New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin picked up on something that I, too, had noticed when searching for a transcript of Trump’s RNC speech: the ubiquity of the word “dark” in press opinions about that speech. As Goodwin reported, the heavy hitters of the liberal press (NYTimes, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ABC) all “dark” to describe Trump’s speech. The New Yorker magazine, Goodwin went on to note, used “dark, dark,” as if it wanted to stand out from the crowd. Even the Wall Street Journal, owned by News Corp and presumed to be part of the conservative side of the mainstream press, referred to Trump as the Dark Knight.
Funny word, “dark.” There are dozens of synonyms that fit within the context, including “bleak,” “grim,” “dismal,” “dreary,” “gloomy,” “blighted,” “somber,” “discouraging,” “dispirited,” “forlorn,” and the Buckley-esque “atramentous.” Funny, too, how so many major news outlets opted for that particular word. Certainly, if the speech was indeed “dark” from a liberal’s perspective, we shouldn’t be surprised to read the sentiment in liberal editorial pages. But, for one word to go 5 for 5 when so many other choices are available? Well, lets just say it’s curious.
I searched the transcript of Trump’s speech to see if, perhaps, the word “dark” appeared therein and was thus suggested to the various editorial writers. It is not. Goodwin waved off this common use of a single word by attributing it to liberal groupthink, and that may very well be the truth. However, a separate news event suggests that, perhaps, we shouldn’t so easily dismiss this curiosity as coincidence.
The Guccifer 2.0 leak of nearly 20,000 emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee showed some rather disturbing coordination between DNC staff and reporters at various news organizations. While there’s no evidence as yet that there was coordination between news agencies on the Trump speech coverage, nor any allegations that the DNC or any other political organization fed talking points or the word “dark” to those big news organizations… well, lets just say my eyebrow remains raised.
Why, though, would active coordination between the DNC and the liberal press matter? We already know that the NYTimes, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ABC and others are in the tank for the Left. We already know that their coverage will be harsher and more critical of Republicans than of Democrats. So, what’s the big deal?
Cronyism – the unholy alliance between Big Business and Big Government, is of the great scourges of modern times. Big Government has grown to its leviathan size in no small part by telling voters that it alone can rein in and oppose the amoral predations of Big Business, and voters have been steadily ceding power to Big Government in the hopes that it fulfills that promise. What we find, time and again, however, is that Big Government and Big Business are best pals, with the former helping the latter even as it pretends to stand against it. What we see, over and over, is politicians hanging out with and writing laws that help out their business pals. When such activities are exposed, rare though it may be, we witness the proverbial scurrying rats or scattering cockroaches after flipping on the kitchen light. Cronyism is a big reason that people demand campaign finance restrictions. The joke there is, of course, that such restrictions don’t do anything to actually combat cronyism, but instead serve as protectionism for incumbents. Those restrictions also run afoul of our fundamental free speech protections, something that politicians dearly wish would happen. After all, if you’re in power, and you can quash dissent, your ability to retain power gets much easier.
Cronyism is not, though, about campaign finance so much as it is a subtle form of quid-pro-quo. Or, in harsher language, bribery. Just as there’s a sharp line between spending money to better share your political speech (whether it be on a movie, as with the Citizens United case, as a donation to a political party or PAC, or as a donation to a candidate because you support his agenda) and paying a politician or bureaucrat to do something that benefits you, there’s a sharp line between editorializing because you prefer a candidate’s or party’s policies and receiving instructions or guidance from that candidate or party (presumably with the expectation of better access or exclusive information).
The Press is singled out for protection in the Bill of Rights for a reason. The drafters apparently did not consider the blanket protection of speech sufficient, and dedicated specific language to protecting freedom of the Press. Why might they have done so? The Press is an especially important check against the excesses of government because it acts as an independent investigator and information conduit. Nothing requires the Press to be objective or without opinion in this role, and we trust the forces of the free market to regulate the Press’s biases. However, if the Press becomes an arm of the government, we lose the protections it provides.
To reiterate, there is no evidence that I am aware of to support any assertion of coordination between any political organization and the ubiquitous use of the word “dark” in coverage of Trump’s speech. There is, however, broader evidence of collusion in this political season. People rail against collusion between Big Business and the government, and they are correct to do so. The same people should be as outraged by the collusion between Big Press and the government. More so, in fact. We expect businesses to chase whatever means they can to benefit themselves. The means that don’t involve leveraging government force or violating individuals’ personal or property rights are proper, those that do are not. We don’t, however, expect the Press to abandon the essence of what they are supposed to be in order to benefit themselves. We know they do, we know they slant their coverage to align with their own beliefs and values. But, when they act like cronies, rather than merely as sympathizers, they cross a line. They become one with that which they are supposed to police. They join the other pigs at the table.
Loading ...
Cronyism is usually defined as when business does the government’s bidding in exchange for favorable legal and regulatory arrangements. The celebrated case of Citizens United, therefore, can be viewed as a threat to that arrangement, and talk of an amendment to restrict such freedom of speech can be viewed as rampant cronyism, full up, since it serves to give Big Media monopoly power.
They must have all been in the same email distribution list…