There is a Constitution in this country, and part of it saysIt’s in there for a reason. That reason is not that "journalists are objective.” The reason is that Americans are free to think, and to express their thoughts.
- Amendment 1:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And the reason for that is not that all Americans think well, but because the Americans do not accept the proposition that government think is trustworthy. It is not for the government to tell me that journalists are not objective and not always truthful - it is up to me to figure those things out for myself. And, having figured that out, to promote those ideas to the extent of my own desire and resources.
But there is something the government legitimately can do about Establishment journalism. Establishment journalism is wire service journalism, and the wire services only date back to the advent of the telegraph in 1844. The Associated Press was in being by about 1850. The Sherman AntiTrust Act only dates to 1890, and the AP was aggressively monopolistic before and after 1890. In fact it was successfully sued by another wire service under Sherman in 1945.
But even that is not the point. The point is that, according to Adam Smith
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nationsthe fact that the AP “wire” is a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets in America which has been ongoing since before the Civil War implies that "a conspiracy against the public” among journalists is presumably in effect. And anyone who starts with the a priori assumption of independence among journalists is being naive.But what would "a conspiracy against the public” by journalists look like? Put another way, “What motives do journalists have in common?” Adam Smith suggests an answer to that:
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .But what good is it if you, as a journalist, simply tell people you agree with them? How does that cause them to see you as their “leader and director??” It may make people more disposed to listen to you, but it doesn’t change their mind about their default assumption that they know their own minds and anyone else need not assume that they know better. No, the motive is change the minds of the public and cause them to look up to you.The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
In addition, journalists need to attract attention by telling people things that the public does not know. The problem with that is, that journalists are not rocket scientists. And the public at large is not, either, and would not understand if told anything really subtle. The only way journalists can tell people things they don’t already know is to report news of things that just happened, which the public has not heard yet. And the news which is interesting is almost uniformly negative. The upshot is that journalists report bad news about American society, thereby attracting attention and casting American society in an unflattering light. And thereby promoting the idea that journalists are above and looking down on American society. Included in that is the conceit that “journalists are objective.”
The truth is that although everyone should try to be objective - and I hope you do - nobody can know that he, or anyone who agrees with him, is objective. To claim that you are (not are trying to but actually are) objective is effectively to admit that you are not even trying to be objective (what would “trying to be objective” look like if you think that you are objective?). Thinking that you are objective is the essence of subjectivity.
In the case of journalists, who are negative and know it and will tell you that “If it bleeds, it leads,” a journalist who claims that “journalists are objective” is claiming in effect that negativity is objectivity. And “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is hard to improve on as a definition of cynicism.
Journalists are cynical about society and - concomitantly - naive about government:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.The conclusion is that journalists’ “conspiracy against the public” is the promotion of the conceit that breaking news is important (in practically any situation other than a battle, that is untrue), the conceit that journalists are objective (and properly command respect as “leaders and directors”), and that cynicism towards society is justified, and properly justifies metastasized government.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no [government]; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
Individual Americans are allowed to think that (within limits, considering that acting on such cynicism could easily turn antisocial), but a unified propaganda Establishment of any sort - let alone one promoting cynicism - is not legitimated by the First Amendment. The Associated Press destroys the ideological diversity of “the press,” and it is in violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. It was found so by SCOTUS in 1945, but the idea of breaking up the AP was not even sought, nor thought possible as a remedy, in that era. But this is the 21st Century, and as the Internet and FreeRepublic.com illustrate, the mission of conserving scarce expensive communications bandwidth in spreading the news nationwide is now obsolete. Communication bandwidth is now dirt cheap. The AP systematically libels American society, white Americans, and Republicans. Both as groups, and as individual members of those groups. It should be sued into oblivion.
In the meantime, we should take to heart another quote from Theory of Moral Sentiments:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.We pool our “incredulity” here on FR in order to limit our tendency to "give credit to stories which [we are] afterwards both ashamed and astonished that [we] could possibly think of believing."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
The situation is very asymmetrical, because wire service journalism is inherently “liberal.”Therefore, for “liberalism” to be delegitimated, the socialist propaganda organ which is wire service journalism must be delegitimated. And it truly is illegitimate because it is the result of an illegal conspiracy against the public:
- Journalism is naturally negative for the commercial reason that “If it bleeds, it leads.”
- Wire service journalism promotes the fatuous conceit that “journalists are objective” because(due to its propaganda power) it can. And because everyone wants to be believed, and be considered objective.
- Given that journalists know that they are negative, their objectivity claim implies a cynical conceit that “negativity is objectivity.”
- Journalism is cynical towards society - but the opposite side of that coin is naiveté towards the institution intended to control evil in society. Namely, government.
- Cynicism towards society - and concomitant naiveté towards government - is what actually defines socialism.
It would be naive to assume that the AP did not produce “a conspiracy against the public” after all these years. And that conspiracy produces the socialist propaganda against society (often called “market”) which we see every day.
- The Associated Press newswire is a continuous virtual meeting of all major US journalism which has been ongoing since before the Civil War.
Ping to my #95. I’d be delighted to have your criticism . . .