Posted on 05/12/2008 5:31:32 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
I want . . Freedom of the press to be the right not to be lied to.
You are confused. So very seriously confused about the First Amendment, that you are not thinking any more clearly about it than I was before the mid-1990s, when I began to see through the system by which the "journalistic objectivity" con is perpetrated. And since I was already in my fifties by then, I have every reason to understand how you might see things the way you do.
Freedom of the press is much more like "the right to lie to you" than it is like "the right not to be lied to." And that is a good thing.
In the founding era, nobody claimed that a newspaper was objective - no more so than you would take me seriously if I claimed to be objective - or I, you. That was because the newspapers were actually independent of each other back then. Independent of each other, but not independent of the political factions of the day. For example, one paper was sponsored by Thomas Jefferson, to attack the politics of Alexander Hamilton - and to reply to the attacks on him by the newspaper sponsored by Hamilton himself. The idea of either of those newspapers ceding to the other respect for being "objective" - which after all implies wisdom - is laughable.
Why, then, does our culture have the idea that journalism should be, even could be, objective? Simple - the telegraph and the Associated Press transformed the newspaper business - and our culture - beginning back in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. Prior to the advent of the telegraph, newspaper printers got their news about the same way that the other people in their towns got theirs - by word of mouth and by getting physical copies of other newspapers, delivered by sailboat and horse-drawn wagon. So in principle, any given local might easily have heard any given news item before the local newspaper printed it. Accordingly, most newspapers were not dailies, may were weeklies and some had no deadline at all and just printed when the printer was good and ready. Making it all the more likely that people would get news by word of mouth before the newspaper reported it to them.
Then along came the Associated Press. Suddenly the newspaper printer had a direct line to newspapers in all the other towns and cities of the country - and to reporters working directly for the AP who aggressively got the news from ships arriving from Europe before those ships even docked. The AP was an aggressive monopolizer of the use of the telegraph for transmission of the news; it cut exclusive deals with the telegraph lines which froze competitors out. That made the AP the target of criticism and challenge, since it was so obviously an unprecedented concentration of nationwide public influence. The AP proceeded to demonstrate that influence by deflecting those charges by asserting that since the Association was composed of member newspapers which famously did not agree on much of anything, the Association was - wait for it - "objective."
That was, is, and always will be absurd. First, of course, because thinking yourself to be objective is arguably the best possible definition of the word "subjectivity." And secondly, because the AP, and all of those "independent-thinking" papers which made up the AP, was selling something. The same thing - news, before you could get it from any other source. So the AP and every one of its members had the identical incentive to sell the idea that journalism - all journalism - was objective. How else to vouch for the news which suddenly was a pervasive, dominant theme of your newspaper which had not actually had that function before - when that news did not originate with your newspaper's own reporters but with those of a nominal competitor in a distant city? So with the AP, newspapers suddenly had not only the motive but the opportunity to claim objectivity as long as they did not compete with any other AP newspaper on the basis of objectivity claims. And the more opportunity they had to make that claim, the less compunction was necessary about taking care to vindicate the claim by actually being objective.
So what is the actual effect of the claim by all of journalism that all of journalism is objective? The actual effect of the claim of objectivity, running as it has for a century and a half, is to establish in custom the idea that journalists are a breed apart from we-the-people - more virtuous, more knowledgeable, and more civic-minded - and thus entitled not only to be listened to with respect by people who pay for the privilege but entitled to special privileges such as "shield" laws granting reporters the right to withhold the names of sources from courts of law which any citizen would be under legal compunction to yield up. And entitled to special rights to speak out about candidates for public office, to be denied, under McCain-Feingold, to we-the-people. Is there any real virtue in having our government officers selected by vote of the whole people on a date certain, when it would be far more manageable to simply read in the newspapers what the newspapers say is in the public interest? Or, for that matter, what the newspapers say the public thinks, based on "public opinion polls?" From the POV of the journalist - or anyone who thinks that journalists are more objective and hence wiser and more virtuous than the public at large - the answer would have to be, "No." What could be more patent than that the conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle?
Before the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of the Internet generally and FreeRepublic.com in particular, the public discourse was largely controlled by monolithic AP journalism. Journalism had extremely broad latitude to say whatever they wanted so say, and call that "objectivity." The most fundamental desire of journalism is to attract an attentive audience, and to be able to exploit that ability for fun and profit. The linchpin of the influence of AP journalism being perishable news - news that will soon no longer be new - journalism inexorably presses upon the public the idea that the news is important. The more important you think the news is, the less attention you will pay to things which change less, or not at all. That is why AP journalism is inherently anti conservative. Journalism also is maximally important when there is a crisis requiring public notice and action. But of course a putative crisis "requiring" government action implies that the powers-that-be have not already taken whatever action is needed, which is why the public should attend to the journalist and influence the politician accordingly. Again that makes the journalist anti conservative.
Another way of stating the above paragraph is to note that journalism's rules include "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper," and "If it bleeds, it leads." The former rule simply says that only what the public doesn't know yet matters, and the latter says that the bad news is most important. Journalism's rules also enjoin the editor that "Man Bites Dog" is news, and "Dog Bites Man" is not news. Which means that business-as-usual is not news, and if anything is reported in the newspaper it is probably not typical of what normally characterizes society. Most people never, in their entire lives, commit a murder or even know anyone who did commit a murder - but you will find plentiful stories about murders, and demands for the disarming of the general public, but rarely mention of how statistically rare murder actually is or how frequently the law-abiding use or, more commonly merely threaten to use, weapons to prevent crime. Likewise if our troops suffer casualties and deaths in Iraq that is news - even though the overwhelming majority of our troops return from Iraq without a scratch, and also with scant if any notice by journalism. All that comports with the rules of journalism - but the rules of journalism comport with the interest of journalism,. The rules of journalism purport to be about the public interest, but actually are only about interesting the public. And the two things are not only different, they are often in contradiction. So we see that journalism is anti conservative.
