Arthur is a writer of vision and this long piece is well worth your time.
The press in this country has voluntarily placed itself in the role of abject dependent for several decades. Many members of the press will rush to reassure us of their independence and their willingness to challenge power -- and they will point to their treatment of the Clinton presidency as a notable example. But what did the press challenge in that instance? Not matters of state, and not anything remotely connected to the power government exercises or the policies it pursues -- but irrelevant business deals from the remote past, or private sexual behavior--
Think again -- and consider this column from Michael Barone, who embodies Establishment "wisdom" as perfectly as anyone.
And here is Barone's second paragraph:
No, the "they" I'm referring to are the editors of The New York Times. And do they hate us? Well, that may be stretching it. But at the least they have gotten into the habit of acting in reckless disregard of our safety.
I'm sure that commentators like Barone will get much better at this kind of thing under the coming dictatorship. Practice makes perfect, after all. But this is truly amateurish. He gets the idea that the New York Times -- and by extension, all of the press that fails to fawn sufficiently over our soon-to-be President for Life -- "hates us" out there and then immediately backs off the idea: "Well, that may be stretching it." But he gets the idea out there. That's the important thing. No one remembers the qualification later. Propagandists like Barone know that; they hope the rest of us don't notice..read on"
