Posted on 05/12/2008 5:31:32 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
Of course, this was also predicated on the ideal of “objectivity,” which none of us have (least of all myself).
I have been unable to put my finger on the exact distinction to be made between a claim of "objectivity" and a claim of wisdom. And of course if you research "wisdom" in the etymological dictionary, you find the meanings of the terms "sophist" and "philosopher" are relevant, as follows:sophist1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.philosopherWhich is my explanation of the fact that the person who claims to be most objective always seems to be farthest from it.O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage.""Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
It seems to me that the Associated Press motivates and enables a mutual admiration society among journalists which makes it taboo for one journalist to question the "objectivity" - whatever that word is supposed to mean - of another journalist. It seems to me as well that journalism as we know it systematically corrupts the language, changing or inverting the meaning of words and instituting new and deceptive words.
In the 1920s journalism (or somebody - and who else but journalism was in a position to do it?) inverted the meaning of "liberalism" from opposition to increased government regulation and high taxes to advocacy of those very things. "Liberals" (actually socialists) systematically use euphenisms for government such as "public" or "society." A "public" school is actually a government school, and when a "liberal" says that "society" should do some thing s/he means nothing other than that the government should do it. And yet society and government are not the same unless there is (or unless there should be) no such thing as individual freedom. When "liberals" use euphemisms for government, AP journalism is never slow to adopt the usages "liberals" prefer.
Associated Press journalism calls itself "the press," insinuating that "the freedom of . . . the press" mandated by the First Amendment confers privileges on Associated Press journalism exclusively and does not refer to the right of the people to spend their own money for the use of technology to promote their own opinions.
AP journalism created "Swift Boating" and "McCarthyism," two words which connote the same thing. Both connote AP journalism's preferred image that criticism of Democrats (at least, criticism from the right) is illegitimate. Each word seemingly denotes an objective reality, but one which cannot bear close scrutiny. But as long as AP journalism controls the debate the fact that the words are double smears - smears of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or of Senator Joseph McCarthy, as well as whoever is tarred with association with the image which AP journalism has created of McCarthy and of the SBVT- is not allowed into the conversation.
And did you know that the Associated Press was aggressively monopolistic from its inception, and that in 1945 it was held by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144116/posts?page=15#15
I do not rejoice any newspaper disappearing.
I have to agree. My concern is that freedom of the "press" may not automatically extend to electronic media. Especially if the "fairness doctrine" gets reinstated. Has the supreme court ever ruled that electronic media is guaranteed the same protections as print media?The fallacy in that argument lies in the planted assumption that newspapers are free and independent. In truth, journalism is a singular noun. Journalism as we know it is a mid-Nineteenth Century development, a product of the development of the telegraph and of the Associated Press, which has been a monopolistic organization from its inception (and which was held by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945).That is the explanation for the transformation of the fiercely independent, openly political newspapers of the founding era (and into the middle of the Nineteenth Century) into the self-described "objective press" of today. That homogenization of reporting was the natural result of the acquisition by the newspapers of a (single) source of news which is not available to the general public except by reading the newspaper. The business model of journalism as we know it hinges on the perception that all those AP news stories are reliable and balanced, not hokum or propaganda. Thus, "all reporters are objective." That is a statement to which only a homogenized - not independent and therefore not free - press could subscribe, and to which the Associated Press and its membership must, of business necessity, subscribe.
The death of the "Fairness" Doctrine enabled the revival of a free press - in the form of talk radio. Don't be deceived by claims of "scarcity of bandwidth" or "monopolization of talk radio by the right." Or by claims that "the press" includes only ink-on-paper communication.
The Antifederalists who demanded a bill of rights in the Constitution were opposed by the Federalists, not because they opposed the rights in the first ten amendments but because they held that a bill of rights would not be exhaustive of the rights already implied in the Constitution and they feared that any rights not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights would be denigrated - that the Bill would become a ceiling rather than a floor on the rights of the people. Consequently it is established jurisprudence that the body of the Constitution is to be read as the Federalists promoted it to the people who ratified it - as including within itself all the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights.
If you read the Constitution that way the words "the press" fade out, and words like "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States" (Article 1 Section 9) come into focus. Because what the Associated Press and its membership has done is to lobby for a title of nobility - "the press" - which gives them privileges to be withheld from the people. "The freedom of . . . the press" is actually the right of the people to spend their own money to use technology to promote their own (political, religious, and other) opinions.
