The Loss of the Fourth Estate and the Threat to American Liberty

The Christian Post ^ | 11-28-12 | Wallace Henley

[ReformationFan]

One of the most chilling realities of the contemporary age in the United States and other Western nations is the demise of the Fourth Estate. The death of a vigorous and free press came when mainstream media and other vital components of the information establishment became propaganda organs for the government.

"If it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without a free press or a free press without a government, I would prefer the latter," said Thomas Jefferson.

Edmund Burke, an 18th century British political philosopher, seeded the concept of the Fourth Estate. The "three estates" present in the Parliament were the king, the lords, and the commons. But, said Burke, there was a "fourth estate" that trumped them all – the press.

The contemporary co-opting of journalists and journalism by politicians and their regimes has led to a polarization of media. As mainstream print and broadcast journalists have veered increasingly to the left, the right has responded with its own conservative media establishment.

This was a necessary development, vital for countering leftist propaganda. But the demise of the Fourth Estate means there's not much left in the middle to probe for the truth buried somewhere beneath the shrills and shills of left and right. Who can the people trust to give them the plain, unspun facts?

Journalistic agenda-ism has suffocated the Fourth Estate. And that brings danger to what is slowly becoming less and less a free republic.

[Charles Martel]

Is that from a quote from Michael Savage?

I've posted that comment here in various forms since 2008, but yes, it appears that Savage has hit upon it as well:

4th Estate = 5th Column.

[daniel1212]

It is an establishment that has very limited accountability, and one of the most egregious examples of it bias is that of Vietnam War: http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_bias#Vietnam_War

See also http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_bias#Statistical_data

(not that Conservapedia is known for diligent objectivity)

[daniel1212]

The Pew Research Center’s latest analysis puts hard numbers against the claim that the press went out of its way to get Obama re-elected.

According to the report, after months of positive press, “Obama’s coverage improved dramatically” in the crucial final week of the campaign.

In fact, 29% of the stories about Obama that week were positive and just 19% were negative. At the same time, a third of the stories about Mitt Romney were negative, and just 16% were positive.

When it comes to bias, MSNBC is in a league of its own, Pew found. It ran zero negative stories about Obama and zero positive stories about Romney in that last week.

Not only did Obama’s overall coverage improve dramatically, he got far more of it. Pew found that in the last week, 80% of campaign stories featured Obama, compared with 62% for Romney. -http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112012-634214-how-press-helped-obama-win-reelection.htm