MSM reporters: will you be employable after the election?
Dear mainstream media reporters:
Have you considered the impact your coverage of the 2008 election might have on your career? Many of you have gone all out to elect Barack Obama as president, completely oblivious to the long-term impact that advocacy could have.
It's easier than ever for news consumers to do research on specific reporters and see whether they have a habit of lying, misleading, ignoring relevant facts, failing to ask tough questions, or other forms of bias. And, as time goes on that's going to become even easier. Some will help in that effort, such as by publishing lists of reporters who crossed the line into advocacy or who clearly lied in order to support Obama.
Before reading an article, a news consumer might spend just a few seconds doing a little research and be able to quickly find page after page detailing past instances of that reporter's low journalistic ethics.
Now, certainly, papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post have powerful megaphones, but dozens or hundreds of other sites loosely working together can have a major impact. Eventually, a critical mass will be reached, and a media source might decide that a specific reporter is too much of a liability. Why continue publishing news reports from someone when those reports are instantly dismissed by a good portion of their readership?
Thankfully, it's not too late for the media to somewhat redeem themselves by finally asking Obama tough questions, by avoiding lying or misleading on his behalf, and by releasing any information on him that they've assiduously tried to cover up.
The press serves a vital role in the American system, yet too much of the press has abrogated their responsibilies and now simply serves as an arm of the Obama campaign.
Mainstream media reporters should take a longer-term view of the full impact that will have on their careers.