The obsessive compulsive itch to provide “balance” is an unhealthy psychosis within the fevered hive mind we call the media.
This is readily apparent (and annoying as hell) when it comes to comparing Republicans with Democrats. Take a gander at Joe Murry’s effort in the Evening Bulletin:
Ever since the days of New Deal, and maybe even before, the Democratic Party has done its best to stereotype the GOP as the party of the rich.
Hoover was the man responsible for the greatest economic hardship in our nation, Reagan’s supply-side economics was for Wall Street and not Main Street, and when Bush 41 raised the capital gains tax and caused a recession, putting a monkey wrench in the “voodoo economics” he decried, he denied such a recession existed.
The charge against the GOP has long been laid out: Its candidates are out of touch, rich white men, who resemble more of Frasier and less of Norm. The fact that John Kerry failed to understand how to order a Philly cheesesteak – he ordered Swiss and not Cheese Wiz – and John Edwards receives $400 haircuts is to be ignored, for Democrats may still be rich, but they can still relate to, and feel, the pain of the people.
Is he really comparing the depression to a cheesesteak? What the hell? That’s the best he can come up with to suggest the Democrats might also be the party of the rich? I’m sure given all the trade agreements, efforts on health care, education, labor, credit, corporations and taxes, there is one policy item that suggests the Democrats might not always be slugging for the common American. (And if not, then there really isn’t any comparison to make, is there?)
Most politicians are (or become) wealthy. This in itself is a problem. But to compare the wealth of one parties members to the political actions of another is just bad reporting. Its the kind of logic that would get you slapped if you snuck it into a term paper. But its apparently right at home in the Evening Bulletin, and in every other news outlet where you can find “balanced reporting”.