Vox Blogoli VI – Here goes Jericho!

Posted on December 14th, 2004 by Jeremy.
Categories: Religion.

Hugh has asked us(those that frequent his site) to answer two questions regarding Joh Meacham’s hitpiece on Christmas (latest Newsweek to be found here).

I’m almost loathe to do it, so incensed by the article itself and its overtly biased wordage. I was more inclined to write a scathing rebuttal of each of Meacham’s astoundingly one sided points. Luckily, those more learned and eloquent than I had set upon the task as hawks to a scurrying rabbit and have sufficiently (IMHO) castigated the Newsweek staffer far better than I ever could.

You can read those responses here and more importantly the full scale assault from Dr. Roberts here.

So that leads to the two questions that Mr. Hewitt has asked us (in my case being part of the illustrious progeny) to take part in.

#1 - …write on the subject of what these articles tell us about the MSM’s abilities and credibility on matters of faith and history, specifically, is the Newsweek article the religion reporting equivalent of Rathergate?

What do the articles tell us about the MSM’s (Mainstream Media for those not in the know) abilities and credibility on matters of faith and history? It’s as if we are asking an otter to explain the full joy of flying.

Has there ever been the credibility in the Mainstream Media? In reading the Newsweek article we get that sense of elitist propriety. Some sort of new illusory custom that must try and teach the wayward children of the red states the value in questioning everything. The audacity of the MSM that feels that because it’s print (or primetime news, or PBS, NPR) it holds some weight of truth. This might have been the case some years ago, when it seems that reporters were objective conduits of information they have received, when the mediums (television, print) were fresh and new, relieved of glitz and glamour that seems to propel the news today. But now it’s obvious that news, reporting, are not dependant on facts as much as they are about agenda and ratings.
I don’t know if there is any credibility or respectability for that matter any more. It seems that the MSM has become as polarized as they claim that other sources (Fox News, Radio, or blogs) are.

Which leads into the second question by Hugh..

#2 What accounts for the appearance in a major news magazine of such a biased piece?

Well that I imagine has to do with the nature of truth and what truth might do upon a media mans lifestyle.

What would be the allure of a article on Jesus’s birth quoting those Professors and doctors (who are the majority in the Christian community) that agreed with the telling of the gospels? Why it’d be boring (I’m sure the elites would say *clink clink* with their martini glasses)! Besides, these poor backwoods hicks need to pursue truth.

(SIDERANT: The thing that amuses me time and time again is those that claim “pursuit” of some truth is unattainable…a lifetime goal.

Now if my Math teacher said that 1 +1 is 2 and I wrote down “3”, I’d be wrong, right? Or is 2 and 3 interchangeable nebulous non entity’s that mean little to nothing. 1+1 could equal 100 in my Universe, in my way of thinking…heck you know what? I don’t know if I’ll ever know that 1+1 equals 2. I’m not going to be tied down to your “rules” and “answers”, because what if there is another answer? Then where will I be?

All the while the student that sees the truth for what it is has moved from addition to subtraction, multiplication, and on to engineering and physics, uncovering the very depths of the Universe. ENDRANT)

The Newsweek article shows that the only “truth” that needs to be portrayed is one that is indefinable but must go against the grain. It starts with a premise that what the majority of Americans believe is wrong and the only reason why is …well…because there are some others with more indefinable truth, believe that it’s wrong.

Of course even though those with the majority point of view have very real, palpable, logical reasons by which they believe in the biblical accounts of the birth of Christ, you’d never know it from the article, and that my friends is how we understand that it’s agenda driven(The fact that there is a more abundant opposition, but that opposition gets a fraction of “column time”).

The article goes on and on about inaccuracies that are based on nothing other than lack of evidence (despite the evidence of the gospels). Not “opposing” evidence mind you, but lack of!

So what do we see? Why is this important? How did it come to be?

I’m of the belief that the majority of people that go into MSM is because it has some connection to the limelight. It’s that type of self serving narcissism that has given people like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Chris Matthews somewhat mild stardom. It has been the cause of many riches and a feeling of importance.

In that world you want to do whatever you want. No constraints…no one telling you, you are wrong. And why would they? You are a TV commentator, a writer, a celebrity!

But here comes those party poopers that assail you with that idea of “modesty” and “integrity”, those naysayers that encourage “sexual restraint” and an absolute “truth”. If it’s “truth” than I can’t do what makes me feel good. I won’t be able to party and be that celeb! Ack! I might lose my job and my feelings of importance.

All of this could have been avoided if Newsweek didn’t prop itself up as an objective news carrier. But it has, and thus the standard by which they report should be all the more stringent.

You see the MSM’s main problem has been that it has had nothing challenging it. A writer publishes a story, a host preaches his report, but there is no direct interaction. If there is a response it would be months later from some faceless person writing a note that dealt with something from a week maybe month before.

That’s why New Media (Blogs, and Talk Radio for that matter) has been so devastating to the MSM.

With New Media we have become the assault cannons that can fire at anytime. We are the turret on the watchtower that forces credibility back into the ranks of the MSM.

MSM will continue to wither and die unless it does become an objective source of information. New Media has embraced those few outlets that well research and portray all sides of a problem. Those that don’t well, be prepared for onslaughts that will tatter and tarnish your reputation as arms of propaganda and outlets of moral relativistic rationalization.

2 comments.