When the history of the scandalous first decade of the 21st century is written, there will be more than enough shame to spread around. A fair dollop will land on the mainstream media. Consolidated, corporate-controlled and slaves to the bottom line, the American media is a feeble heir to the muckrakers of the 1920s, the Ed Murrows of the ’50s or Woodward and Bernstein of the ‘70s. Even Woodward and Bernstein are no longer Woodward and Bernstein.

The worse example is News Corp., Rupert Murdoch’s vehicle for simultaneously sucking up to capitalist totalitarians in Washington and communist totalitarians in Beijing. The New York Times (with special mention for Judith Miller) and almost every other major outlet, from the Washington Post to the major networks repeated without question every Bush/Cheney lie in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

The new line is that the media learned its lesson and the free ride is over for George Bush and his cronies. But is it? I read the papers every day and I every day I see evidence that the fix is still in. The symptoms are insidious; I wonder if the reporters and editors afflicted with this disease are even aware they have it. When the rich and powerful are caught breaking the law, the words reporting their crimes always seem softened, the punches pulled, excuses for bad behavior seem to be sought.

Some examples:

– On 3 August, Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Ellen Nakashima wrote about a federal judge declaring part of Mr. Bush’s wiretapping scheme illegal. They wrote, “The decision was both a political and practical blow to the administration, which had long held that all of the National Security Agency’s enhanced surveillance efforts since 2001 were legal.” “Enhanced”? Are they referring to an improved laundry detergent or an illegal breach of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution? How about “stepped-up” or “aggressive”?

– The same day, some editor put this headline on a story about alleged ethics violations by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK): “Senator, Aide May Have Run Afoul of Law.” Sen. Stevens may have “run afoul” of the law. Oops! He “ran afoul”! The headline makes seem as if the senator’s offense were on the order of breaking wind. When’s the last time you saw the headline: “Local Man, 19, May Have Run Afoul of Armed Robbery Laws”? The accused robber gets a “perp walk” in shackles and manacles. Ted Stevens gets a kiss on the cheek.

– The “afoul” news continued the next day when the Post ran a piece by Dan Eggen and Paul Kane which described Justice Department staffers getting political briefings before the 2006 mid-term elections. The writers report that because the briefings took place at the White House and not the Justice Department’s offices, they “did not appear to run afoul of department policy.” Our democracy might be undermined, but the Post reduces the offense to an impolite gaffe.

Meanwhile, out here in America, Thomas Ravenel, South Carolina state treasurer and chairman of Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign in that state was indicted on cocaine distribution charges in June. In July the southern chairman of the Giuliani campaign, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), was outed as having engaged the services of prostitutes. Law-and-order Rudy dropped Mr. Ravenel, but kept Sen. Vitter on the campaign.

Also in July, Republican state legislator Bob Allen, co-chair of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign (and the Florida Police Union’s “2007 Lawmaker of the Year”) was arrested for offering a police officer $20 to allow Mr. Allen to perform oral sex on the officer in a public restroom. His excuse was that he is afraid of black people.

How much have you read about the above lawbreakers (or “run afoulers”) and their close ties to presidential candidates? Compare that to how much you’ve heard and read about John Edwards’s haircut or Fred Thompson’s “trophy” wife, then ask if all the news you’re reading is really fit to print.

© Mark Floegel, 2007