Since journalism not only has the inherent incentive to say what it wants to say, and since under the Associated Press regime journalism coheres as a single identifiable entity with identifiable interests and has a dominant position in the public discourse by which it is easily capable of stonewalling or otherwise dismissing contradiction, it is only natural to expect that journalism will promote those who scratch its back, and oppose those who do not. Conservatives are those who are least prone to scratch journalism's back. In this context the most satisfactory definition of American conservatism was implied in Theodore Roosevelt's famous speech at the Sorbonne in France in 1911:
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . . who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .That speech defines American conservatism - respect for those who take responsibility and work to a bottom line - and its opposite, which is criticism and second guessing of those who take responsibility to get things done. The latter is AP journalism's natural predilection, and it naturally tends to undercut the businessman and the policeman and the military man. There are others besides journalists who second guess the people who get things done, and journalists call them "liberals," or "progressives," or "moderates" - essentially any positive label but "objective." "Objective" is the label which journalists reserve to themselves but anyone who currently is labeled a "liberal" or a "progressive" can get a job as a journalist and instantly receive the "objective journalist" label without any change in his/her political perspective. George Stephanopolis is the outstanding example of the phenomenon; there is emphatically not any example of a conservative ever becoming recognized as an "objective" journalist.
It is interesting to note that American conservatives conserve a tradition which was started, not in the mists of time as in nations generally, but in a specific founding era in the second half of the Eighteenth Century. American constitutional norms do trace back to English antecedents, but they are codified as British and other nation's traditions have not been. The preamble to the US Constitution is a mission statement for America, and after all the specifics about providing for the common defense and so forth, it concludes with the nut of the matter, " . . . [to] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." American conservatives, therefore, conserve liberty - which, considering that liberty allows people to do things in different ways, and to do different things, than were done in the past, is such a unique form of "conservatism" that adherents to it have questioned whether that is even a proper term for it.
Indeed, the word which (anywhere outside the US, as recently as a decade ago) describes "American conservatism" is "liberalism." link Well one might ask, "how did the US acquire a definition of "liberalism" which is opposed to what is in America called "conservatism?" I make no pretense of specific knowledge of the event, but I have a hypothesis which I would defend against challenge until such time as more specific evidence is cited than has come to my attention. First, I would note that the term "socialism" would, on etymological grounds, be assumed to relate to support for organic societal decisions rather than - as we well know to be the actual case - relating to government control of things which in America are traditionally left to societal decisions made, perhaps most notably, in the marketplace. So I would argue that the term "socialism" was dishonestly coined by its proponents. And, everywhere outside the US, socialism was far more accepted by the public at large than it was in the US. We have had governments which were socialist in intent - FDR with his "New Deal" and LBJ and his "Great Society" perhaps most prominently - but at no time has a socialist run for POTUS openly advocating socialism as such, and won. Indeed there is exactly one avowedly Socialist senator - Bernie Sanders of Vermont - and he caucuses, surprise of surprises, with the senate Democrats. Essentially all of whom are readily classified as "liberals."
My inference is that since "socialism" was a failed brand name in the US but not elsewhere, people in the US who had the ability to rebrand socialist nostrums, and wanted to do so, seized upon the co-opting of the term for the political theory which already was popular. Associated Press journalism - especially in conjunction with academia, which as a group are critics and not doers just as reporters are - fits that bill exactly. It is a theory which seems to fit the facts as I know them perfectly - socialist-minded people had motive, in the US, and opportunity, to make the change. Certainly, or so it seems to me, it would have been impossible without at least the acquiescence, and probably the active support, of journalism. There would have been far less incentive for socialists in any other locale than the United States to make that change.
We see the process of the creation of a new word - a neologism - out of whole cloth springing out of the Democratic reaction to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign of 2004. In that case, the SBVT organization counted among its members the entire chain of command in Vietnam above John Kerry, and all his fellow officers on the other Swift Boats in Kerry's naval unit. If you wanted to ask anyone else but John Kerry and his subordinates on his boat, on the one hand, and the SBVT on the other, you would be embarrassed for want of anyone who could speak of about Kerry's performance on the basis of direct knowledge. You have to either believe one side or the other, and the SBVT group is far more numerous, and was more highly credentialed at the time and place in question, than Lt. John Kerry and his subordinates were. And their story was more consistent over time, and internally, than Kerry's story was - considering how certain Kerry was that he had been sent on a mission into Cambodia by a president who hadn't been inaugurated yet! Nevertheless, AP journalism and the rest of the Democratic smear machine has created, and imposed on the national dialog, the term "swiftboating" defined as the irresponsible and unjustified criticism of a Democrat.
So we have seen the imposition of a story line and a word meaning implemented before our very eyes, in real time. What reason is there to doubt that the same or similar things have been done in the past, when we didn't have the Internet and talk radio to help us keep our sanity when we thought that "objective" journalists were cooking the books! By the accounts of Ann Coulter and M. Stanton Evans, the coining of the word "McCarthyism" was done in exactly the same fashion, and with no more justification than the coining of "swiftboating" was done. And thus I have little doubt that the inversion of the meaning of the word "liberalism" was done the same way, by the same sort of people.
And "liberalism" is not the only word whose meaning has been inverted; the words "society" and "public" have received similar treatment. If you hear a "liberal" speak of "society" your very first impulse should be to question whether or not the speaker means anything other than government. Except in the absence of freedom, the two are not synonyms, but that is how the socialist "liberal" uses the word "society." And the socialist "liberal" uses the word "public" to exactly the same intent.
ping
Which lefty in the MSM is going to be the first to break away and admit they’ve been pushing the biggest fraud in history?CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history
There are aspects of US law - famously, McCain-Feingold with its privilege for Associated Press journalism to criticize politicians while it presumes to deny that right to the people - which are predicated on (make no sense in the absence of) the assumption that Associated Press journalism is objective. It is easy to show that that assumption is absurd.To me the issue of holding the promoters of that fallacy to book is of such moment as to make it, in practical terms, the only important issue. Without that fallacy, Democrat politicians would stand naked of defense for a multitude of sins - the Globalony fraud not least among them. Indeed, it would be interesting to conduct a contest on FR to try to call to mind all the frauds perpetrated by AP journalism. The list would include "Swift Boating" as a smear designed to insinuate that the Swift Boat veterans were proven to have lied about John Kerry's war record (see To Set the Record Straight). And the fatuous notion
that there was some reason to suppose that the Duke Lacrosse Team was guilty of raping Crystal Mangum. And "McCarthy as facist" fraud. In fact, Ann Coulter's books are loaded with examples.
