Revisiting The Visitors Thing

From The Daily Press (Virginia tidewater area) yesterday, talking about the most recent attempt to swing government towards the Authoritarian side of the spectrum:

We are quick to criticize elected officials and government bodies when they seek to limit the public's access to information, either by operating behind closed doors or concealing documents which should be readily available for the asking. It is similarly important to single out such groups for praise when they make a decision respecting those principles.

That brings us to the University of Virginia, the commonwealth's flagship institution, which smartly walked away from a worrisome aspect of a proposed "statement of expectations" being prepared for its Board of Visitors by a subcommittee of that board.

A draft circulated earlier this month attempted to quash dissent by members, instructing them to avoid speaking publicly on board decisions "whether past, present or imminent" unless granted the approval of the board's leader. Essentially it would require the board to speak with one unified, unquestioning voice.

Starts out pretty good, but then this:

Dr. Sullivan was pressured to resign before public outcry led to her reinstatement in what can charitably be described as a debacle for the university's Board of Visitors and a highly visible black eye for the entire U.Va. community.

That last bit sounds a lot like Blaming The Victim, so I gotta ask - in what way do you think Terry Sullivan was at fault for being the target of an attempted coup orchestrated (in secret) by Helen Dragas; and how exactly was it wrong for an outraged public to protest such dirty dealing?

It's not always easy to see who's wrong and who's right, but sometimes it's actually pretty clear.  But then somehow, no matter what the issue is, and no matter what the outcome was; for the public, the discussion of these problems must always be shoe-horned into "both sides..." and "plenty of blame to go around" and "it makes everybody look bad" etc etc etc.  False Equivalency must prevail.

The Press Poodles have become extraordinarily adept at making it sound like they're just trying to be the voice of moderation - trying to keep the peace - trying to maintain a healthy balance.

Maybe we're seeing the logical progression of the very sorry state of affairs in the News-As-Profit-Center model of "journalism" in the 21st century.  They can't afford to take any financial hits, so if they piss off any of their readers then they stand to lose revenue, and that means they dance according to whoever's paying the band, and that means we get "news" that's been bleached to the point of invisibility.

But for me it also means we're being told not to pay attention; we shouldn't let it worry our pretty little heads, and we can all just go back to sleep.

Bullshit.

It matters what's true and not true.
It matters what's best for the most.
It matters what my government is doing in my name and with my money.
It matters that I have a say in how my government operates.

And it matters a lot for the 4th Estate to get back up on its hind legs and start doing it's fucking job again.

Hey, News Editors - if you think something's fucked up, then you say so.  If it turns out you got it wrong, then you own it and you say you were wrong about it - and hey, guess what - that means you'll have something to put in your little newspaper tomorrow.  Could we try that for a while?