If you do not read "the press" as a ceiling on our rights, and if you read in Article 1 Section 8 that the federal government is explicitly authorized "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries," you will find in the Constitution no warrant for the claim that the framers of the Constitution expected no advances in the arts of communication and that therefore the Constitution does not cover high speed presses, photography, telegraphy, telephony, sound recording, radio, mimeograph machines, movies, talking movies, television, photocopiers, hi-fi steros, computer/printer combinations, Compact Disks, HDTV, DVDs, satellite radio, the Internet and the worldwide web - or whatever comes next.
It is in my experience a great mistake to try to prove that journalism is not objective - for the simple reason that that is a political opinion. You would do just as well to expect to be able, in an hour's conversation, to convert a Democrat to a Republican. My point is not the mere fact that I can cite examples of tendentiousness in journalism until the cows come home, and my point is not simply that no one can prove that journalism is objective because lack of bias is an unprovable negative. My point is that I have a right to listen to Rush Limbaugh, provided only that he makes his program available to me on terms that I am able and willing to meet, without reference to what a politician or judge, or all of them, think of Rush Limbaugh's opinions. Just as surely as your garden variety "sheeple" has a right to listen to Katie Couric. A government which distinguishes between the two is not operating under the Constitution.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144624/posts?page=16
The Bill of Rights was intended as a minimal accounting of the rights of the people. To restrict freedom of the press to specific people or to specific communications technology is to abuse the First Amendment by using it as a ceiling, rather than a floor, on the rights of the people.
- It would be no different from NPR or PBS if they did. And actually of a piece with the assignment of radio channel broadcast licenses on the premise that the broadcaster will "serve the public interest" by broadcasting Associated Press journalism. And of a piece with McCain-Feingold limits on who can criticize politicians at election time.
- All of the above would be recognized as being unconstitutional by any mind not clouded by the propaganda to the effect that "the freedom of the press" refers to privileges of Associated Press journalism specifically.
Journalism as we know it does not trace back to the time of the ratification of the First Amendment, but only to the founding of the Associated Press in 1848. The openly partisan and fiercely independent "newspapers" of the founding era would never have countenanced, let alone promoted, the idea that a competing newspaper was objective. And, lacking a source of news not in principle accessible to the general public by any other means than reading the newspapers, founding era newspapers were more about political commentary than about news. The dominance of the monopolistic (found in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1945) Associated Press reversed all of that, creating journalism as we know it.
"The freedom of the press" in the First Amendment properly should be understood as the right of the people, not any special privilege of the members of the Associated Press, to spend money to apply technology to their efforts to promote their own political (and other) opinions. To assign that freedom to specific individuals rather than to the people would be to make "the press" into a title of nobility in violation of Section 9 of Article I. And since Section 8 of Article 1 specifically gives the government the authority "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries," limiting the meaning of "the press" to the literal Eighteenth Century printing press arbitrarily assumes that the ratifiers of the First Amendment intended to limit their own and their posterity's freedom to use new communication technology (and which technology specifically? The radio but not the high speed printing press? The television but not the telephone? The internet but not the photocopier?).
The Press is an institution of the state. Constitutional, too.
The Press is an institution of the state.
True. Constitutional, too.
Constitutional, not.
The Press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It is a Federally protected institution. Constitutionally.
The Press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It is a Federally protected institution. Constitutionally.
That is not precisely true. The exact quote of the First Amendment is: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.You will say, "Of course. The Press is mentioned right there, just as I said." But, not so fast. The Constitution and its amendments is a written document, and it says "the freedom . . . of the press" - NOT ""the freedom . . . of The Press." And that "slight" distinction betrays a major difference between what you have been told and what is true.The ratification of the Constitution was a close-run thing, with Washington (who had chaired the Constitutional Convention) playing a critical role in attaining ratification. The Antifederalists condemned the want of a bill of rights in the Constitution, and the Federalists opposed it - but not because they opposed the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights. Rather, they opposed it because they held that the unamended Constitution contained within it all the rights which could be articulated specifically in a bill of rights, and more. They argued that a bill of rights would inevitably leave out some rights which pertained to the people, and that therefore a bill of rights risked functioning as a ceiling, rather than a floor, of the rights of the people. That people would argue, "it's not in the Bill of Rights, so it's not in the Constitution." Supreme Court justices, both liberal and conservative, will tell you that since the people who ratified the Constitution did so on the understanding that the advocates of ratification were correct, the body of the Constitution is properly read to mean that. So you aren't up to speed on the Constitution unless you can find in the body of the Constitution a basis for upholding any right articulated in the Bill of Rights.
