Newsweek announced that Karl Rove, the controversial architect of the rise and fall of the modern G.O.P., will join its ranks as a new contributor to balance the recent hire of blogger Markos Moulitsas.
This is an odd pair on several levels. First, it makes Kos look huge. His web commentary and grassroots organizing have earned him a media perch on par with one of the most powerful people to ever work in the Bush White House. If columns are going to be handed out based on power, then at least Newsweek understands that there is power beyond holding office in Washington.
Second, it reveals a common misunderstanding of partisanship in the traditional media. In this model, Rove and Moulitsas automatically balance out each other's partisanship, because they are political operators. I doubt it. Rove has spent an entire political career devoted to the advancement of the G.O.P. and its politicians. Moulitsas has spent his political career toggling between support and confrontation with the Democratic Party. Yes, he's a liberal partisan Democrat who generally wants the party to win. But he has repeatedly challenged Democratic politicians, offering criticism, scorn, ridicule and several well-funded primary challenges. He even sits on the board of They Work For Us, an independent organization devoted to pressuring incumbent Democrats and supporting primary challenges. So while Rove and Moulitsas are both more politically active than a typical columnist, they are nowhere near equal on the partisanship scale. Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham says that means readers will "know that what they get from Karl has to be judged in the context of who Karl is...Readers will have to decide if he's simply an apologist." Fine, "reader beware" applies to both of them. Now let's keep track of how many times Rove flatly criticizes Republicans, or calls for a primary against a senior Republican senator in a safe seat.
Third, of course, there's this constant media fixation with "balance" itself. If the goal is something like equal time for liberals and conservatives, most of the media is failing badly. A recent study found conservatives have 60% of the the syndicated newspaper columns, while 58% of the Sunday show guests were conservative in 2005. Then, apart from the numbers, equal time cannot substitute for factual, thoughtful news and commentary. Criticizing Moulitsas' endorsement of the balance approach, Portfolio's Jeff Bercovici breaks it down:
Is that what it's about? Balance? So you have a liberal shouting on one side, and a conservative shouting on the other side, and if their voices exactly cancel each other out, you've done your job? That sounds like Crossfire, or like the obligatory post-debate spin room, not like a magazine with an outsize regard for its own reputation.
Maybe we all just have to live in that spin room now. At least it's "balanced" by partisanship.
--
Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this post first appeared. Check out The Nation's Campaign Blog for more news and commentary.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
I guess it is not funny that someone like Rove and the neocons always land on their feet. Rove just barely escaped being charged for perjury in the Valerie Plame investigation. I hope they get him in regard to his role in the firing of the assistant attorney generals.
Equally offensive is the idea that every discussion has to be balanced by a participant from the far right. A panel will often have two mainstream journalists who are trained to avoid personal opinions and a true believer from some far-right concern such as the American Enterprise Institute or the National Review. The culture warrior on the right plays the role of the thought police. It is like trying to balance a boat with a 800 pound guerilla at one end.
Toss the presumption of balance and remain committed to getting to the bottom of the story. Did the Bush administration fire assistant attorney generals for illegal, partisan reasons? Find evidence. How was the intelligence manipulated in our invasion of Iraq and by whom? Get the facts.
The media in this nation are nothing but whores.
This is the same kind of balance the media has strived for in the science debates over the past few years. Balance to them seems to mean 50/50 split, no matter what the true ratio is. Take Intelligent Design. If the true split were reflected in the media, for every minute of ID shown, there would be hundreds of hours of evolution. Ditto climate change, only more like dozens of hours. They just do a shitty job.
What on earth are you people so afraid of? Here's your chance for your darling KOS to show his stuff (if he has any). This nonsense about KOS being too "good of a person" to go up against Rove is getting old.
Washpo, you're next.
Third, of course, there's this constant media fixation with "balance" itself.
----
Yes, balance is important. Some people believe the moon is made of rock, while others believe it's made of cheese.
Balance: It's like riding a teeter-totter between reality and delusion. Wheee!
- Tom
rove only got by on spin and the echo chamber setting, like a crap diamond.
having to battle on actual logic with somebody who is not full of crap should be an interesting thing to watch.
my prediction is that he will be revealed, at long last as little better than an an advertising jingle writer. markos will wipe the floor with him.
and yes i love that markos also has time to criticize neocon democrats. this is good news all around.