A Conflict of "Interests"

JW,

As you know, there are two types of voters in this country. The first is grounded in a defined political philosophy and votes according to how closely a particular candidate matches it. The second type, a stupider segment of the population, is carried on the wind, led to the polls by media-driven caricatures and slogans. These are the people for whom political advertising is constructed and for whose sake political narratives ("First Black President!") are finely tuned.

Sadly, it's this second group that decides most elections. Vaguely convinced of one thing or another, these voters are little more than the sum of their television watching. Infinitely credulous, they're infinitely malleable, and it's because of them that media bias is not just a curiosity but a legitimate political concern.

Enter the Associated Press, which over the weekend submitted a doozie so bold-faced, I almost wonder if it's a misprint. Recent cooperation between drugmakers and the White House, the AP writes, is "a somewhat surprising political alliance, given the drug industry's recent history of siding with Republicans and the Democrats' disdain for special interests."

Really? Don't make me laugh.

I mean, seriously. Democrats dislike special interests about as much as Wilt Chamberlain dislikes p---y. About as much as Bill Clinton dislikes Lane Bryant models. Yet the Associated Press seems never to have heard of such Democrat-friendly special interest groups as trial lawyers, the teachers' unions, or the UAW. They've never heard of the United Mine Workers or the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Hell, they've never heard of black people!

After all, what's a special interest but a minority group that votes as one? Come to think of it, what isn't a special interest? Pharmaceutical companies have long been recognized (and belittled) as such, but what about the AFL-CIO, a body whose entire membership is only 11 million, less than 4 percent of the population. Certainly their political contributions and prowess are as significant as PhRMA's. At what population threshold do you leave your specialness behind?

Regardless, the problem is not in the definition of terms but in their demonization. Even as we speak, some fool has wandered onto MSN.com and is now internalizing the completely fraudulent claim that Democrats [good] dislike special interests [bad]. Will he stop to consider what any of those words mean? I don't know about you, but I seriously doubt it.

-GM

GM,

Yes, Wilt "The Stilt" sure did like to "party," although rumor has it that the number he attended was greatly exaggerated. I actually collected paychecks from the Associated Press at one point in my life. Fortunately, as a sports stringer, I didn't really get a political sense one way or the other. Naturally, though, we may assume that America's leading wire service, the source from which all those liberal media outlets get their "information," is at least a tad left of center. "Information" gets quotation marks because it is factual by definition. But tack on a convenient little phrase like "given . . . the democrats' disdain for special interests" to the end of a factual sentence--which, by the way, is not part of a commentary piece--and you have people, well, accepting it as a given. Does the article go on to justify such an intriguing generalization with examples as strict journalism suggests? Not at all; the "take our word for it" approach is much easier.

I'm not saying that the unnamed author of the story had any intention to manipulate the "stupider segment of the population," as you so callously called them. He may have a liberal bias that he can't completely shake when writing a story, meaning he never thought that there could be an argument against his claim. He may even be conservative or moderate and have just messed up. I'm even willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. However, the mere fact that we can legitimately speculate that he may have had an agenda is a shame unto itself.

Take it from a former journalist; there's an old saying in news: "We don't tell people what to think, just what to think about." As I said, it's an old saying. We now know that some prominent members of the American media want us not just to view certain issues, but to view certain issues in certain ways. I have a few favorite things in life: friends, sports, ice cream, and the First Ammendment. The first three are in good hands, but the people with whom we've left the most responsibility for the fourth aren't all fulfilling their duties. I'm not talking about Jon Stewart; I'm talking about writers and reporters who make an effort to appear as moderate as possible while subtly making one side look more appealing.

I once heard this statistic at the end of an otherwise well-balanced national news piece on the Boy Scouts/public funding issue: "Studies show that molestation of young males is three times more likely to be committed by a man who purports to be straight."

What they wanted you to believe: Straight men are three times more likely to molest young boys. (Provably, through mathematics, this is false.)

What this actually shows if you think about it: Gay men, who make up 10 percent of the male population at most, are committing 25 percent of the molestations of young boys! (Provably, through mathematics, this is true.)

NOTE: This entry is not intended to be anti-homosexual, as I have no political opinion about sexual orientation, nor should any employer or university, which is why the idea of making a protected class out of bedroom habits is quite non-progressive in actuality. Another topic for another day, I suppose.

-JW