The blogosphere has, once again, proven itself a worthy investigator. Unsurprisingly, that same investigatory spirit is nearly nonexistent in the mainstream media.
This morning on Fox and Friends, Michelle Malkin gave an interview on a story that she and HotAir have been following for several days (video embedded to the right). Apparently, many of the Chrysler dealers that have been chosen for closing have made a habit of donating money to Republicans, or nobody at all – and those who donate to Democrats are miraculously safe.
Why is it miraculous? The odds are massively against this pattern emerging – to the tune of 1/10,000,000 of 1% [h/t Doug Ross]. By comparison, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning this year (1/400,000); Mine That Bird had a better shot at being the winner of the Kentucky Derby (a glue-factory refugee which was the longest-shot winner since Donerail won on 91-1 odds in 1913), and Buster Douglas had of knocking out Mike Tyson.
In all fairness, it must still be determined what overall percentage of these small-business owners actually donate to political parties and candidates. One might assume that, since they are small-business owners, they are overwhelmingly supportive of the GOP. But assumption is not the job of a vigilant press. One would at least hope that with the odds being so stacked against the emerging pattern, the professional curiosity of journalists would get the better of them - or at least some of them. Never fear, however; journalists have been inoculated against the disease of curiosity.
It must also be said that proving any of this is a dubious task at best. The idea is not only that the White House is closing car dealerships by monarchial decree [already constitutionally problematic], it further accuses the White House of politicizing the business decisions of a major American automaker. To prove that, one must establish intent. That, however, was nearly the task of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. If nothing else, where is the professional curiosity of the press?
The announcement of a Supreme Court nominee notwithstanding – even if it the nominee is being billed as ‘historic’ – should not, and would not, hold an honestly curious media in such rigid sway. And if bloggers can find the time to investigate, why can the New York Times not spare even a junior reporter to do the same? Why are the part-time journalists asking the questions that should come from an investigative press?
The Times is already accused of letting the Watergate scoop slide to the Washington Post. One would hope that they will not repeat their mistake.