The Conventional Media Wisdom, a brief allegory

By Coram Nobis.

Apropos of the bad press PFC Manning has been getting (see the “Smearing of Bradley Manning” post of a few days ago regarding PBS Frontline &c). Glenn Greenwald posted a story about “Establishment Thought and the War on Terror”, and didn’t care much for PBS’ narrow range of acceptable opinion either. This can also be true for the general MSM, by and large.

I had a modest attempt to mimic the “Establishment Thought” in the comments thread on that story. This program is made possible by the Pétain Foundation; by the Bonnie Parker & Clyde Barrow Charitable Trust; by Boozy Malice, a public relations firm; by Addington, Bybee, Yoo, Nazgûl & Grond, a public-interest law firm; and by viewers like you. Thank you!

JIM LEHRER: … this week’s accord in Congress being hailed as the Great Compromise of 1850. For commentary on that and other events this week, we turn to our weekly analysis from Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you, Jim.

JIM: So what about Sen. Clay’s new compromise?

MARK: It represents a statesmanlike approach to Congress on the issue of slavery. We have extremists like Edmund Ruffin on the right, who wants to take the South out of the Union, and William Lloyd Garrison on the left who actually wants to abolish slavery, and it’s time we were able to buy a few years of peace, at least.

DAVID BROOKS: Might I add, however, that slavery represents the largest share of the South’s economy, and any further efforts to restrict it could slow our economic growth throughout the 1850s and even beyond. And it upsets the Missouri Compromise. Sen. Calhoun himself warned that the day the balance between the two sections was destroyed would be a day not far removed from disunion, anarchy, and civil war.

JIM: Could the Union be preserved, in his view?

DAVID: Yes, easily; the North has only to agree to a restoration of the lost equilibrium of equal North–South representation in the Senate. And they need to cease agitating the slavery question.

MARK: Calhoun had precedent and law on his side of the debate, however, Sen. Webster was able to fend off the abolitionist base to sign onto the compromise and bring the needed votes.

DAVID: Daniel Webster may have some political problems by signing on to the agreement.

MARK: Yes, but he said, “No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer or if he fall in defense of the liberties and constitution of his country.” Liberties, David, for all of us.

DAVID: All of us [knowing smile], indeed.

JIM: On that, we need to segue into our next segment, on the Whig Party and its prospects for the 1850 election. We turn to Jeffrey Brown, in New York …