And IMHO, the First Amendment is abused as a ceiling on the rights of the people when Big Journalism - essentially the Associated Press and its members - calls itself "The Press." Article 1 Section 9 mandates that
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.But what else is "The Press" but a title of nobility, when journalists are given "shield laws" which allow them to flout laws which you or I are obligated to obey? Or when McCain-Feingold says that you or I may not criticize politicians during election season, but that's constitutional because "The Press" can?The First Amendment is not in conflict with the rest of the Constitution. The correct understanding of "the freedom of . . . the press" is, "the right of the people to spend their own money to pay for the use of technology to promote their political (and other) opinions." The printing press was the state of the art for the dissemination of political opinion at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment, but the body of the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) specifically provides the authority
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveriesThe existence of that authority, and the motivation for it, in the body of the Constitution marks the Constitution as a progress-promoting document. Therefore unless you want to argue that the ratifiers of the First Amendment thought that they were making an exception to the rule that there should be progress in the state of every art by saying under their prescient breath, "except for radio and television, but the high speed press and the photocopier will be OK," there is no case that the First Amendment places a ceiling on the communication technology which the people have the right to use.It is wrong to consider "The Press" to be a group of noblemen who have privileges apart from the rights of the people. Especially when that group is a bunch of monopolists who violate the Antitrust laws.
Clay Shirky’s Writings About the Internet
Economics and Culture, Media and Community, Open Source
http://www.shirky.com/writings/information_price.html
Hat tip to abb.
The Press is an institution of the state. No reference is made to any individuals who might populate that institution.
The Press is an institution of the state. No reference is made to any individuals who might populate that institution.
"An institution of the state" is not independent of the state and certainly not free of the control of the state.That certainly describes journalism as we know it, and it describes the assumptions of "campaign finance reform" in all its incarnations. It just doesn't describe freedom. Just as using "society" as a euphemism for "the state" - as "liberals" are wont to do - is accurate only in the absence of freedom.
it is evident that [a bill of rights] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.
IMHO that is what has happened with the First Amendment and the right of the people to spend their own money to avail themselves of technological means to promote their own (political, religious, and other) opinions.We have the spectacle of the members of a monopolistic organization, the Associated Press - an institution not even extant at the framing of the Bill of Rights nor even in the entire lifetime of James Madison (1751 – 1836) - declaring themselves alone to be "the press" protected by the First Amendment. And successfully promoting "campaign finance reform" laws to denigrate the rights of the rest of the people on that basis.
Each law more onerous than the last - and with the author of the latest, John McCain, announcing shortly after its passage that McCain-Feingold was not restrictive enough!
Again Thomas Sowell identifies one of the most serious cracks in our Republic.“It is one of the painful signs of our times that millions of people are so easily swayed by rhetoric that they show virtually no interest at all in finding out the hard facts.”
Yes. But I would identify the root of the problem in the monopoly which promotes the idea of the easy, cheap solution - the form of "press" created by the monopoly Associated Press in the mid-Nineteenth Century.Big Journalism flatters its audience just as "Self esteem" education flatters students. Rather than challenging people to think, flattery denigrates the idea that thinking is necessary. "You are so great that your emotional reactions are superior to other people's best rational analysis." Doesn't that make you feel good? You don't have to think about anything at all! Nobody can be smarter than you!
There has been NO incentive for the PI and the Times to compete on important stories; just competition to see which one can be a more slavering running-dog lackey of the left wing lunatic fringe.
Journalism is about change, and change is what "progressives" offer.The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but the Associated Press has arrogated the title "the press" to itself - as though the right applied exclusively to that institution. But the framers were not, could not have been, talking specifically about an institution whose founding was generations in the future when the First Amendment was ratified. The Associated Press created journalism as we know it, with its nationwide homogeneity and its claims that all journalists are "objective." But "the freedom of the press" is the right of the people, not only of some oligarchy, to spend money to use technology to promote our religious, political (and other) ideas.
