Talking about "hundreds" of media people working in, on, or about election issues this year at ABC, Hugh and Mark invite us into the "Who Knew?" department:
Referencing a famous "prize" that Wonker, in his journalistic disguise, will never win. (NB, italicized excerpt was italicized by moi.):
HH: Of those hundreds, what percentage do you think fairly, honestly, are liberal, and would vote Democratic if they voted?
MH: The same as in almost every old media organization I know, which is well over 70%.
HH: Isn’t it…Thomas Edsall, in an interview that I know you read, because you wrote me about it, he said 95…
MH: I think 95’s well overstated…
HH: He said 15-25:1 in the Washington Post, liberal to conservative. Do you think that’s fair?
MH: Absolutely.…it’s an endemic problem. And again, it’s the reason why for forty years, conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake.
There you have it. A "conservative" from time to time might have won a Pulitzer, but only if he or she somehow successfully remained in the closet. We have stated in this space and elsewhere, many times, that, as in academia, the system is effectively gamed by a Stalinist strategy of completely closing off publicity avenues, friendships, and important social events to anyone who might even hint at a conservative view. Fully aware that they cannot compete with conservatives in the arena of ideas, the hard left has completely walled off most opportunities for recognition and advancement that rely on conservative viewpoints, unless those viewpoints are closeted so completely that the closeting verges on dishonesty.
HH: Does the Pulitzer matter to anyone anymore?
MH: Probably not to real people, but within journalism, there’s some prestige associated with it.
HH: Are there any main, big name journalists working today who’ve won a Pulitzer or not, or come in close, who are conservatives, Mark Halperin?
MH: I think…well, you know, in the new environment, Hugh, where you and Fred Barnes, and other leading conservative voices…
HH: No, I’m talking about the networks, CNN, ABC, the old media, plus the New York Times.
MH: There are some. There aren’t a lot, but there are some.
HH: Who? Names.
MH: I’d rather not name them, because they’re privately conservative, and I’m trying to get away from a world in which…I’ll say it again, because I don’t want anyone who tuned in late to misunderstand. The old media is filled with liberals. There are a few conservatives, but they’re just as entitled to their privacy as I am, but there are some.
HH: And these liberals…you know, Terry Moran on this program said…Terry Moran on this program from ABC, your colleague…
HH: …said that the media hates the military, has a deep suspicion of it. Do you agree with that?
MH: I totally agree. It’s one of the huge biases, along with gays, guns, abortion, and many other things.
Again, as we have said many times before, this party discipline has transformed not only the professoriat but the media and the publishing industry as well into a sort of giant high school clique or college frat party where only the "cool" are admitted. And to be "cool" in this environment, you have to be very, very left, even if you happen to be richer than anybody else.
Now that Hugh has gone this far, he decides to put a bit of icing on the cake. The money question:
HH: I think my giant unified field theory here is that liberal media has destroyed the necessity of the left having to debate, having to reach a message across, because you guys have always papered over the weakness of their arguments. And so, in essence, by creating an echo chamber, and by allowing them to get away with saying silly things, you’ve destroyed the incentive to be smart and facile.
MH: I agree.
There you have it. We've been screaming about this sort of thing, Luther and I, since we started this blog about a year ago. It's nice to see an MSMer candidly agree. On one hand, this demonstrates a candor I find surprising on the part of the MSM, which is stalwart in maintaining its "objectivity," a claim that has become laughable of late. On the other hand, Halperin's ready agreement with Hewitt's observation also demonstrates a breathtaking lack of concern as to just how duplicitous, and damaging, this kind of mass behavior has become in the context not only of education and politics, but in the context as well of the Global War on Terror and the battle of our open culture against the totalitarians who lie at the heart of today's dangerous Islamofascism, which has arguably replaced the Communists of old.
Yet old Commies, like the aging boomers who now run the MSM, just don't care. They're rich and famous, it's their party, and the Islamofascists are just fine. Because they hate Bush and Amerikkka. Just like the sneering MSM hates you and me.