Old Media Fights the Last War

The Old Media seems oblivious to why it isn't shaping American public opinion on the Iraq War. It isn't for lack of trying according to James Taranto: ...the ability of the partisan media to shape events is self-limiting. In the 1960s and '70s, journalists had a reputation, built up over decades, for objectivity and fairness--a reputation they have, to a significant degree, squandered. When Walter Cronkite turned against the Vietnam War, it had an impact because he was known as "the most trusted man in America." Is there any journalist today who comes anywhere close to wearing that mantle? With examples: It's easy to list examples of media bias against the war effort. Just from last autumn: The battle of Tal Afar got far less coverage than the artificial "milestone" of 2,000 Americans dead (which includes suicides and accidents as well as combat fatalities). In November, Rep. John Murtha, a longtime war critic, received endless attention for his proposal of immediate withdrawal; Sen. Joe Lieberman's declaration that he believed America was winning was largely ignored. And why they are failing: Little wonder traditional media are losing audience share to such opinionated "new media" as talk radio, Fox News Channel and blogs. New forms of media would pose a challenge to old ones anyway, but the mainstream media are now getting competition on content as well. As a Wall Street Journal editorial put it in 2004: For decades liberal media elites were able to define current debates by all kicking in the same direction, like the Rockettes. . . . But the last month [this was during the imbroglio over CBS's faked National Guard memos] has widened cracks in that media monopoly that have been developing for some time.