MOSTLY TRUE STORIES

I heard some interesting discussion on a local talk radio show tonight. The host (Mark Reardon on WTMJ, for my two readers in Wisconsin) was briefly recapping the major news of the day, and asking his listeners to rank the day’s news stories in terms of their perceived importance. These were the stories; I’ve linked to summaries in case you’re not familiar with them:

• Baghdad car bombing kills 28, many of them children.
• New developments in the London bombing investigation.
• Pakistani train crash kills 128.
• Chief Justice Rehnquist is hospitalized.
• Technical problems halt the space shuttle launch.
• The ongoing flap over Karl Rove and Valerie Plame.

Just to point out the limitations of this unscientific poll, Reardon only asked four or five callers for their opinions, and he only asked them to pick the top three stories, as they saw it. Far and away, the Iraq bombing was the top story. Second, to most, was the continuing investigation into the London bombing. While there wasn’t a clear-cut choice for third, nobody picked the Pakistani train crash, and nobody picked Karl Rove. Reardon then pointed out that the network news led with the space shuttle, then went to Karl Rove, and the Baghdad bombing was third. He called this an example of “the mainstream media” trying to tell us what’s really important, thereby also telling what to think about and how to think about it.

We’ll ignore the fact that, since Reardon works for a company which also owns several TV and radio stations in this and lots of other markets, as well as the only daily newspaper in Milwaukee and a bunch of other publications, he’s part of “mainstream media.” (We’ll ignore it because there are a lot of reasons why “mainstream media” doesn’t actually mean “mainstream” any more.) That’s not what was amazing. I agreed with the callers’ assessments of the stories and their newsworthiness. A space shuttle non-launch isn’t news, and the Rove story is just something to keep the political versions of “Pardon The Interruption” functioning smoothly for a few days.

What struck me, though, was the rationale that the callers gave for voting the Iraq story #1. While I’m not sure I heard everybody speak on this matter, most of what I heard was something like “this story is important because it shows us what sort of enemy we’re really up against.” Now, I hate the fact that I have to issue the following caveat, but I do: I do not in any way, shape, or form condone suicide bombing, particularly when said bombers deliberately target children. Likewise, I am not a member of the Democratic Party or any other political party. I am not opposed to the war in Iraq, and I think the world is a better place with Saddam Hussein behind bars. Got it? (Oh, and in case somebody is reading this, I’m still waiting for that big check George Soros was supposed to write me for posting my assessment of GWB’s debating prowess in the comments over at Resurrection Song . I hope Soros hurries up, because we could really use a dishwasher.)

Alright, now that I’ve disclaimed my opinion to the point of nothingness, let me just say: What? While I agree that the Baghdad bombing is the biggest news item of the day, since when is it the function of the media to teach us a healthy disrespect for our enemies? Isn’t this exactly the sort of media bias we’re supposed to be against?

The Iraq story is big because any time our country calls upon someone to make the ultimate sacrifice, it’s news, and we both need and deserve to know as many of the details as possible without compromising national security. It is not news because there are some people in the US who don’t fully support the war and need to be shown the error of their beliefs. I just found it a little bit ironic that, in deriding media bias, Reardon’s callers seemed to tip their hands. Their complaint, it appears, isn’t that the media are biased; it’s that not enough of them are biased in the right direction. Apparently it’s OK by them for the media to tell us what to think about and how to think about it, so long as they agree with those assessments. I respectfully disagree.