larger view

Exclusive: Joseph Farah addresses charge WND is 'explicitly ideological'
 

Posted: October 13, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah

Well, it's official.

The self-proclaimed watchdog of the news media admits the dirty little secret – "The mainstream press is liberal."

That's the word from Thomas Edsall, formerly of the Washington Post and now with the Huffington Puffington Post, in the Columbia Journalism Review.

But it's not what you think.

It's an admission, yes. But it's also a rallying cry for a coming out party – a giant celebration of the media's liberaldom.

"Once, before 1965, reporters were a mix of the working stiffs leavened by ne'er-do-well college grads unfit for corporate headquarters or divinity school," wrote Edsall. "Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, The Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite – well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt."

Edsall goes on to agree with critics that if only reporters were allowed to vote, "Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."

None of it matters, explains Edsall, because "While the personnel tend to share an ideological worldview, most have a personal and professional commitment to the objective presentation of information, a commitment that is not shared by the conservative media."

Joseph Farah's book "Stop the Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution" explains why traditional news sources are gasping for breath amid Internet, talk radio phenomena

What is the "conservative media," according to Edsall and the esteemed Columbia Journalism Review?

"Fox News, the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Washington Times, Drudge, the Washington Examiner, the American Spectator, CNS News, Townhall, WorldNetDaily and Insight Magazine are all explicitly ideological," he claims.

Well, I think it's time Edsall and CJR get a little journalism lesson from someone (me) who has perhaps has a tad more experience and understanding of the business.

No. 1: I don't believe Fox News is explicitly ideological. Nor do I think it is "conservative." But I'll let Rupert Murdoch fight his own battles.

No. 2: The Weekly Standard, National Review, American Spectator and Townhall are not only explicitly ideological, they are OPINION magazines. They are not in the news business!

No. 3: I'm not aware that either the Washington Times or the Washington Examiner are explicitly ideological. Neither do I believe they are "conservative." Please enlighten me: Maybe I'm mistaken, but show me where these two newspapers have ever avowed conservatism.

No. 4: Insight Magazine, formerly a product of the Washington Times, is kaput, as far as I can see. Maybe Edsall and CJR are in need of a little fact checking.

No. 5: I'm not aware of Drudge ever calling himself a "conservative." Maybe I'm wrong. But, he, too, has a big enough bullhorn to fight his own battles – certainly bigger than CJR, Edsall and the Huffington Puffington Post combined.

No. 6: WorldNetDaily has disavowed the label "conservative" more times than I can count. Nowhere has WND ever proclaimed itself with such a label. And this apparently bears repeating and further explanation.

Since the peg for this story by Edsall, and a host of other similar reports, some still upcoming, by the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the Los Angeles Times, is at least in part the exposure and departure of Van Jones as Barack Obama's "green jobs czar," it's worth noting again that the reporting that led to his resignation was done by WND's Aaron Klein, I think I speak with some authority on the matter.

WND is a news agency – the largest independent source of news on the Internet.

It was founded by me – a lifelong journalist with a career spanning four decades and including stints in which I ran daily newspapers in major markets, none of which included any of the "conservative" media mentioned in Edsall's list.

The journalists working at WND all have similar qualifications and experience in the so-called "mainstream media." None of them has ever worked in "conservative media," if that is not an oxymoron.

The label "conservative" has been one placed on us, mainly by our competitors as a way of marginalizing us. Understandable, of course, but hardly "objective" and "neutral."

That's not to say WND doesn't have a unique worldview of its own amid the cacophony of those who like to think of themselves as "mainstream."

We do.

It's no secret.

We've explained it a thousand times.

We believe in doing good, American-style journalism the old-fashioned way – seeking the truth without fear or favor. We believe the highest calling of a free press in a free society is to serve as a watchdog on government and other powerful institutions. That's what American journalism was intended to do. That's why the Founding Fathers of this great country established for the first time in world history special protections for the free press in the First Amendment of our Constitution – so my colleagues serve as yet another check and balance on government power.

That's what we do – and, I think, we do it uniquely well and with the highest standards.

Edsall and CJR can continue to pretend that journalists' lockstep, pro-government, anti-freedom agenda isn't making its way into news reports. But it is becoming laughable.

How do they explain missing the ACORN exposé and the Van Jones stories?

"One of the virtues of liberalism is its empathy and its willingness to see the good in human nature," he explains.

Yeah, right. As long as they're not talking about human beings like Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell.