The media's unfair assault's on Perry

David Zurawik:

I doubt this modest request will be heard over the fevered roar for the scalp of Texas Gov. Rick Perry that the media has been sounding since he announced his candidacy for president. There is almost a palpable bloodlust to bring this guy down -- and it is being sounded by parts of the mainstream press that should know better.

My modest proposal: Let's just try and be fair. Let's do a little self-ethnography from time to time and ask why we feel like it is open season on this guy and his campaign -- and it is OK to drop some of the usual standards of fairness in trying to bring him down.

Let's also think back to 2008 and reflect on the way we covered candidate Obama, and ask ourselves if we are treating Perry the same way we treated the senator from Illinois. Really, think about it -- and let's look in the mirror as we are doing so to see if we can hold our own gaze.

I am not defending Perry or some of the statements he made. But I have seen commentary after commentary on cable TV, network TV, in print, social media and on blogs talking about how he accused Fed chairman Ben Bernanke of treason.

What Perry actually said is this, "Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous -- or treasonous in my opinion.”

I think he's pushing the envelope of acceptable discourse, but he didn't accuse Bernanke of treason, and I have seen instance after instance in which commentators for mainstream media outlets have ignored the "almost" in Perry's statement. The ones at CNN have troubled me the most, because I have long believed CNN is our last, best hope for journalism on cable TV.

...

Ditto for all the analysts and pundits who stated categorically that Perry "questioned President Obama's patriotism." This is a two-fer. It encourages outrage against Perry and sympathy for Obama.

But, again, that is not what Perry said or did.

As I wrote last week:

I think someone who served in the military as Perry did (as a fighter pilot) has every right as a candidate to raise the issue of who made a bigger sacrifice to his country as a young person -- him or someone who chose college. He has an absolute right to do that and it gets at the hypocrisy of the Washington political and media class that urges people to serve their country as members of the military and then sends their own sons and daughters to elite colleges and universities instead of military service.

Putting his military service against Obama's lack of service isn't calling Obama unpatriotic as many in the press have characterized it, it is showing a clear difference: The person who goes into the military risks her or his life, while the young person who goes to a top college or university gets an education if they apply themselves that all but guarantees them a good economic life if nothing else.

He never questioned Obama's patriotism or called the president unpatriotic. But there is service, and then, there is service. He could have gotten killed in the service he gave to his country -- not true for a student at, say, Harvard.

...

There are many other such instances of unfairness. It is something that conservatives have to live with in politics these days. The liberals will keep repeating thisr distortions and keep losing credibility.