Why Peggy Noonan can be irritating
I like Peggy Noonan. And I think she has written a lot of good stuff. I've also pointed out some big disagreements I have with her. Reading her latest column for the WSJ, I found myself getting irritated with her even though I surely agree with her main point that Dems are making a big mistake when they make the election all about Bush.
I think I know why she is irritating in those instances when I find here so. Not just in this column, but every time I disagree with her. It is this -- she takes as given the news she gets from the MSM and the assumptions that go with it. I guess it goes back to the years she worked for Dan Rather and CBS.
She lives in Manhattan and believes the MSM. Let's give her credit for generally supporting the GOP despite the massive amount of left-wing propaganda she inhales every day. But one has to question how someone committed to facts and truth could keep inhaling the propaganda every day.
Because in the end, much of the left/right divide in our politics focuses on facts. And if you believe the "facts" spouted by Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Bill and Hillary, Algore, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy which are trumpeted by the MSM, most of what you believe is simply not true. And the foolish policy choices which arise from an understanding of these "facts" may actually seem to make some sense.
As I reflect on this, I wonder how much George Will's and William Buckley's views of the war in Iraq are due to this same phenomenon. Are we at a crossroads where our policy views inevitably flow from our sources of information?
Has the MSM gone so far that the question of one's politics can be answered by whether one accepts the MSM as a reputable source for honest news? Is there now developing a split among conservatives -- those who accept the MSM as honest news brokers and those who dismiss the MSM as propagandists?
I think I know why she is irritating in those instances when I find here so. Not just in this column, but every time I disagree with her. It is this -- she takes as given the news she gets from the MSM and the assumptions that go with it. I guess it goes back to the years she worked for Dan Rather and CBS.
She lives in Manhattan and believes the MSM. Let's give her credit for generally supporting the GOP despite the massive amount of left-wing propaganda she inhales every day. But one has to question how someone committed to facts and truth could keep inhaling the propaganda every day.
Because in the end, much of the left/right divide in our politics focuses on facts. And if you believe the "facts" spouted by Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Bill and Hillary, Algore, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy which are trumpeted by the MSM, most of what you believe is simply not true. And the foolish policy choices which arise from an understanding of these "facts" may actually seem to make some sense.
As I reflect on this, I wonder how much George Will's and William Buckley's views of the war in Iraq are due to this same phenomenon. Are we at a crossroads where our policy views inevitably flow from our sources of information?
Has the MSM gone so far that the question of one's politics can be answered by whether one accepts the MSM as a reputable source for honest news? Is there now developing a split among conservatives -- those who accept the MSM as honest news brokers and those who dismiss the MSM as propagandists?
posted by Stan at 12:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home