- Until Proven Innocent:
- Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case
by Stuart Taylor , KC JohnsonAnd it just seems to me that the correct mechanism for bringing AP journalism to book would be a civil lawsuit, preferably claiming treble damages under RICO.
I posit that the internet (web, blogs, twitter, facebook, etc, etc) has completely mooted McCain-Feingold. Sarah Palin uses her post to completely circumvent the Dinosaur Media.
“If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it really make a sound?”
“If a telecast is aired, but no one saw it, how do we know if it was ever broadcast?”
But then you always were an optimist!So few people actually pay attention . . . and what they do hear, comes from screamingly tendentious sources such as self-hyped "objective" journalism.
If they actually paid attention, Democrats would become an endangered species.
Nevertheless, we should be grateful to [Comedy Central's] jelly-spined executives for reminding us that the cardboard heroes of the American media are your go-to guys for standing up to entirely fictitious threats. But for real ones? Not so much.The reason American journalists set themselves up as "cardboard heroes" is painfully obvious - because they can. What could be more obvious than that it is profitable to do so? And what could be more obvious than that they can get away with it because they are in cahoots with each other - and that the mechanism which enabled and promoted their cooperation is the news service in general and the Associated Press in particular.As a youth I had a black cocker spaniel who would make a fuss if the mailman came - but if a stranger showed up he would just wag his tail. I have often thought that when "the cardboard heroes of the American media" look in the mirror they should see, not a "watchdog," but the visiage of my cocker spaniel.
For protection from real threats, you want the kind of person who goes to church to be reminded of the transcendent - and who takes a camera to a Tea Party rally in Washington wondering if anyone else will be there but Obama goons.
Democrats are cowards for refusing to go on Fox. They would be glad to, if they had facts and logic rather than showmanship behind their snake oil, but they don't - so they stay away from the exposure. The trouble with going on Fox is that you will be asked the second question. If you have the facts and logic to back up your case, that's no problem. Conservatives do have facts and logic behind their cases; it is their defining characteristic.and then turn around and call republicans stupid for going on any of the other networks.
Journalism as we know it did not exist until the era of the Civil War. Prior to that, newspapers were fractiously independent of each other, and didn't accept claims that competing newspapers' reporters were objective. In fact, the newspapers of the pre-Civil War era were more like National Review than like The New York Times. Most were weeklies, and some had no deadline at all and just went to press when the printer decided he was ready. More than modern "hard news," they were about the opinions of their printers. Presses of that ilk naturally were ordinarily associated with political parties. The whole paper was what we'd now think of as an editorial page - and the printers couldn't and didn't try to make that a secret. That was the milieu when the First Amendment was written and ratified.Its hypocritical and pathetic.What changed that?The telegraph. The telegraph, and the Associated Press. Suddenly the printer had available to him a font of news stories to which his readership could not be privy before he printed them. A wonderful thing for the printer of a paper! But, at a price. It was expensive in money, and the printer needed to get value out of his AP newswire. How to do that, when the printer didn't employ, didn't even know, the reporters who produced the cornucopia of newswire stories? How to vouch for the veracity of the stories? Simple - you simply launch a propaganda campaign to the effect that all reporters are objective!
Here's a news flash for you: journalists actually aren't objective! How do I know? Well, you can do a lot of ponderous research, such as (A Measure of Media Bias (research shows Drudge/Fox centrist, NYT far liberal) ), to prove it - but you need not expect that journalists will do anything but stonewall the results, no matter how thorough the research might be. Far simpler to just be direct - journalists are not objective because they say that they are objective. Simple - the only way anyone can even attempt to be objective is to start your analysis with an up-front declaration of your own interest in the question you are analyzing. If you are arguing that more roads should be built, you declare up front if your father-in-law would be the one to build them, and you would even declare your ownership of a car which would be more useful if there were more roads. Declaring your own objectivity is the precise opposite of that, so you should take it for granted that journalists who never declare anything but their own "objecitivity" are not merely not objective, they are heavily biased.
What is the inherent bias of journalism? Simple again - journalists are biased in favor of the notion that journalists are heroes. In Mark Steyn's expression, they are cardboard heroes - great at attacking "dastardly villains" such as bankers who actually pose no threat, but impotent and cowardly in the presence of actual villains such as ruthless terrorists who'll behead you for crossing them. Cowards who boast that "you never argue with someone who buys ink by the carload" - and then pick on some poor defenseless schlub precisely because he can't effectively argue back, and wouldn't hurt a fly anyway.
How does that bias of journalism play into politics? Simple again - "liberal" politicians are those who cooperate with journalists and essentially exist in symbiosis with them. You can tell that by the way journalists give them positive labels. Americans favored liberalism - which was a word for the advocacy of liberty - so journalists began to call politicians in symbiosis with them "liberals." The meaning of the word "liberal" was inverted in the 1920s, according to Saffire's New Political Dictionary. Journalists also, alternatively, call politicians in symbiosis with them "progressives." What American doesn't favor progress? And as to the label applied to "liberals'" opponents, well, I'll believe that "conservative" is intended as a positive label as soon as you convince me that marketers don't want to label their products New!
Ann Coulter has pointed out that if she goes on a book tour and is put on TV, journalists always "balance" her with one (usually more than one) "liberal" commentator to argue with her. in addition to the "objective journalist" him/herself, who will always attack as well (the usual result is that Ann has to really fight to get a word in edgewise - and as quick-tongued as she is, that's saying something). If a "liberal" goes on a book tour, when have you ever seen him/her "balanced" by a conservative? When have you ever seen him/her attacked by the "objective" journalist?
