Jousting a little with a much brighter light

G.D. Gearino, the late lamented columnist at the News & Observer, on his website Words Assembled Well, makes a couple of interesting points today about the Nifong spectacle and about journalists and political contributions. He is a heavyweight in the world of verbal sparring, but I don't mind a quick turn in the ring with him. Fortunately, I don't particularly disagree so it's not a real fight, more like trying to keep up the rhythm he started at the speed bag. (That was a long and interesting boxing metaphor, especially when you consider I detest boxing.)

Here's my reply to his post:

Thank you for making clear a mostly unmentioned meaning of the Nifong spectacle. I'm still too mad, and mulling over what how many others have to say about the lacrosse/Gell (as a glaring example, of course not the only instance) conundrum, to have written about it myself. Clearly, the impact of the prosecutorial misconduct is more severe in capital cases - but I believe that ardent supporters of the lacrosse players labor under the worldview wherein people of their class suffer equally, when they are inconvenienced or discomforted temporarily, as do lesser mortals when they are executed or incarcerated wrongfully for the bulk of their adulthood. There is a real belief that people of their station in life are of inherently higher value, and infinitely higher sensitivity. The same dichotomy is also visible to a more ridiculous extent in the discussions of the "persecution" of Paris Hilton.

I would quibble mildly with your assessment of the media political contributions. Don't most media employers prohibit any political activity, certainly including participating in a campaign in any way, on the part of the journalists (if not all employees) in their employ? I find it conceivable that people with strong political views hindered from expressing them in that most visceral of ways, by giving their own money to a candidate who they believe will pursue their views, may be more likely to sublimate those views in their work - not necessarily intentionally, but perhaps with the same result.

While most journalists adhere to the credo of objectivity, and many try hard to remain apolitical, things do change from the beginning of a career through the later years of it. Living and observing and caring all lead to the formation of beliefs more basic to one's being than mere opinion about current events - and while you have said you are a conservative and I definitely am not, I think we both, along with many others who use words to make a living, have no choice but to reflect our beliefs.

That said, I do tend to disagree that there is a liberal media bias - the values of the journalists being nicely balanced, and perhaps overbalanced, by the views of their corporate employers. And I don't think an analysis of media member's political contributions can prove it either way, because of the ban on contributions I mention above.