The media’s tendency to portray genuine disagreement as personal quarreling

I sent this e-mail last night to Joseph Curl of the Washington Times:

Mr. Curl,

While you made some interesting observations about the summit in your article, I think that overall you have trivialized the summit by painting it in terms of pique, ego, and partisan dislike. True, there some of that, such as Pelosi and Reid staring coldly into space when Lamar Alexander was speaking, as you pointed out. However, there were many substantive things said on both sides. The country got to hear these two very different views being expressed. This was very valuable.

So many reporters today, mainly liberals, seem allergic to the notion of a real conflict over principle, so they habitually denigrate substantive differences of opinion as “sniping,” “squabbling,” and such like. I would hope for better than that at the Washington Times.

Also, on Obama’s put-down of McCain, I don’t think it’s true, as you put it, that “Mr. McCain shot back with a tight smile.” To the contrary he responded to the slight graciously, with self-deprecating humor. And I say that as a total McCain opponent.

Regards,
Lawrence Auster

- end of initial entry -

Carol Iannone writes:

Amazing these reporters what they see. I think there was some automatic thing going on, that reporters just reach for these cliches about grandstanding, egos, and all that, like when they say food fight and other stupid things. What I saw was sincerity on all sides. Of course I didn’t listen much to the Dems, ha ha. But with Obama, I thought his only low point was saying the campaign is over. That was snarky. Gayle King was defending it though, saying McCain had said something like, with all due respect, that was unsavory.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 26, 2010 08:57 AM | Send