In reality "objective" journalists are sophists - and, in the original sense of the term, conservative politicians and analysts are philosophers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2518098/postsNot only is there no hypocrisy involved in advocating that conservative politicians go on Fox but keep the "objective" journalist at arm's length, it is IMHO actually pathetic to think that they are obligated to do otherwise.
Excellent article. Bookmarking.The laissez-faire or “classical liberal” approach regards freedom of speech as a fundamental individual right that government must protect, whereas the “progressive” approach views speech as worthy of protection only insofar as it helps promote the “public interest.”The problem with the "public interest" standard is of course, that is assumes that the government defines the public interest. The government consisting of a bunch of incumbent politicians, its idea of "the public interest" is "incumbent reelection" pretty much.
Big Journalism, aka Associated Press journalism, promotes the conceit of its own objectivity, which pretty is much the same thing as claiming that its own perspective is congruent with "the public interest."But journalism's interest is in interesting the public - and what interests the public is often antithetical to "the public interest." "Man Bites Dog" and "If it bleeds, it leads" interest the public but are not in the public interest.The only way to even attempt to be objective is to take into consideration any reasons why you might not be objective. That is the exact opposite of claiming to be objective. So by claiming objectivity, journalists demonstrate conclusively that they are not even trying to be objective.
Once dispose of the assumption that journalism is objective and embodies the public interest, and the entire rationale for censorship and "campaign finance reform" collapses. Freedom of speech and press are rights of the people, not privileges of noblemen called "journalists."
Free Speech: Use It or Lose It
Pajamas Media ^ | June 10, 2010 | Paul Hsieh
Some situation exists, whose negative aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such situation is routinely characterized as a "crisis," even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a "crisis" has in fact already been getting better for years.
Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as "simplistic" for ignoring the "complexities" involved, as "many factors" went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors.. . . which is just a specific example of the general proposition that "those who had so confidently predicted improvement" have, and relentlessly exploit, a propaganda advantage over those "critics" upon whom "The burden of proof is put . . . to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause."
That advantage in propaganda power arises from the unity of purpose between "the anointed" and the (nominally free and independent, but actually associated) press. That unity of purpose inheres in the fact that the associated press is good at criticizing, and at evading responsibility - and equally good at rewarding people outside of the associated press who, for fun and profit, go along and get along with the associated press.To put it baldly, the economics of wire service journalism requires journalists to all become fellow travelers - and only principled opposition can motivate politicians to contend with the journalists and all their fellow travelers.
Obama's Speech in Racine Channeled Thomas Sowell circa 1996, (and not in a good way)
All American Blogger ^ | 7-1-10 | Duane Lester
Words mean things - but what does the word "journalist" actually mean?Literally, "jour" means "day" - and a journalist meets a daily deadline (or shorter, in the case of "breaking news"). From that perspective, it used to bother me when Rush would say, "I am not a journalist." But on further consideration, I have decided that we are better off recognizing the inherent negatives of journalism:
- The deadline which defines journalism ineluctably produces superficiality. "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper."
- News inherently emphasizes the negative. "No news is good news" - because generally, good news "isn't news." If it's bad news when a house burns down, it must be good news when a house gets built - but whereas the destructive fire is a sudden surprise, the construction of the house is a gradual process which, as Abraham Lincoln suggested with his "framing timbers" allusion, should surprise no one. And therefore isn't news (actually, it probably will make the newspaper - in the form of a paid advertisement seeking a buyer for the house).
- News is inherently unrepresentative. "Man Bites Dog" is the headline the editor wants to print, and "Dog Bites Man" - i.e., whatever is usual - makes page 13 below the fold in the unlikely event that it's in the paper at all.
- Journalism as we know it is extremely biased. Here you would probably expect to hear a litany of examples, but instead I simply refer to the fact that every journalist promotes the conceit that all journalists are objective -and that belief in his own objectivity is the defining characteristic of the man who is not objective.
So I say, accept the fact that "these people" are indeed journalists, doing exactly what journalists do - which is, and ought to be seen as, disreputable.You will say, "but what about the First Amendment and freedom of the press?" To which I reply that freedom of the press is a wonderful idea, and we ought to try it. Journalism presumes to call itself "the press," as if it were a class separate from we-the-people. But in fact, under the Constitution there are only three subdivisions - the federal government, the state governments, and the people. People who don't own a press aren't a separate species from those who do - they simply are people who don't own a press yet. More than anything, the First Amendment reference to freedom of "the press" is supposed to mean that anyone who decides to spend the money for a press (and ink and paper) is allowed to do so.
Those who style themselves "the press" actually depend for their self-definiton on the scarcity and expense of presses, not the "freedom" thereof. If every Tom, Dick, and Harriet had a press, journalists calling themselves "the press" would be no big deal. And that is actually now the case. To all intents and purposes, FreeRepublic.com is a press, and you are able to read this posting (so be that JimRob and his moderators don't object) anywhere in the world.
But is FreeRepublic.com actually a "press" under the intent of the First Amendment, which was written long before the telegraph - let alone the Internet? Absolutely. First, because "the progress of science and useful arts" was contemplated by the framers of the Constitution:
Article 1 Section 8.Under what logical framework is progress in the technology of communication excluded from the Constitution? If the Ninth Amendment means anything at all
The Congress shall have power . . . 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 . . .Amendment 9the First Amendment is a floor rather than a ceiling on our rights - and freedom of "the press" does not mean censorship of other, later, communication technologies. Else, can the newswires be censored because the telegraph isn't a printing press?The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
How Business Travelers Contributed to USA Today's Decline (Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)
Poynter Online ^ | September 5, 2010 | Adam Hochberg
the enemedia clobbered him for it.The record that was set in 1929 for the biggest stock market decline in one day was broken in 1987. But Ronald Reagan did nothing – and the media clobbered him for it.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the term "the media." It tickles my vanity, I admit, to think that no matter how smart the conservative commentator - T. Sowell, exhibit A - there is a gap in their logic which I know how to fill. Ann Coulter, Rush Limabaugh, Mark Levin, you name them, I'll show you where they express that same block in their thinking. When it comes to "the media," nobody follows the money.Thomas Sowell: Things go better when politicians do nothing
- First of all, "the media" isn't the problem, journalism is. Granted that movies and TV fiction are consistently tendentious, they follow, they don't lead. If journalism were conservative, those cowards would all be conservatives too. But even if not, they wouldn't be the problem they are, by any means, if journalism weren't putting its propaganda wind at their back. In any event nobody, least of all me, wants to even think about the censorship which would follow from any serious effort to control tendentiousness in fiction. The First Amendment is fine as is, we just have to think straight about its implications.
