Ping.
Ping.
Wow, very well done!
Good Work ... Kudos for a job well done
MM
~~~ PING ~~~
Excellent analysis CIC.
This is why I say that the media-industrial complex is not the free press of the Founding Fathers. It literally is not, since the pretense of objectivity was unknown in those days. With the writers’ biases plain to all, readers had a fair chance to judge the truthfulness of their claims and positions. Today’s media, by pretending not to have a bias, deny the audience that chance and present their biased material as objective truth.
The pretense of objectivity is the key to the power of the media since their various activist campaigns and biases would be ineffective without it.
The media-industrial complex as we know it today is an unelected, unaccountable shadow government based on a falsehood; that is, the claim of objectivity and neutrality.
OUTSTANDING!
OUTSTANDING!
OUTSTANDING!
As important as anything I have EVER read.
BTTT!
c_I_c for President!
Ping.
I am going to read this and the previous links in their entirety when I have more time. Thank you for pinging me, CIC.
This is pretty good stuff. I really liked it because you did not use a lot of big words (;D) and it actually made complete sense to me.
Thanks!
I’ll be saving this thread for a while.
The current breed otherwise known as Marxists.Her "chattering classes," as the British call them -- journalists, academics, writers, "talking heads" and "intellectuals"
And, yes, Marxists hate Israel.
. . . and it's hardly as if we lacked the same "class" (I see it not as plural but as singular, all one thing) here in our beloved republic. Not only hating Israel, of course - but hating her for her similarities to ourselves. IMHO if we could turn just one of those "classes," we would turn them all.Our fundamental problem is that journalism as we know it - not "the press" as the Founders knew it but journalism as we know it - is monopolistic by design, and therefore is arrogant and self-righteous. "The press" as the Founders knew it was fractious and openly partisan - in every direction. I go so far as to suggest that the newspaper which Jefferson sponsored, the better to attack Hamilton and to respond to the attacks by the newspaper Hamilton sponsored for the reciprocal purpose, was the embryo of the original Democratic Party. But open partisanship is actually humility, compared to claiming objectivity. After all, objectivity implies wisdom - and arguing from a claim of your own wisdom is sophistry.
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.philosopher4 Advances that Set News Back, from Steve Boriss at Washington University in St. Louis, suggests how "the press" changed from the fractious cacophony of independent voices of the founding era into the unitary propaganda monster which calls itself "objective journalism" today.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. . . .
Another read, another BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
What a thoughtful and intelligent post, I’m saving it, thank you.
Bookmarking
Ah, but don’t forget the word “progressive”, which has come to mark (among other things) the most reactionary elements in the communities, the NIMBYs resisting progress and change.
liberal In the original sense the word described those of the emerging middle classes in France and Great Britain who wanted to throw off the rules the dominant aristocracy had made to cement its own control. During the 1920s the meaning of the word changed to describe those who believed a certain amount of governmental action was necessary to protect the people's "real" freedoms as opposed to their purely legal - and not necessarily existent - freedoms. This philosophical about-face led former New York governor Thomas Dewey to say, after using the original definition, "Two hundred years later, the transmutation of the word, as the alchemist would say, has become one of the wonders of our time." In U.S. politics the word was used by George Washington to indicate a person of generosity or broad-mindedness, as he expressed distaste for those who would deprive Catholics and Jews of their rights. . . . In its present usage, the word acquired significance during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who defined it this way during the campaign for his first term: ". . . say that civilization is a tree which, as it grows, continually produces rot and dead wood. The radical says: 'Cut it down.' The conservative says: 'Don't touch it.' The liberal compromises: 'Let's prune, so that we lose neither the old trunk nor the new branches.'
currently, one who believes in more government action to meet individual needs; originally, one who resisted government encroachment on individual liberties.
Safire's dating of the change to the 1920s is congenial to my thesis that the word change happened in a relatively short period of time - hence logically would have required the active support of the chattering classes - rather than a gradual social evolution. It also, as my thesis suggests, dates the change to well after the founding of the Associated Press, and late enough for socialists to have been disillusioned over the difficulty of getting Americans to accept socialism under its own name. But also before the inauguration of the FDR Administration, which my reading suggested would have to be the case since FDR himself used the word so unselfconsciously.
I must however admit that http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberalism&searchmode=none suggests a much earlier date for the change:
. . . But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.Caveat lector.
Excellent. Thank you for pinging me on this, I appreciate it.
(Also...great tagline there. I would vote for that man in a heartbeat, but I suspect he is much too pragmatic and sensible ever to consider it!)
Add to that "human rights" as opposed to "individual rights".
OUTSTANDING c_I_c!
BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
A real thought inspiring essay.
The public worldview is manipulated through the use of language, and in particular a series of deceptive labels.
Socialism is service to the self disguised as service to others. In this way it is an inverted form of a large part of Christian doctrine (though not the most important part).
I often wonder about the extent to which lies and corruption are intentionally perpetrated by leftists in the media or in government, or by sympathetic members of general society.
For example, does Nancy Pelosi secretly think to herself how great it will be when we are finally a Stalinist society, or does she merely follow leftist path because it best expands her own personal power while diminishing everyone else’s? I have come to believe that most political leaders and media types don’t fully realize that their actions will lead us to the hell of totalitarianism (although most are probably conscious that they don’t care, which is almost as bad). I think the collective result of having many self-serving leaders is an inevitable fall into the horror of communism.
And self worship I believe is the primary motive for the individual who supports leftist politics. Every sociopolitical issue on the left has a narcissistic payoff. I believe our descent into the hell of totalitarianism is indeed precipitated on all levels by indulgence in that tricky and elusive sin, pride. Like you say, “the conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.”