Democratic candidate, HubertnHumphrey, for the Presidency overnhis Republican opponent.n—The networks actively opposed thenRepublican candidate, RichardnNixon, in his run for the Presidency.nIn summary, “the Presidential campaignnof 1968 and its major issues were handlednin a partisan fashion by all threennetworks.” Efron exhaustively documentednthis partisanship and its multifariousnforms of expression, whichnranged from blatant propagandizingn(for example, a reporter’s characterizationnof the white middle class as “racist,nselfish and mentally limited”) tonthe use of subtle euphemistic distortionsn(for example, a reporter’s referencento violent assaults against GovernornWallace as being the work of “hecklers”).nEfron’s analysis, remarkablenfor its thoroughness and lucidity, mustnalso be commended for its courage, forninsofar as her portrait of the press wasnreminiscent of Spiro Agnew’s “natteringnnabobs of negativism,” Efron wasnbound to be regarded in some quartersntheir protracted struggle against “theninterests” (presumed to be sinister). Itnis maintained that this type of advocacy,nno matter how strident, is not to benconfused with liberalism, or even withnpartisanship, because it promotes thenpublic interest, which is, by definition,nnonpartisan. Thus, the press’ view ofnconsumerism, conservation, education,npublic health and morality, freedomnand equality—all have in this way becomensacred cows, so self-evident thatnany suggestion to the contrary is regardednas practically indecent.nMedia coverage of the campaign fornProposition 13 in California is a goodnexample. Voters who supported “Thirteennwere often described as “frustrated”nand “fed up” with unendurablenproperty taxes. This is no doubt true.nBut surely it is also true that many ofnthese same voters were intent on promoting,nnot only their own private interest,nbut a conception of the publicninterest that is hostile to, among othernthings, the “welfare mess,” state subsidiesnfor research into the ways innwhich whales respond to serenades, andn”I always find that just to have an opinion requires so much work. . . .nSince I stopped doing a column, I haven’t had very many opinions.”n—from an interview with Nora Ephron bynNew York Times Book Reviewn”Pure delight. ..”nas an enemy of the First Amendment.nAs convincing as was the case builtnby Efron and others against the ideologicallynmonotonous mass media, onenrarely hears her concerns expressed today.nIt has become a dead issue. Why ?nThe answer is that the media have resistednthe charge of liberal bias by denyingnthe significance of the liberalconservativendistinction. The fourthnestate now admits that it is not “neutral,”nbut at the same time claims to benneither liberal nor conservative; it seesnitself merely as taking the side of “thenpeople” (presumed to be righteous) inn— Playboyncommunity colleges that offer coursesnin astrology and voodoo, and publicnschool systems that graduate tens ofnthousands of illiterates each year.nX he liberal bias in American journalism,nwhile much more subtle, isnmore pervasive now than ever. I refer,nof course, to the New Journalism.nSpawned while America was beingn”greened” during the 1960’s, the NewnJournalists now may be found swarmingnover the slick pages of such trendynjournals as New York, Esquire, RollingnStone, and the Village Voice.nnnUltimately, the New Journalism cannbe reduced to only two ideas. The firstnis that a perfectly objective journalismnis not possible, and the second is thatnthe conception of the public interestnpromoted by the Old Journalism is disputable,nthat is to say, partisan (and,nimplicitly, wrong). So far so good. Butnsince the New Journalists, like the progressives,nthink that neutrality is annimpossible condition for rational discourse,nthey are quick to conclude thatnall talk of the public interest—indeed,nratiocination itself—is a sham. Throwingnup their hands in despair, they resortnto reveling in an orgy of subjectivism.nTo my way of thinking the quintessentialnNew Journalist is HunternThompson, the “exquisitely” depravedn”Dr. Gonzo” who covered the 1972npresidential election for Rolling Stone,nhis stories appearing later as Fear andnLoathing on the Campaign Trail ’72n(San Francisco: Straight Arrow Books,n1973). That Mr. Thompson rejects thenOld Journalistic dogma of objectivitynmay be seen in his outrageous portraitsnof such respected American reportersnas John Chancellor (a “dope-addlednfascist bastard”), James J. Kilpatrickn(a “famous crypto-nazi”), and Evansnand Novak (“far-out latent papists”).nThe worst thing about the Old Journalism,nas far as Mr. Thompson is concerned,nis that it is beholden to the OldnPolitics, and for Mr. Thompson thatnsubject has the eifect of an hallucinogennwhich, when vented in his astonishingnprose style, permits the reader a peekninto the abyss of nihilism that is hisnnatural milieu. Old Politician HenrynJackson, for instance, is described bynMr. Thompson as a “worthless asshole,”nand Senator Muskie (“Big Ed”)nis likened to “a vicious 200-poundnwater rat.” But of all the Old Politicians,nnone incurs Mr. Thompson’snrhetorical wrath more than the “treacherous,ngutless” Happy Warrior ofnAmerican liberalism. According to Mr.nThompson: “There is no way to graspnwhat a shallow, contemptible and hope-nChronicles of Culturen