Censorship is off the table. Period. In fact, I argue for less censorship, not more.
- You're right then, Jaz, to modify the word "media" into something else, and something negative. But it seems shocking and revolting to people to understand journalism as intrinsically representing a problem for conservatives. Doesn't that mean that we must be in the wrong? By no means.
There are reasons why journalism - at least journalism as we have always thought of it - is inherently tendentious. Let me repeat that: journalism is inherently tendentious. It was not always so.
- Before the Civil War, that was not the case. Newspapers were famous for their opinionated natures - newspapers were about the opinions of their printers. Newspapers were tendentious in the founding era, and they have remained so ever since - but what is different now is that "journalism" speaks with a single voice.
- What can possibly have effected that transformation? What could have thrown all those competing voices into a Cousinart, reducing them all to leftist twaddle? I have considered the possibility that the high speed printing press did it, and that could have considerable merit. But when you get right down to it, there is a culprit hiding in plain sight with motive, opportunity, and the right timing. The thing that homogenized journalism is the telegraph. The telegraph, and the Associated Press.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam SmithIn 1945 the Associated Press lost a case in the Supreme Court, which held that the AP was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Associated Press, whatever its obvious merits, also functions as a conspiracy against the public.
- The AP functions as a conspiracy against the public when it limits competition between journalists and journalism outlets. It does that by limiting its own membership, on the one hand, and by sustaining and coordinating one of the most massive propaganda campaigns in history - the one which promotes the fatuous conceit that all journalists are objective. That conceit is not merely fatuous, with no means of support other than repetition, it is actually self-negating in that belief in one's own objectivity is proof, not of objectivity but of its reverse. What is subjectivity, if not a belief in one's own objectivity?
Most of all, the claim of journalistic objectivity eliminates ideological competition - outside the backwater of the paper known as the "editorial page," which mostly exists to position the rest of the paper as being objective. The absence of ideological competition within journalism inevitably frees journalism to default to its own self interest, which is promotion of its own importance. And denigration of reality outside of its own interest, leading to the promotion of (journalism-influenced) government at the expense of individual initiative and private enterprise.
I said that I want less censorship, not more. McCain-Feingold is nothing but censorship - and it is no accident that it was journalism which was in the forefront of promoting its passage. Journalism, and the Democrat Party which is an adjunct of it (it makes more sense to think of the Democrat Party as following journalism, rather than leading and controlling it). When journalism calls itself "the press," it is planting the axiom that journalism has a monopoly on First Amendment freedom. But the Constitution has never supported the conception of any but two classes - the government and the people. First Amendment freedom from censorship is a right of the people. All of us, whether we own a printing press right now, or not.
- The signal merit of the Associated Press is the efficient use of the telegraph to spread news reports nationwide, and the conservation of communication bandwidth which that entails. But whereas telegraph lines were expensive and provided only a limited bandwith, in the era of the communications satellite and the fiber optic cable, bandwidth is dirt cheap.
In the Internet era, the useful work of the Associated Press is done. What remains of it is the mischief which it now, and always has, worked. The Associated Press should be sued into richly deserved oblivion.
Washington Examiner ^ | September 6, 2010 | Thomas Sowell
If you think about it at all, you realize that the only way to attempt to be objective is to declare up front all the reasons why you might not be objective.And that implies that anyone who claims to be objective - i.e., journalists as we have known them all our lives - is not even trying to be objective.
Are there any reasons why journalists might not be objective? Of course - every business has its own interests. Some of the well-known interests of journalism are:
If journalists declared those interests before reporting their stories, they would be more objective. But, superficially, they might seem less so. And journalism - after all, the root "jour" is French for "day" - is about "what's happening now" rather than about perspective and the big picture.
- the need for public credulity, including the need for public credulity of journalism's claims of objectivity,
- the need to interest the public. The rules which journalists claim to be objective are actually rules to promote their own business by interesting the public.
- If it bleeds, it leads
- "'Man Bites Dog' not 'Dog Bites Man."
- "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" (i.e., "meet your deadline, tell the story first").
The Associated Press and the rest of the wire services are useful to exploit scarce communication bandwidth. The wire services homogenize journalism, suppressing the individuality which was originally the hallmark of American newspapers. That homogenization does not make newspapers less tendentious - it magnifies the inherent tendency of the journalist to self-hype. Such individuality as is expressed in the editorial/op ed pages merely serves to "position" the rest of the newspaper (chiefly wire service material) as being objective.The Internet is an expression of the technological fact that bandwidth now is very plentiful. The internet exposes the homogenization of journalism via wire services as the Nineteenth Century anachronism that it is.
The "objective journalism" emperor has no clothes, and no one in journalism can say so. Although I as an individual FReeper cannot drive that fact into the public discourse, via the internet I can publish it in a form which is accessible worldwide. It is up to talk radio and other opinion leaders to pick up the ball and run with it.
Once dispose of the baseless assumption that journalism is objective, and the idea of having journalists moderate televised political debates becomes risible. Dispense with that assumption, and the question becomes whether, and to what extent, politicians align themselves with the tendencies of journalism. And the answer becomes plain as the nose on your face.Journalists assign positive labels to those who do align themselves with the interests of journalism, and negative labels to those who do not. I have my own Newspeak-English dictionary:
- objective :
- reliably promoting the interests of Big Journalism. (usage: always applied to journalists in good standing; never applied to anyone but a journalist)
- liberal :
- see "objective," except that the usage is reversed: (usage: never applied to any working journalist)
- progressive :
- see "liberal" (usage: same as for "liberal").
