At some point, most American's reach a revelation about what they believe and hold dear, and they compare that what is happening in their country. Mine came about 4 years ago a few years before I rejoined the collegiate community. My father and other relatives had always told me about the leftist slant of today's institutions of higher learning, so I felt compelled to discover my own values before someone was given the chance to decide that for me.

During that time, I have seen many lines drawn on both the left and the right. I have seen how both sides attempt to define their own or the opposing sides viewpoints through titles and words--the best example being the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice titles, but oddly enough, there is one defining title that we all seem to use happily use when referring to a segment of the battle of ideologues. That is the Mainstream Media.

The Mainstream Media loosely defines those elements of the media that have the mileage to their resumes to back up their clout. NBC (now MSNBC), CNN, CBS, and newspapers such as The New York Times and the LA Times all fall under the Mainstream Media mantle. Now, why do I bring this up? Well, as you might have guessed, I have a problem with this title.

Now, my problem is not the grouping. God knows that all these institutions belong together. My problem is the classification. When I think "mainstream" news sources, I think of news sources that define or help steer the climate of political debate. Are the before mentioned institutions steering the debate? Are they steering anything at all? I say no.

Let's start simple. I would assume that in order to be effective a news organization would need people to tune in. If no one gets the information, how are they supposed to effect anything? It is no secret that this is the big handicap of the "mainstreamers". Newspapers are failing and loosing ad revenue; cable news organizations are loosing viewers. It is so bad that even the Huffington Post can't ignore the numbers. But, let's face it. There is much more than numbers to look at. Like simple coverage.

Scandals can make or break a political agenda. Watergate destroyed the Nixon administration. Lewinsky severely damaged Clinton. And with media careers being made on the coverage of scandals, you would think that any media outlet would leap at the opportunity to cover one. Not this media. As of today, we have had two major... HUGE scandals that while they are not directly tied to this President, would still be damaging if properly covered. I am speaking of course about the ACORN and Climategate scandals. And who has covered them? Not the "Mainstream" media. You'd be hard pressed to find any talk about Climategate, and even Jon Stewart thought the non-coverage of ACORN was a bit unsettling.

So where are we? The "mainstream" media obviously doesn't want to do their job, and no one wants to listen to what they have to say. Is this what passes for "mainstream" in Obama's America? I think we should redefine them. Whether should call them the "Lamestream Media" as Bernard Goldberg calls them or the "State Controlled Media" as Limbaugh says is up in the air. But mainstream? Not so much.

Do you like this article? Share It!