Unprincipled Media and It’s Futile Pursuit of Perspective.  I worked a career as a federal civil servant in the Department of Agriculture.   A great deal of my work involved farm crop disasters and their national impact.  Many times, the width and depth of a particular disaster would not reach a high enough level to trigger any type of federal relief legislation; but if you were one of the few affected by the disaster, it was indeed a catastrophe.  All news is relative and should be kept in perspective.  These principles have been lost by our media and many of the non-thinking followers that follow it in a zombie-like fashion.  Please consider two quick examples from recent days. 

The Boston marathon tragedy was a terrible ordeal for those affected by it and it could very well end up sending shock waves through our nation’s anti-terrorism efforts.  However, by any measureable standard, the west Texas fertilizer plant explosion affected many more people, resulted in much more damage (both human and physical), and may yet have some of the same national security concerns as the Boston affair.  Why then did we see 24/7 coverage on the Boston bombing and a night of two of brief leads on the Texas incident?  At a minimum, a big part of the explanation lies in the fact that Boston is the center of this nation’s liberal establishment which is intertwined with the liberal media and liberal entertainment (i.e. the recent WDC correspondents/celebrities dinner) and Texas is in the heart of the conservative movement of this country.  “Urban versus rural” is not new and we should not be surprised when a greater population delivers a larger viewing audience.  But as Tom Brokaw has so aptly illustrated in the last few days, the media presence in this country (ALL of them, right and left) are shameless  to the point of not even realizing an appearance of conflict of interest and are only driven by their own relentless pursuit of chic self image.

As a second note, I recently watched a few moments of MSNBC covering the gun control issue during which their correspondent asked a gun owner why they would want to own an assault-type weapon when it “looked so dangerous”.  Does a rifle in the hands of a middle-income American male at a recreational gun range or in the hunting woods appear any more dangerous than an airliner in the hands of a hijacker?  How about a psycho driving a Ford Mustang on a busy sidewalk in nighttime LA?  How about a drunk driver in an eighteen wheeler driving I65 from Indianapolis to Nashville?  How about an unlicensed surgeon illegally practicing medicine in Oregon?  Will we ever learn that once we get past a handful of automatic weapons that have no applicable purpose other than military and law enforcement, a gun is simply a tool of the idiot who wields it?  Put that same idiot in an airliner, in an alley with a long knife, or behind the wheel on a crowded street with a few belts down and you have the same threat.   

My plea to the media is this:  Cover the news in a fashion that exudes professionalism and integrity, keeping the real impact in perspective.  Cover the threats based mainly on the individual delivering the damage, not the instruments used to deliver that damage.  Demonstrate to the thinking people of this country that you respect their ability to interpret the facts for themselves rather than attempting to dictate exactly what is important and why it is important.