Jonah Goldberg (and many other conservatives) have cried foul at the Washington Post‘s decision to run and prominently feature their story on Mitt Romney’s high school bullying problem. In Goldberg’s eyes, it proves “that the Post and other mainstream media outlets are determined to do what they can to reelect Obama.” Goldberg (et al) were especially incensed that the story broke just as the nation was engaging in a serious debate about same-sex marriage.
And sure, something like that could be correct, though it’s hardly the only possible explanation. Here’s another one:
What if the Post is just covering the elections as a for-profit corporation? What if it’s simply trying to sell papers and drive traffic to its website? What if it realized that a story linking a major party’s presidential candidate to anti-effeminate (if not strictly “anti-gay”) bullying would draw more attention if released during a national debate about same-sex marriage? What if the Post‘s motivation is purely capitalistic? It’s not as though they have a huge profit margin that would allow them the luxury of determining their news coverage any other way…
“Media corporations are different!” Goldberg might yell. “There are ethical considerations in play here! Media fairness should trump some economic considerations!”
But once you start down that line, it can be hard to stop. Soon you’ll find yourself having to argue that perhaps venture capitalists should take ethics into consideration when looting struggling steel factories into bankruptcy…
(h/t to Andrew Sullivan for alerting me to Goldberg’s column)
Discussion
No comments yet.