The <i>Journal</i> Takes on Journalists
The folks over at the Wall Street Journal editorial page think
they've discovered a really neat argument against campaign finance reform. New
restrictions on special-interest money, they fret, would only enhance the power
of the press. An editorial published this week entitled "Media Self-Love-in"
argues that the "pundit overlords" are sympathetic to John McCain and Bill
Bradley for just this reason. "The Media wants to help [McCain] or Bradley
become president," the piece contends. "Then they will help the media become
the overwhelming arbiter of what the political system spends its energies
on."
It's always a pleasure to see the Journal istas applying their special
brand of right-wing Marxist analysis to politics. But I fear that they have not
been rigorous enough in exposing the press's hidden interests. If the media is
intentionally promoting the cause of campaign finance reform, it is doing so
despite the clear benefits it derives from the current system--and that it
stands to lose under a reformed one. There are three arguments that support
this.
Argument No. 1: Both McCain and Bradley would require that as a condition of
FCC licenses, TV stations be required to provide free airtime to candidates.
This would cost media companies some significant fraction of the estimated $600
million that will be spent on televised political advertising in 2000. And it
could run them even more, because mandated free airtime might preempt other
programming and/or non-political paid advertising. To a lesser degree,
newspapers and radio broadcasters would also suffer under a reformed system,
especially one that restricted lucrative "independent expenditure" campaigns
that tend to buy all those full-page ads.
Argument No. 2: A friend of mine says that all reporters are members of the
anti-boring party. We thrive on conflict and corruption, and suffer amid
harmony and good government. Just ask any journalist, Which would you rather
cover: the Minneapolis City Council or the Chicago City Council? Watergate or
the National Performance Review? If reporters are biased in favor of campaign
finance reform, it's not because it will do us any good personally but because
we're high-minded Mugwumps at heart.
Argument No. 3: If it's true that campaign finance reform would give the
editorial pages such awesome power, it's darned impressive that the
Journal alone is immune to this temptation. How admirable of them to
show this kind of selfless restraint and idealism when the rest of us are
disingenuously promoting our class interests. Unless, of course, it's the other
way around.