- moderate:
- see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal").
- centrist :
- see "liberal" (usage: same as for "liberal").
- conservative :
- rejecting the idea that journalism is a higher calling than providing food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and security; adhering to the dictum of Theodore Roosevelt that: "It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena (usage: applies to people who - unlike those labeled liberal/progressive/moderate/centrist, cannot become "objective" by getting a job as a journalist, and probably cannot even get a job as a journalist.)(antonym:"objective")
- right-wing :
- see, "conservative."
See, that's just the trouble - so many informed, educated and public spirited people (like you) actually believe that reporters are a separate class from "we the people."There is nothing in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, which says or implies any such thing.
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.
Just because journalists call themselves "the press" does not put them in a class separate from "the people." What, can I call myself "speech" and become privileged in some way over you? Do you not have the right to buy and operate a printing press? Are your rights lesser than someone else's, just because you haven't bought a printing press yet?The actual problem is that the wire services have unified and homogenized journalism. Starting with the Associated Press, which began in 1848. Adam Smith famously stated that
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam SmithThe "association" of newspapers via the AP performs the function of bringing journalists together in such a way as to enervate the competition among them. Why is it that no reporter will disagree with the thesis that "all journalists are objective?" Simple - journalists changed the business model of the newspaper business when they joined the AP. The AP gives each newspaper a cornucopia of news stories, but it is expensive and the newspaper must get value for that expense. The only way to do so is to vouch for the reporters on the other end of the wire whom the newspaper does not employ and may not even know. How does the newspaper do that? Simple - by promoting the conceit that "all journalists are objective."The massive propaganda campaign in which we have all been immersed all our lives, to the effect that "all journalists are objective," is nothing other than " a conspiracy against the public." It is a conspiracy to promote the conceit that journalists are better citizens than you or I, with the implication that the country should actually be run by journalists, with "the people" going to the polls pro forma and simply rubber stamping the decisions of the journalists.
Well, guess what! Journalists are a special interest.
Journalism's interest is in promoting the credulity of the people in accepting the confidence game I just outlined. "If it bleeds it leads," "Man Bites Dog rather than Dog Bites Man," and "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" are defining characteristics of the interest of journalism (which lies in interesting the public) which is an entirely different matter than "the public interest." Many things would interest the public but would be illegal, precisely because they are deemed to not be in the public interest. Reports of bad news generally interest the public - but of course the incidents themselves are not in the public interest.
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 . . .The public interest would be far better served if the public learned to treat journalism with a lot more "incredulity." And with full understanding that journalism, even when true, is not generally all of the truth - and that "Half the truth is often a great lie."It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
In Israel the Left exerts almost complete control over the political and social discourse. Unlike the situation in the US - particularly in the era of Fox News - there are no significant communications outlets in Israel that are not controlled by the Left.The non-leftist elements of "the media" in America are not a bit stronger than we need them to be - and they are under attack. And even talk radio scarcely existed before Reagan was able to end the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Even Yisrael Hayom, the free newspaper owned by Sheldon Adelson that has eroded the market shares of Israel's leading tabloids, is not a rightist newspaper. It senior editors, reporters and commentators are almost all leftists.
The Left's monopoly over the public discourse is not only expressed in the media. In the worlds of culture, academia and entertainment as well, all the leading figures are leftists. They cultivate one another in an elite universe that is affected neither by reality nor by the convictions of most of their countrymen.
This has led to a situation in which a small minority of Israelis behaves as if it were a large majority. They use their control over the public discourse to present the sentiments of the majority of Israelis as if they were the views of a small, fanatical minority.It is no news that this is almost a perfect description of our situation in the US, and the reasons for that situation here in "the land of the free" were long a source of serious puzzlement to me. But - in the spirit of "this problem, when solved, will be simple" - I now find it amazing that such a simple, obvious phenomenon could ever have eluded my understanding.There are layers of understanding which need to be peeled back before the problem becomes obvious. First, journalism mostly did not attempt to claim objectivity before the Civil War era. Newspapers were openly associated with political factions. Indeed, "news" papers of the era did not have sources which the general public could not, at least in principle, be privy to independently of the newspapers. Consequently newspapers were usually weeklies rather than dailies - and some even printed on an idiosyncratic timetable determined by the printer on an ad hoc basis. And the long time between printings did nothing to minimize the likelihood that the public would not learn "news" first from the newspaper. Newspapers, IOW, were largely about the opinions of the printers.
The telegraph and the Associated Press changed that situation; members of the AP suddenly had a font of news to which the general public would become privy only by reading it in the newspaper (or by traditional means, only after the passage of a long period of time). However, "the wire" came at a cost. The service was expensive, and the membership had to maximize the value it received from it. And that meant that the member newspaper had to sell the reliability of reports from reporters who didn't work for the local paper, and who may have been unknown to them. That required a leap of faith - into a "religion" in which reporters were priests of "objectivity."
So with the advent of the AP, fiercely independent newspaper printers gradually merged into a Borg. Outside the Borg, you were ignorant of all those reports gushing from "the wire;" inside it you were safe. You didn't really retain your own identity, but you were guaranteed to be "in the know" - and guaranteed that the Borg would not brook questions of your own objectivity so long as you remained a member in good standing and did not question the objectivity of any other Borg member.
But why was the AP "Borg" an engine of leftism? The incentives of the AP are simply to promote the importance of its membership. And the interest of the membership is to entertain and attract attention. It is, quite simply, to interest the public. The rules of journalism: "If it bleeds, it leads," "'Man Bites Dog' is news, 'Dog Bites Man' is not," and "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" are all rules for interesting the public. All rules to maximize the interests of the newspaper. Notice, I did not say that they were rules for promoting "the public interest." The rules to which journalists appeal to deflect criticism of their editorial choices have nothing to do with the public interest, and everything to do with interesting, and titillating, the public. Those rules of journalism are self-interested.
