'Journalism' doesn't mean what Howard Kurtz thinks it means

Without really intending to, Howard Kurtz lays bare the mainstream media's monolithic liberal bias, and does so without apology or much of a hint of self-awareness. In its reporting regarding the "death panels" story, Kurtz writes, the media did not "retreat" to the "studied neutrality" of giving both sides their say -- instead they "tried to perform last rites on the ludicrous claim about President Obama's death panels" and tried to tell Sarah Palin to shut up. And they failed.

Get that? The media set out not to inform, but to "debunk." Not to clarify and encourage greater intellectual honesty among the partisans, but for no other purpose than to nail Sarah Palin for lying. And yet, somehow, they fucked it up.

Let's take a moment to review the offending quote. Palin wrote that she did not want to see an America "in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." Kurtz writes:

"While there is legitimate debate about the legislation's funding for voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions, the former Alaska governor's claim that government panels would make euthanasia decisions was clearly debunked."

And there you have it. The media's judgment was swift and sure and can be summarized as: "WTF? Death panels are not in the bill! There's something in there about end of life counseling, so that must be what that Alaskan hick is talking about." Kurtz doesn't mention whether the media bothered to analyze Palin's statement or the media's own judgment any further than that. Because the media didn't. The media just took a position -- one that just happened to square perfectly with the Obama administration and liberal orthodoxy -- and rather than question its own biases, set to work trying to discredit the other side.

There's no way to make it any more plain than that. Mainstream journalism has evolved to the point where no one in the exclusive club can even manage to comprehend the opposing viewpoint from the Right. This isn't anything new, of course. It's merely amusing to watch Kurtz wring his hands on behalf of the media establishment that its best efforts to slam the door on an opposing viewpoint failed to move the public-opinion needle.

Allow me, Mr. Kurtz, to explain where the media really went wrong.

First of all, the "she's talking about end of life counseling and she's wrong" argument is quickly disposed of by anyone who bothered to read what Sarah Palin actually wrote. Her note on Facebook was only a few paragraphs. Anyone who reads the "death panels" passage in the context of the full note will understand that she is talking about health care rationing as an inevitable consequence of the complete government takeover of medicine. And as for "that's not in the bill," well that's just hiding the football. It is deliberately ignoring the fact that the Left has been pushing for government-run health care for generations. And if the government runs health care -- top-down, cradle-to-grave -- rationing is inevitable.

So read what Sarah Palin wrote and decide for yourself whether Kurtz's summary of it is supported -- he says she wrote "that government panels would make euthanasia decisions." Yet she didn't. She said that bureaucrats would judge whether a patient was worthy of health care and they would make that decision based on the government's subjective judgment of the patient's level of productivity in society. She didn't say the bureaucrats would euthanize her baby or her parents. She said decisions would be made by bureaucrats which would ultimately result in the patient's life or death. Apparently, to Kurtz, it's not a "death panel" unless it kills you outright. It's not a "death panel" if it just lets you die.

Again, under socialized medicine, rationing is inevitable. They know that. We know that. So was Sarah Palin's 'death panels' comment "over the top?" Inflamatory? Maybe. But it still squares with everything that conservatives have been warning about socialized medicine for generations now -- rationing will result, and life-or-death decisions will be made not by you but for you by bureaucrats.

Saying "that's not in the bill" is a talking point aimed at nothing less than dismissing the entire conservative position. The "reform" bills are a bridgehead from which liberals intend to continuously expand federal authority -- and the media know this. It is, in fact, why they thought "it's not in the bill" would not only be effective but also helpful to the progressive position.

But Kurtz goes on to list all the ways in which the media piled on against Sarah Palin. He describes this episode as "a stunning illustration of the traditional media's impotence." But he means that as a lament. He's not sorry that the media was blatantly carrying water for the Left's long-cherished dream of taking over health care rather than objectively reporting the news.