Lazy Journalism

Here we go again. No sooner had President Bush commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby than the media launched into its usual, knee-jerk attempt to analyze the response to the decision in terms of right vs left.

Airwaves and news pages were quickly filled with talk of "outrage from the left," "criticism from the left," and how the commutation "will further drive the left crazy."

It's positively Pavlovian. Ring the issue bell, and reporters start to drool about right vs left. Even when the facts show that the Libby commutation -- like the war in Iraq, like the war on drugs, like global warming -- is not an issue that splits along right/left lines.

In a SurveyUSA poll taken immediately after the commutation was announced, 60 percent of those surveyed said they disagreed with the decision, including 35 percent of conservatives. And, in an earlier Time magazine/SRBI poll, 72 percent said they would disapprove of a pardon. So unless "the left" has recently had an incredible growth spurt, a lot of people on the so-called "right" are feeling outraged too.

Is it really that hard for the media to address this issue without the left/right crutch? Or, if journalists and pundits insist on hobbling along using that musty terminology, can they at least do a little research and see that there are plenty on "the right" who aren't exchanging high-fives over Libby dodging the prison bullet?

Can someone please alert the media: not every issue fits your cherished right/left paradigm. Indeed, that way of looking at the world is becoming less and less relevant -- and more and more absurd.

Its even worse when the media claims balance by presenting two extremists (one liberal and one conservative).

That's like claiming balance when standing with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and the other foot in a bucket of ice.