The AP and the rules of journalism inherently exaggerate journalism's importance and minimize the trustworthiness of those who commit to working to a bottom line. The position of journalism is always that things are going to hell in a handbasket - and you had better pay attention to journalists to find out all about it. And if things are that bad, the only conclusion is that the people you rely on to get things done cannot be trusted and do not deserve the credit/payment which they normally receive. That's a pretty good description of leftism, IMHO.
And because that is the propaganda wind that blows from journalism, politicians have the choice of either going along and getting along with journalism, or of standing on principle. Journalists call those who stand on principle everything but a child of God, and journalists call those who go along and get along "Moderate," "Progressive," or "Liberal," - whatever positive label they can think of. With the exception of "objective," which label they reserve to themselves as the only label they accept for themselves.
The catch to journalism's self-proclamation of their own objectivity is that it is impossible to even attempt to be objective without starting out from an examination of the possibility that you actually are biased. A self-proclamation of objectivity excludes the possibility of any approach to actual objectivity. The principle is no different from the etymology of the word "philosopher:Empowering Israelis to Express ThemselvesThus, if you claim to be wise or objective, you evade the responsibility to your hearer to support your arguments with facts and logic.
- sophist
- 1542, 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.
- philosopher
- 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]
I thought Levin was a smarter lawyer than that. Best of luck on that, Mark. You're making your living by giving your opinions in public, I think that's called a "public figure.""Last night Mark Levin suggested he would be initiating law suits against anyone who blamed him for these murders and assaults."
I attempt (as a non-lawyer) to treat this issue in my #32. The point has to be that when Big Journalism is a single, identifiable entity with a single, identifiable (and hostile) POV, there is scant recourse against slander (actually libel) by that entity. And that Big Journalism is such an entity is pitifully easy to show; the membership of Big Journalism unselfconsciously stonewall facts which are inconvenient to its case, and its "case" is always the same - that nobody can be trusted except Big Journalism. Big Journalism, and its acolytes, to whom Big Journalism assigns positive labels such as "progressive," or "liberal," or "moderate."Who is "Big Journalism," and how would you name it in a lawsuit? Simple - Big Journalism is the Associated Press and its membership. Big Journalism excludes from its membership any who would criticize any of its members in any serious way. Thus, a Dan Rather can promote a fistfull of fraudulent "Texas Air National Guard memos" and, after being busted by proofs that those "memos" were fraudulent, double down and refuse to apologize and withdraw his accusations against President Bush43. He did so secure in the knowledge that he would not be seriously criticized, let alone ostracized, by the rest of Big Journalism.
He was secure in that knowledge for the simple reason that all "MSM" journalists have each other's back, and none of them would dare to break that cabal's code. And he was right. CBS conducted a show "investigation" which found that there was no political motive behind a fraudulent October Surprise hit piece on the Republican presidential candidate. A "surprise" which, to go by the advertising which the Democratic Party had ready to launch in an instantaneous followup to the 60 Minutes hit piece, was no surprise at all to the Democratic Party. And the rest of Big Journalism uttered not a peep about it.
Nor is the "TANG memo" hoax unique, or even unusual. Big Journalism turned the Duke lacrosse team "rape" hoax into fodder for almost a year of heated discussion despite the obvious fact that Nifong was trying the case in the newspapers because he was running for election - and that his witness was unreliable and self-interested. It was just a matter of time before the truth caught up with Nifong - but what an experience for those young men to be arbitrarily subjected to!! Another example is the SBVT effort to oppose the election of John Kerry, and the PR effort that Big Journalism launched against them.
Why does Big Journalism go along with the Democratic Party? The question is miscast. To ask the question, "Why would politicians go along and get along with Big Journalism?" is to answer it. Once accept the obvious fact that Big Journalism exists as an identifiable entity with identifiable "follow the money" interests, and the granting of any special treatment to any member of Big Journalism - see for an egregious example the limits on criticism of candidates by anyone except members of Big Journalism during election campaigns - becomes absurdly unconstitutional.
Enactment of any such law is corrupt - and, lest we forget, there were plenty of Republican congressmen willing to vote for the McCain-Feingold monstrosity. And George W. Bush signed it, and Sandra Day O'Connor put the imprimatur of SCOTUS on it. But O'Connor was replaced by Alito and - Kennedy ruling as he did at the time - McConnell v. FEC would go the other way today. So, general tendency notwithstanding, Republicans are not uniformly principled enough to stand with the people and the Constitution against the flattery and derision of self-aggrandizing Big Journalism.
Talk Radio is a format which depends crucially on appearing to represent the public by fairly taking on callers as they come. That stands in direct contrast to journalism, which is inherently a "we're objective and the public isn't," proposition because of its format. And it turns out that, although the soap opera actor says that acting is easy once you've learned to fake sincerity, the public which listens to talk radio can readily tell if the talk show host screens out challenging calls and only answers softball questions. The reality is that claims of "objectivity" - or "moderation" or any other virtue - become unsupportable when subjected to truthful attacks based on facts and logic which must be answered by the talk show host in real time. The consequence has been that people with a "liberal" mindset hear their views reflected adequately by Big Journalism, and people who recognize the limitations of Big Journalism's "objectivity" constitute the audience of Talk Radio.
To return to my starting point, when Big Journalism is a single, identifiable entity with a single, identifiable (and hostile) POV, there is very limited recourse against libel by that entity. Thoughtful people tend to see through the tendentiousness of Big Journalism, but the relative sizes of the audiences for Big Journalism and for Talk Radio certainly give pause to a belief in the adequacy of purely rational argumentation as a basis for PR. The one place where you are supposed to win or lose purely on the facts and logic of your case is the courtroom. That is why I favor a maximum effort to bring the Associated Press and its membership to book in court. And given the slender-reed nature of any hope of support from the Attorney General even in a Republican administration, that leaves only the idea of a civil suit. As far as suing the AP is concerned, it shouldn't hurt your chances to be able to point out that the AP was found by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945. And whereas the AP had such an obvious benefit in conserving scarce bandwidth in the days of the telegraph, and seemed to be "too big to fail" in 1945, in the 21st Century the bandwidth required for journalism is practically free. So today a remedy which threatened the existence of the AP would not obviously be counter to the public interest.
