The Bosque Boys

Our church had its first Christmas Program rehearsal this morning during the Sunday School time. Squirming kids, hyper kids, talkative kids. (I loved the blurted question part-way through from the 2nd grade girl who asked, if Jesus was born king, who was the queen?) 5th-grade Isaiah the prophet coming down the aisle to declaim his prophecies doing what I can only describe as a pimp-walk. The girl who can do Native American sign language absent. The high school narrator giving a very low-keyed reading of the miracle of the Incarnation. Mary not wanting to stand close enough to Joseph to touch him. The ranks of the heavenly host depleted by a few absences. 7th grade Elizabeth not sure she wanted to wear a costume that simulated a pregnant woman. The special-effects boy pretending to shine a flashlight at one point because the real one must have been elsewhere. In other words, a typical first rehearsal of a Sunday School Christmas program. Controlled chaos that by the end of the hour was beginning to take recognizable shape. I'm confident that on the night of the 17th we'll have a respectable presentation of "Three Gifts for Jesus," written by one of our members. And in the midst of this morning, God's grace. The 2nd-grader with the question giving me a piece of paper after the children's sermon to "give to Jesus:" a marker drawing of Mary and Joseph with the baby Jesus in the manger between them and all surrounded by red hearts. Nevermind that she had squabbled with another girl during the early part of the service over the markers. Somehow the reality of the miracle of God's love for us had touched her, prompting this response.

Paul said that God puts his treasure into earthen vessels, into clay pots. That's the church. That's us Christians, the people of God. Clay pots. Controlled chaos, AWOL Sunday School students, missing flashlights, and strutting prophets. Yet somehow, God's love comes through. Have a blessed Advent.

As part of the discussion following my post, "What Liberal Bias?" Gossenius and I went back and forth over my classification of Fox News.

Gossenius argued that Fox News more logically should be classified with the MSM:

"My biggest disagreement with your list is in not putting Fox News in with the mainstream media-- they are simply a different infection of the same illness for which people berate those others. If conservatives choose to critique mainstream media as biased, why not include Fox in that critique?"

Gossenius asks a fair question. Why can't conservatives admit that Fox News is merely the flip side of the MSM coin (conservative-leaning versus liberal-leaning)?

In large part, I agree with the heart of his analysis.

It is similar to the point Joab made a few days ago:

"I stopped listening to Rush long ago as he is, IMHO, a Republican partisan hack. And as for Fox News, they are no more biased to the right than CNN, MSNBC and the 3 major networks are to the left."

So, why I am so stubborn in arguing the point with Gossenius?

The Fox corporate ethos is significantly different from the MSM culture. Here are the key distinctions:

1. Fox is an upstart swimming against the "mainstream." No instructive analysis can ignore the fact that Fox came into being (and succeeded grandly) as a counter balance to the MSM. Fox filled a vacuum.

2. Fox is not under the delusion of "objectivity." The liberal MSM labors under the self-serving certainty that they are reporting the news of the day in an objective way.

An aside: it does not really matter how genuine MSM reporters may be in their faith; for what it is worth, I think they are quite sincere (albeit self-deceived).

Has anyone ever seen this exchange on C-SPAN? A caller presses an MSM reporter to reveal his political affiliation; the reporter responds that his political affiliation is irrelevant. Pressed further, the reporter tells the caller that he is registered as an independent. Later, he will point desperately to the occasional left-wing wacko who accuses the MSM of a corporate bias and tell you that he gets hit from all sides.

Even as a study in the late-1990s showed that over 90-percent of "Beltway" reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, MSM reporters continued to argue that their personal politics did not impinge on their ability to report the news in a detached manner.

As I asserted in the comments section of the first post:

the storied Fox News slogan, "fair and balanced," was partly a parody of the MSM tortured self-perception.

What do I mean by that?

Most of the Fox pioneers were veteran reporters and producers from the MSM (think Britt Hume formerly of ABC News). They had toiled in the fields of their oppressors for years. When they broke free and raised their own flag, they signaled their independence and defiance with a series of slogans like "We Report, You Decide" and "Fair and Balanced."

Moreover, they knew well that the competition would see Fox as conservatives reporting the news through a lens of conservatism. But they also knew that their liberal counterparts would not see Fox as their mirror image; the established media would continue to see themselves as faithful adherents to the sacred calling of objectivity; they would see Fox News as unwashed infidels desecrating the holy temple of objective journalism.

The Fox News brain trust fully expected that their conservative cable news network would make the MSM apoplectic. Pretty funny really. I bet Roger Ailes still gets a chuckle when someone like Keith Olberman, frothing, breaks a big story uncovering Republican bias at Fox News. It is a great joke that continues to pay great dividends.

By the way, I suggest that Fox News gladly would accept a statement from the MSM that read: "we charge Fox with being just as biased as we are!"

As for Gossenius's worry that the Fox viewers are not "in on the joke," he probably does not give the Fox regulars enough credit; they are not being misled. Most of them merely wanted a network to read the news in a way that did not make them feel stupid or evil for seeing the world the way they saw it. They are grateful.

I am glad that Fox News exists as a voice to speak "truth" to the power of the MSM.

