many liberals throw around words like fascist. If they knew what fascist meant, they’d realize fascism is a “kissing cousin” of their beloved liberalism/socialism and is at the opposite end of the political spectrum where conservatism resides.

“The media have downplayed:”

[RWC] It’s hard to believe anyone would claim the press downplayed the following items. I guess Mr. Nagy believes the “media have downplayed” the following items because they didn’t go the extra mile as did Dan Rather and his team when they tried to use forged documents to bring down President Bush.

“* Jeff Gannon aka James Guckert. Imitating a member of the press he used a false name and crashed presidential press conferences. Asking a biased question of President Bush, his false premises appear aimed at enabling the broadcast of propaganda.”

[RWC] “Downplayed?” Hardly.

Mr. Guckert didn’t crash the press conferences. As a writer for a conservative web site, Mr. Guckert applied for and received passes to the daily press briefings on a day-by-day basis. He did not receive the same “blanket” press pass as most others who cover the White House. Regarding the use of a pen name, so what? Mr. Nagy would probably be surprised to learn the names of other reporters who use or have used pen names. The security review for Mr. Guckert was done using his real name.

Here’s the question referred to by Mr. Nagy.

“[Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there’s no crisis there. How are you going to work – you said you’re going to reach out to these people – how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”

While Sen. Reid didn’t use the words “soup lines,” that’s how he and fellow Democrats try to portray the economy.

The premises of the question offensive to liberals were anything but false. Indeed, the accuracy of the question’s framing is what got liberals all wound up. It highlighted a series of hypocritical positions taken by Democrats and they didn’t like being “outted.”

Regarding “asking a biased question,” this is hilarious. Most questions of President Bush are thinly veiled attacks. Remember the press conference in which reporters kept prodding President Bush to admit to making mistakes? Does Helen Thomas ever ask a question not intended to promote anti-Bush propaganda? I guess questions aren’t biased as long as they attempt to make President Bush look bad.

“* Free science research shifted to ‘sound science’ research as defined by industry and the religious right. Sound science often being a pseudonym for bad science.”

[RWC] I guess this shows I’m a dumb conservative. I don’t have a clue what Mr. Nagy is trying to say.

“* Our president’s disobedience of international law and the U.N. charter by starting a ‘preventive’ war.”

[RWC] Perhaps Mr. Nagy should read some of the UN Iraq resolutions. President Bush did not disobey “international law.” At least some of the resolutions authorized UN member nations to take action against Iraq if Iraq did not comply.

That said, Mr. Nagy ignores two other points. First, Congress authorized the Iraq War. President Bush did not act unilaterally. Second, the President’s oath of office says, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.” It says nothing about fealty to “international law.”

“* Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s indirect order to purge 58,000 voters from Florida’s rolls because of names resembling those of felons, thereby giving the election to his brother.”

[RWC] Oh man, another guy still hanging onto the “Bush lost in 2000” myth. Is Mr. Nagy telling us felons are overwhelmingly Democrats?

Notice the sentence’s wording. Mr. Nagy wants us to believe 58,000 legitimate voters were purged from the voter rolls because they had “names resembling those of felons.” As many states, Florida does not allow felons to vote and Florida periodically needs to update the voter rolls to make sure felons don’t vote. Were some legitimate voters incorrectly zapped? Probably, after all, no process is perfect. Of course the opposite happened as well. That is, estimates indicate about 6,000 felons voted in Florida in 2000 and over two-thirds were registered Democrats.

“* Bush’s fallback lie that Saddam Hussein had a weapons program. The proof being that Hussein wouldn’t let inspectors in. But, inspectors left only to avoid being present during the war.”

[RWC] What lie about a weapons program? The inspectors found forbidden weapons – though not biological or chemical – before the war and records found in Iraq after the invasion clearly document the existence of weapons programs.

I guess Mr. Nagy forgot that Saddam Hussein also kicked out the inspectors in 1998. Oops.