Chuck Todd un­der­mines him­self

Manteca Bulletin - - Opinion - L. BRENT BOZELL III

Ap­par­ently, a weekly show on NBC and a nightly show on MSNBC weren’t large enough plat­forms for Chuck Todd to com­plain about trou­ble­some con­ser­va­tives, so he’s writ­ten an ar­ti­cle for the lib­eral mag­a­zine The At­lantic ti­tled “It’s Time for the Press to Stop Com­plain­ing — and to Start Fight­ing Back.”

Un­der the head­line, he added, “A nearly 50-year cam­paign of vil­i­fi­ca­tion, in­spired by Fox News’s Roger Ailes, has left many Amer­i­cans dis­trust­ful of news out­lets. Now, jour­nal­ists need to speak up for their work.”

This ar­ti­cle doesn’t de­serve a re­but­tal. It de­serves a laugh track. It’s like writ­ing an ar­ti­cle claim­ing there’s been a

50-year cam­paign to un­fairly vil­ify cig­a­rettes as can­cer­ous. Con­ser­va­tives have ex­posed the so-called ob­jec­tive press as al­most-uni­ver­sally lib­eral, and Chuck Todd knows it. Hun­dreds of stud­ies and tens of thou­sands of anec­dotes don’t lie. This en­tire ar­ti­cle only un­der­lines this point (and un­der­mines his).

If you want to deny you’re lib­eral, you might want to avoid writ­ing an ar­ti­cle de­cry­ing Fox News for ru­in­ing Amer­ica in The At­lantic, which en­dorsed Hil­lary Clinton for pres­i­dent be­cause Don­ald Trump is a “true na­tional emergency, or an ex­is­ten­tial threat to the Repub­lic.”

The lib­er­als at­tempt to de­fine be­ing prop­erly iden­ti­fied as lib­eral-Demo­crat par­ti­sans as “dele­git­imiza­tion.” It’s merely classification. Would they sub­mit to a poll of their news­rooms that tries to find the one Repub­li­can? They’ve pretty much avoided be­ing polled on their po­lit­i­cal views since 1992, when they were 89 per­cent for Bill Clinton.

It’s just as easy to lob that ar­gu­ment back over the wall. The lib­eral me­dia have en­gaged in a “50-year cam­paign of vil­i­fi­ca­tion” of con­ser­va­tives. They’ve sought to “dele­git­imize” ev­ery Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee from Barry Gold­wa­ter to Ron­ald Rea­gan to Don­ald Trump.

It’s es­pe­cially lu­di­crous for Chuck Todd, of all peo­ple, to com­plain that con­ser­va­tives have some­how mis­led peo­ple to as­sume he’s tight with the Democrats. In the last elec­tion cy­cle, Wik­iLeaks ex­posed that in 2015, he and Mrs. Todd in­vited Clinton staffer John Podesta (among oth­ers) to their home for “Cock­tails & Din­ner in honor of” Jennifer Palmieri, an­other Clinton staffer, and her Demo­crat hus­band, Jim Lyons. Is that fact some­how “fake news”?

In the same ar­ti­cle in which Todd rips into Fox News and its kind of “ma­nip­u­la­tors,” he strangely tries to claim that they shouldn’t be “go­ing neg­a­tive.” The man needs an ed­i­tor to tell him to stop sound­ing silly.

Todd blames Fox for hav­ing “unique eth­i­cal stan­dards.” Then there’s the hi­lar­i­ous part where he sug­gests NBC News is fully trans­par­ent about its mis­takes: “Here’s what com­forts me: The record is there for all to see.” He writes this af­ter the Brian Wil­liams de­ba­cle, in which there was next to zero trans­parency in eval­u­at­ing his lies, and af­ter the Har­vey We­in­stein de­ba­cle, in which for­mer NBC staffers are now ac­cus­ing Todd’s net­work of putting out a pas­sel of un­truths and dis­tor­tions.

Has NBC been fully trans­par­ent about Matt Lauer? Todd should re­ally re­tract this whole bungling mess.

If the me­dia wanted to be re­spected as im­par­tial, there’s a sim­ple so­lu­tion: Act im­par­tial. Be re­spect­ful. Quote peo­ple ac­cu­rately. Presents facts, not opin­ions masked as im­par­tial truth. Re­port news. Spec­u­late care­fully. Never ed­i­to­ri­al­ize.

In other words, don’t write stuff like this.

Todd might even de­cide to avoid the furtive win­ing and din­ing with the Podestas and the Palmieris. That’s the way to build con­fi­dence. It’s the op­po­site of what the “ob­jec­tive me­dia” of­fers us ev­ery day.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.