Press Is Unfairly Lynched

Republicans must accept biases in the opinion media.

My roommates and I have a favorite poster that hangs in the position of honor, right next to the bathroom. Created by Accuracy in Academia (that well-known scholarly body), it pictures a young Ronald Reagan in a Western film, with a noose around his neck. The caption reads, "Stop the Liberal/Media Lynch Mob! Tell the Truth About the Reagan Legacy!"

Indeed, the complaint that the media had a liberal slant was a frequent mantra in the eighties, But the "Lynch Mob" was doing its job, and it is still around, even if Reagan and Bush aren't.

The media must, and usually does, take aim at every public figure; even during the Republican administration Democrats like Jim Wright and Tony Coelho underwent career-ending inquiries.

The media did not hit Reagan hard because of his ideology, but because of the ever-increasing scope of their duties. The media's treatment of President Clinton makes it clear that being in government these days requires a much stricter code of conduct than it did even twenty-five years ago. Nor does this code apply only to office-holders. The non-legislative approval process experienced by Bobby Ray Inman, Lani Guinier, John Tower, and others shows that trying to get into the top offices can be just as hard as being there.

In the debate over the political orientation of the media, it is necessary to differentiate between news reporters and opinion writers, The first group should strive for impartiality and balanced converge. The other section, of which you are reading a component right now, is supposed to have opinions and biases. No one should call for these journalists to be impartial-- partiality is their profession.

Indeed, conservative writers like William Safire and Rush Limbaugh, silent during the Reagan-Bush years, have more than picked up the slack with Clinton in the White House, When these journalists try to dig up dirt, their targets are almost always on the other side of the political spectrum. Liberals investigate conservatives, and vice versa. Those who complain of a bias in the media can only be justified if they are referring to the former section; and no conclusive of basis in the factual reporting section has been put forth.

It is true that more negative press surrounded the Reagan administration than currently plagues the Clinton administration. But during the Reagan administration, 222 of his officials--including Deaver, Nofziger and Weinberger to name only a few--did undergo legal investigations.

Nor are Reagan and Bush themselves blameless. In Bush's case, avoiding the press was understandable; when you can't put together a complete sentence that hasn't been written out for you, it's natural reaction, But in the case of Reagan, the master of image whose thoughtful "Well..." bailed him out many times, the dearth of press conferences and constant miming of "I can't hear you" needs more justification, Such an attitude also might have contributed to animosity in the opinion media.

Neither Reagan nor Bush broke any laws by avoiding the media, but their actions could not be characterized as good government. The president, and all politicians should be forthcoming in all areas not directly related to national security, Only cooperation in the provision of information can actually lead to a truly impartial media. If your life is not an "open book' perhaps you should stay out of politics.

Daniel Altman's column appears alternate Mondays.