Oh, That Liberal Media!

As far back as January 2007, MSNBC writer Tom Curry's mustache was twitching ecstatically at the jowly prospect of a McCain-Lieberman ticket. Curry's devotion to McCain is no secret; small wonder that today, with half his dream team in possession of the Republican nomination, Curry feels comfortable filing--seemingly with no qualms or ethical misgivings at all--such a breathtakingly biased story as this one.

Curry's story is clearly labeled as news, not op-ed, and his title at the network is "national affairs writer," not "columnist" or "opinion writer." This is no small quibble; the clear distinction between news and opinion is central to any discussion of ethical journalistic practice.

Apart from Curry's introductory material, the story consists of quotes from members of one party dreaming up imaginative reasons that the opposing party's candidate might be considered unfit for office. Since it's a news article, naturally Curry made an attempt to get one or two quotes from the opposing camp, right?

Well, no. Curry didn't bother to run the traps; he left the story incomplete and padded the word count with additional, more-or-less identical, Republican quotes. But that's OK, right? Because, after all, he was just covering the RNC--no Democrats for miles around--and he went out of his way to mention a previous article: "Last week at the Democratic convention in Denver I spoke to delegates at a breakfast of the Iowa delegation."

OK, then. that must be where the journalistic integrity comes in. This is just part of a series--great idea, really--and in the companion article, he asked Democratic delegates to express their own juicy misgivings about McCain, no?

No. The DNC article consisted of quotes from disgruntled Clinton loyalists and other Democrats caught off-guard by Curry's leading questions inviting them to explore their deep, subconscious fears about Obama's campaign. Hm. I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.

I must say, Curry's very good at capturing the imaginations of his interview subjects. Unfortunately, he's not so good at capturing their rational thoughts. His interview subjects read like people retelling last night's strange dream or describing their pet phobias. One imagines, however, that the moment some brainy expert starts babbling on about "research," "policy" or "facts," Curry's eyes glaze over until he murmurs a remote, "That's just great; thank you for your time." And there's another interview under his belt.

If Curry feels comfortable filing as "news" such transparent campaign literature as these stories, I fear for his soul.

C'mon, Tom. There must be an idealistic J-school student still locked inside you, isn't there? Remember how, as a young reporter, you swelled with pride at being part of America's venerable Fourth Estate? How you vowed always to remain objective and never sell out your loyalty, no matter how high the bid?

What happened to that young man, Tom? What happened to your idealism? What happened to your soul?