Forcing the Zeitgeist

When covering controversial issues, the media in general has the unfortunate tendency to equate fairness with evenhandedness. But as frustrating as this kind of "one-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand" reporting can be, it is doubly so when it comes from someone who should know better, and triply so when that person is an op-ed columnist who doesn't have to feign any artificial objectivity.

Case in point: Ron Brownstein's column yesterday in the Los Angeles Times. He's starts off by writing about USA Next's ad campaign against AARP's position on Social Security, and he correctly points to USA Next's scorched-earth approach.

…the USA Next attacks aim not to convert AARP, but to annihilate it. The ad seems designed to inflame antagonism and discourage negotiation. It ignores the truism that once moderated political rivalry: Any adversary today may be an ally tomorrow.

But Brownstein apparently has a larger point to make. The problem isn't just USA Next, he says, but politics in general. And for the criticism to be made general, we need a target on the left. Enter MoveOn, and the circle is made complete.

The tone wasn't nearly as venomous, but it's worth remembering that the giant liberal online advocacy group MoveOn.org encouraged its members to resign in protest from AARP when the group backed Bush's prescription drug plan.

The underlying message to AARP from both MoveOn and USA Next is the same: It must choose sides. That pressure tracks the rising criticism of the mainstream media from activists in both parties. On the left and right, the assumption is deepening that in this highly contentious political environment, no one can ever really operate as a neutral broker.

I've got news for you, Ron: politics isn't about neutrality, and to posit that as the standard paints all partisan actions with the same brush. There is a real and important distinction to be made between openly declaring one's intention of destroying an opponent, and urging people to resign from an organization if they disagree with it's policies. And the distinction isn't just quantitative, it's qualitative as well — one approach precludes a future relationship, the other doesn't.

Sometimes it's enough to tell a tale without making it exemplary of a forced zeitgeist. This should have been one of those times.