Having identified the defendant, however, I am unsure of exactly who the plaintiff should be. Certainly Mark Levin and talk radio hosts generally have an interest in defeating any legal restrictions/prohibitions which the present imbroglio and the present administration threaten. But just as certainly the audience of talk radio has its rights threatened by those same forces. And I would rather the audience be the plaintiff, if that is actually possible.
Journalism and ObjectivityWhy the Associated Press is Pernicious to the Public Interest
The Market for Conservative-Based News
I WILL SUE
The people you want to sue aren't MSNBC - at least, not by themselves. The people to sue are the Associated Press, and the membership thereof. Because the AP was found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1945. And whereas in 1945 the AP seemed "too big to fail," in 2011 the AP has serious trouble with its business model. The logical reason for the AP was to create a newswire which efficiently shared news among its members nationwide, thereby conserving scarce bandwidth. But in the Internet age, bandwidth is not scarce but abundant, and the conservation of bandwidth achieved by the AP is no longer a matter of any import.The AP is the mechanism which destroyed ideological competition, in other than the editorial page ghettos, among newspapers. Before the AP, newspapers were fractiously independent. The AP homogenized them, reducing them to projecting the governmentist tendencies which inhere in journalistic self-hype.With its mission now an anachronism, the AP should be forced to reorganize into a news publishing business in competition with its "members" - or just go away.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2656609/posts?page=35
I have discontinued the use of the term "the media," for the reason that although movies and fiction propagated by other media such as TV and print definitely are "liberal," you would have to outlaw fiction entertainment in order to make a serious dent in that problem. And that, I think, would put you squarely in the "kook" realm. The issue must be with "nonfiction," which pretends to truthfulness and therefore has a standard by which it may be judged. And that, in political terms, boils down to journalism.The interesting thing is that although you and I have never seen that day, in the founding era and up 'til the Civil War newspapers were highly opinionated in every possible direction; you picked your newspaper according to what political slant you enjoyed reading. But after the Civil War era, journalism suddenly (in historical terms) became "objective," so that no one now living remembers to the contrary. I'm embarrassed to say how long I puzzled over what created that transformation. The answer is the telegraph. The telegraph, and the Associated Press.
The wire services homogenize journalism, which can be spoken of as a single entity because it is one. It's not just that all newspapers have the same sources, it is that all journalism has to promote those sources as being objective - because otherwise how to vouch for reports from people you haven't even met? Hence the propaganda campaign to the effect that "all journalists are objective."
Why is journalism leftist in orientation? Because journalism is the cheap talk industry. Unified by the wire services, journalism is freed from internal competition and gives cheap talk free rein. And all leftism is is cheap talk, which takes the work of the real economy for granted, and blathers incessantly over real or imagined slights at the margins, making mountains out of molehills. The facile negativity of journalism towards the work of everyone not in journalism or government (not excluding the military) is the natural expression of journalism's self-regard. The planted axiom of what journalists say, and what they do not say, is that you really can't rely on anyone except a journalist or someone who mouths the same things journalists do - i.e., leftists.
The best way to critique journalism is to compare its coverage of events with the historical facts, after the passage of ten or twenty years so that the smoke has time to clear away. Compare, for example, what journalism was saying about the Reagan Administration with what we can see in retrospect the effect of the Reagan Administration actually was.
Well that is a very good question. Given the taint that has become SOP at this point, I just do not know. The house cleaning (exorcism?) that must happen will not be quick or painless. But I do see the legitimate value of such an opposing set of members.Could we have a loyal opposition? The rats have been appalling from Vietnam to Iraq.
To analyze that question, IMHO, you need a clear understanding of "liberalism" and its relationship to "the media."My analysis is that wire service journalism - the AP, in the first instance - homogenized journalism with the cornucopia of stories available over "the wire." Without "the wire," journalists openly expressed their own opinions as such - "objectivity" was not expected of journalists. "The wire," OTOH, was very expensive - and highly valuable if and only if the public could be made to be credulous about the authenticity of the stories coming over that wire. The upshot of that situation is that candor about any possible conflicts between the interests of journalist and the public interest quickly became taboo.
The penalty for breaking that taboo is expulsion from the "objective journalist" fraternity, with prejudice. Since I'm not a member of that fraternity, and do not aspire to become one, that taboo does not affect me. So I will point out the obvious: Journalists' incentives are to promote their own reputations and influence. So journalists hype their own importance and the significance of their reports - and journalists pick on anyone who seeks importance by actually doing important things like providing water, food, clothing, shelter, and so forth.Likewise, journalists scratch the back of anyone who scratches their back, and criticizes anyone who defends those whom journalism attacks.
The conclusion is obvious; journalism will always be leftist so long as it is unified. It's not that journalists are in the pocket of "liberals," it's that "liberals" go along and get along with journalism. Journalists have no incentive to seperate themselves from openly "liberal" politicians - other than by the rhetorical device of reserving the adjective "objective" to themselves only, and using any other positive label that comes up to describe the sycophantic Democrat politician. The term "conservative will never fit that bill as long as marketers lust after ways to justify describing the products they are selling as "NEW!"
Can the homogenization of journalism ever be undone? That unity is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act; the AP was held to be in violation of it back in 1945. No sweeping remedy was sought or given in that case, however. But with the advent of the Internet, the fundamental mission of the AP - conservation of scarce bandwidth for transmission of news - is an anachronism, and in principle the AP is no longer necessarily "too big to fail."
Is Liberalism Dead?
American Spectator ^ | February 2011 | James Piereson
gotta -read -ping
Thanks!
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.