What can you say about a media that presents a distorted picture of events both abroad and at home? What are they good for other than to be partisan outlets for the Democratic Party's secular culture? How could the mainstream media be so out of touch with its supposed audience? The establishment media lives in a bubble, as documented by former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg. The social circles of liberal reporters consist of those for whom gay marriage is a long overdue civil rights reform, for whom abortion is an essential constitutional right, and for whom the blessings of the U.N. are essential to American action overseas. And so their news reports reflect an outlook severely contradicted in vast swaths of the nation.
Moral values as the defining issue of the election! That's the point of view of this site and many other sites on the internet. That's what motivated us to plow through the media distortions and attempt to expose these distortions day in and day out during the campaign season. In my view, all those efforts together had a significant impact in the outcome.
The new media revolution is advancing a conservative social agenda. That development is another amazing feat to behold. The election results are strong evidence that the power of the liberal media has been severely diminished. The liberal news outlets distort more than ever, but they convince less than ever. And they are heard by fewer Americans than ever because more and more Americans have found alternative sources of information.
But let's get back to the headline about moral issues as defining the election. For Catholics, this election marks a turning point in galvanizing the Catholic vote for Catholic issues. No longer can the mere identity of a candidate as "Catholic" sway the Catholic vote. What swayed the Catholic vote in this election was that the Methodist incumbent President embraced Catholic positions on abortion, marriage, school vouchers, and stem cell research, positions rejected by the "Catholic" candidate from Massachusetts.
Here is what the N.Y. Times writer had to say about the Catholic vote:
Mr. Bush did particularly well among white Catholics, winning 56 percent of them compared with Mr. Kerry's 43 percent, despite Mr. Kerry's being the first Roman Catholic nominated for president since John F. Kennedy in 1960.
N.Y. Times, Nov. 4, 2004.
What the N.Y. Times leaves out is that Kerry, unlike the first Kennedy, was the first dissenting Catholic nominated for President. For all of the grave faults of John F. Kennedy, he never dissented publicly, to my knowledge, from any Church teaching. Dissent was not an issue back then. John F. Kennedy was, in public, no different than any other practicing and obedient Catholic of that era. This difference between Kennedy and Kerry accounts for the historic lopsided white Catholic vote for Bush. Reagan was also highly successful among Catholics; but Reagan, unlike Bush, never ran against a "Catholic."
This Catholic rejection of a dissenting Catholic candidate also raises questions about the strength of the influence of liberal Catholic clerics and liberal Catholic publications. They clearly favored Kerry, and distorted and diluted Catholic teaching in order to excuse voting for Kerry. Their efforts failed. The liberal media, both Catholic and secular, may be omnipresent and powerful, but they are clearly being tuned out by many.