Last time I blogged about the television show Cold Case I was so upset I said
I wasn't going to watch it anymore. I must confess: I haven't kept my pledge
recently and I've watched the last few episodes. And with no surprise the show
still continues on with its liberal agenda. However, I was surprised that one of
the controversial issues the show seems to take on is the Fairness Doctrine. In
the episode entitled "Breaking News" a brief conversation about changes in the
news business becomes a bash Ronald Reagan fest. Here is the recap of the show
for some background:
In 1988, the news business was changing and topical world eventsI've transcribed a conversation that takes place between Jane's station manager
were being pushed aside for fluff pieces all in the name of high ratings.
Jane Everett was a young, beautiful up-and-coming anchor for the
top-rated news station in Philadelphia. Her career was on a definite
upswing when she was found strangled to death in a local park.
Investigators had believed it was a random killing but an ambitious
research assistant at the news station came upon unseen footage of
the victim the night she was murdered; this prompted Rush and the
team to reopen the investigation. Jane always wanted to do less fluff
and more hard news stories; she came upon evidence that a respected
plastics company had knowingly exposed their employees to asbestos,
falsified drug tests in order to terminate sick employees and avoided
paying their healthcare expenses. As Jane got closer to the truth, getting
a company insider to confirm the allegations, she unknowingly put her
life in danger; leading not only the company to target her but ultimately
being betrayed by her own news station management.
(Mr. Cravet) and Detectives Rush and Jeffries in the episode:
Did you get that? Before Reagan journalists were about all about serving the public
Mr. Cravet: Everett was something else. I gave a guest lecture at Syracuse
her freshman year. She sent me a story idea every week till she graduated.
Detective Rush: Were they any good?
Mr. Cravet: Not bad, actually. She had an eye for the angle. She could find
a story in every picture.
Detective Jeffries: Where did the cat suite fit in?
Cravet: At the time I hired her at WCNU things were changing, what qualified
as news was anything that got ratings.
Rush: Including news girls?
Cravet: Before Reagan took office stations had to serve the public, present balanced reports. Hell there were even limits on the
amount of ads. Reagan relaxed all the rules.
Jeffries: Relaxed is right. It looks more like a vacation than reporting.
Cravet: Company retreats. Better ratings means better profits. Better profits
means better retreats.
(I guess Dan Rather's self-righteousness started only after Reagan took office) and
now they do it all for ratings and money. Who would have thought that we would
have a television show advocating for more government regulation of news?
Well Cold Case is in its sixth season so I've guess they've already done shows that
advocate for other liberal causes (pro-abortion, abolishing capital punishment, gun
control, feminism, and the list goes on) so what is left in their progressive agenda?
Regulating media, of course!
What I also find interesting is how they managed to blame the lack of journalistic
ethics on Ronald Reagan. Why is everything the problem of the president or federal
government with liberals? There is really nothing government shouldn't touch
with them. Really, it's Ronald Reagan fault that reporters do fluff pieces? It's
Ronald Reagan's fault that reporters have thrown objectivity out the window? How
about news organizations taking responsibility for their own actions by declaring
"No we are not going to do another stupid Paris Hilton story on my network!" or
"This piece is not balanced enough. We need to get the other side of the story."
Why does Nanny Government have to tell news organizations what is and is not
acceptable?