For personal disclosures in re my viewing habits:

» Read More

Over the past months, I've posted several times on the ongoing problems within Mainline American Christianity. For example here and here and here. (The term itself is now out-of-date since these denominations have been losing strength both in relative and absolute terms since the 1960s.) Those in favor of liberalization of the church, which means for the mainline denominations those in the power positions, tend to refer to all fervent opposition to their agenda as schismatic. That is, they accuse their opponents of rending the Body of Christ by causing splits. But, who are the real schismatics? I would argue that it is those who break faith with historic Christianity who have split the church. Expressing this idea better than I can is the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, Episcopal, +John-David Schofield here. Read also the letter of support farther down the page from the Moscow Patriarchate.

To honor the noble dead, and once more to refute the calumny that those who join the military are somehow "losers," this tribute to the late Sgt. 1st Class James D. Priestap. From Wizbang

Tocqeville urges a reading of this essay by Andrew J. Bacevich in Commonweal. In it the author urges us to consider our nation and its history realistically and truthfully, in order to make our way in the world. Bacevich offers a sober assessment for our consideration. Guaranteed to provoke, stimulate, and enlighten. Well worth the read, I think.

I feel ambivalent toward Starbucks. On the one hand, I really like their coffee/on the other, spending that much on coffee seems self-indulgent. On the one hand, they are a national chain and on principle I favor small independent businesses/on the other hand, they offer good benefits even to their part-time employees. On the one hand, I really like their coffee/on the other hand I believe we would be better off in many ways doing more for ourselves, including brewing coffee at home. On the one hand I'm ambivalent about Starbucks/on the other, my wife is a big fan.

The other night my wife and I did some Christmas shopping and finished the evening at Starbucks, and they did something to help win me over. They gave me free used coffee grounds, maybe 5 or 6 pounds. At least at this Starbucks they'll do it for anyone; they are saving their grounds and have a small sign on the counter offering free used grounds. For those of you who are not gardeners, coffee grounds make good compost material.

Good for them.

Thanks to the internet, you no longer need to go to prison to learn esoteric housebreaking skills. Now there are instructional videos for opening any lock with simple tools and simpler technique readily available. Info from Wizbang with links.

We have had a few interesting exchanges lately (some of them in the comments section) regarding the MSM (mainstream media) and liberal bias. Here are a few assertions:

1. No rational observer can credibly deny a liberal bias in the mainstream media (MSM).

2. However, bias should not be confused with orchestrated advocacy. There is no "vast left-wing conspiracy" in the MSM. There is no master plan to bring Democrats to power or put Republicans out of business. The MSM bias for liberal candidates and causes is real, and it is systemic and institutional, but it is not concerted.

3. For the most part, the MSM does not see itself as slanted. Most members of the MSM see themselves as adherents to a strict code of objective journalism. Objectivity equals professionalism for most mainstream reporters; therefore, they view charges of bias as vile insults. (If you call Dan Rather biased, he will probably want to "take you outside").

4. The MSM is not wholly defined by its liberal worldview. The MSM's cynicism acting in conjunction with its other biases for conflict and sensationalism are also essential in explaining its political coverage.

5. Although vastly outnumbered, the new conservative media has emerged a powerful counterweight to the MSM. For the most part, the conservative media makes no pretense of "objective" journalism. "Fair and balanced" means something different to conservative journalists than it does to the MSM. The new media value honesty and a free exchange of ideas, but they are much more unabashedly partisan than their counterparts in the MSM.

Defining my terms:

MSM: NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, CBS News, CNN, ABC News, NBC News, Time, Newsweek, etc.

Conservative Media (my term--most conservatives prefer "alternative media" or "new media"): Fox News, Talk Radio & the conservative blogosphere.

Liberal Media: While some conservatives see MSM and liberal media as synonymous, with this term I actually refer to the partisan liberal media such as the Nation, Mother Jones, Pacifica Radio, Michael Moore & other Hollywood friends, etc.

NPR and PBS: A category unto itself. Generally, NPR and PBS provide a much more intellectual and restrained presentation of the news. For example, NPR and PBS are not nearly as scandal-driven as the MSM. For the most part, the public radio and television audiences are liberal (with the occasional conservative intellectual); notwithstanding, no matter their political affiliation, NPR and PBS news consumers are much more apt to have their world views fully formed. As a result, while NPR and PBS are more ideologically pure in their liberal worldview than the MSM, they are much less influential in shaping public opinion.

C-SPAN: another category unto itself. C-SPAN attempts to show all points of view without editorial comment. C-SPAN is fundamentally conservative in the ultimate Jeffersonian libertarian sense ("give the people light and they will find the way"), but the relatively unwatched mother lode of political information remains the only completely pure source of unvarnished news.

Born this day in 1874.

November 30
Winston Churchill was born at Blenheim Palace, near Woodstock, Oxfordshire, England to Lord Randolph and Lady Churchill (Jennie Jerome).
December 3
"On the 30th Nov., at Blenheim Palace, the Lady Randolph Churchill, prematurely, of a son." (The Times)

Link to the Churchill Center.

Churchill entry at the Nobel Literature site (he won in 1953).

Link to Blenheim Palace site, Churchill's birthplace.

Link to the Churchill exhibit at the Library of Congress.

Link to the Churchill Society, London, which has audio of Churchill.

Link to the Churchill Museum.

Link to picture of Churchill's grave at Bladon.

Tribute at GayPatriot.

Churchill was the epitome of English bulldog courage and tenacity, an indispensible man for Freedom in the 20th century. Let's remember that Courage (or Fortitude) is a necessary republican virtue for the preservation of liberty. Three cheers for Sir Winston.

Gateway Pundit is still on AP like a pitbull. Here. The Mainstream Media failure to provide clear and accurate news from Iraq is a scandal.