We the people talk about what is on their minds - and while Big Journalism is able to dominate the national conversation, what is on our minds will mostly be "what's in the newspapers." Conservative bloggers/forum posters exist in reaction to the fact that journalism is inherently anticonservative. And in reaction to the "progressive" politicians who draft on the propaganda wind of Big Journalism.Don't count on bloggers or talk radio to fill the gap, said former state Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge, another committee leader: They mostly talk about what's in the newspapers.There is no reason that the political parties cannot produce, and publish on the web, the political rhetoric which frames the national conversation. The people have no need of an oligarchy of pseudo-objective journalists to fill that role.
P-I's closure in Seattle would reflect U.S. trend (Official Dinosaur Media Wake®)
There is no reason that the political parties cannot produce, and publish on the web, the political rhetoric which frames the national conversation. The people have no need of an oligarchy of pseudo-objective journalists to fill that role.Well said, as always!
Most interesting how the notion of becoming a conservative voice as a last ditch measure to try to save the paper totally eludes Swartz, McCumber, et al. Yet the Inet clearly shows an oversaturation of progressive liberal socialist voices in mass media and a mostly ignored vastly underserved conservative market.
New media makes for killer competition in the socialist arena. How many lite versions of the New York Times-WaPo can America's socialist market segment simultaneously support?
Yes - but that comports with my theory that journalism as we know it is inherently "progressive" and that conservative journalism is an oxymoron like dry water.Businesses have cultures, and a business' culture is difficult or impossible to fundamentally change. On its face the problem seems simple to us, who are not of that culture - simply enter the niche for conservative perspective which Rush Limbaugh finds so fabulously profitable. But Rush is in that niche by conviction, and failing newspapers are on the opposite side, also out of (misguided) conviction. Even assuming that they see the opportunity, they have not the art to exploit it. Even if they tried, they would come across as phonies.
Journalism by its nature emphasizes the things that conservatives de-emphasize, and vice versa.
Brings to mind something from Teddy Roosevelt we are wont to emphasize around here from time to time:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better...”
I don't know in what context those words were said but they were most certainly directed towards "journalists", who for whatever reasons took it upon themselves to become the conscience of the world. They took the easy and sleazy way to importance; criticizing those that actually do things. When did what they say become more important than what others do???
Question is, how did they achieve their unlikely rise to prominence and influence? They certainly don't deserve to be held in such high esteem. The fact they were able to get news, or what passes for news, from one place to another earns them their exalted position? Not in my book. But then, I'm a conservative who worked for a living most of my life, and in fact actually accomplished something. I suppose I should be thankful that what I did wasn't important enough to have the media types come around to show me how I should have been doing my job.
Anyway, I suspect P T Barnum would have been right at home with the lot of 'em. Carnival barkers, snake oil salesmen, assorted hucksters and others of dubious moral character make up the class for the most part.
BTW, I'm happy to see you're still chronicling many of the media bias threads.
BTTT
I don't know in what context those words were said but they were most certainly directed towards "journalists",It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better...
Turns out that Roosevelt had something to say specifically about journalists later in his speech:Of course all that I say of the orator applies with even greater force to the orator's latter-day and more influential brother, the journalist. The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither to respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used aright. He can do, and often does, great good. He can do, and he often does, infinite mischief. All journalists, all writers, for the very reason that they appreciate the vast possibilities of their profession, should bear testimony against those who deeply discredit it. Offenses against taste and morals, which are bad enough in a private citizen, are infinitely worse if made into instruments for debauching the community through a newspaper. Mendacity, slander, sensationalism, inanity, vapid triviality, all are potent factors for the debauchery of the public mind and conscience. The excuse advanced for vicious writing, that the public demands it and that demand must be supplied, can no more be admitted than if it were advanced by purveyors of food who sell poisonous adulterations. In short, the good citizen in a republic must realize that the ought to possess two sets of qualities, and that neither avails without the other. He must have those qualities which make for efficiency; and that he also must have those qualities which direct the efficiency into channels for the public good.The whole speech rewards a reading:http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.htmlBut far from holding each other to account, of course, all journalists - being "associated" with each other in the Associated Press - collude to suppress effective public criticism of the "mendacity, slander, sensationalism, inanity, [and] vapid triviality" in which all engage as a matter of course.All journalists, all writers, for the very reason that they appreciate the vast possibilities of their profession, should bear testimony against those who deeply discredit it.
BTTT
Yes - but that comports with my theory that journalism as we know it is inherently "progressive" and that conservative journalism is an oxymoron like dry water.Empirical evidence in the form of an apparent lack of awareness among journalists that their own progressive socialist proclivities antagonize nearly half their market proves you absolutely correct thus far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.