Posted on 11/17/2004 7:25:30 AM PST by MikeEdwards
A true-life hero passed on yesterday, November 16, 2004.
In physical stature, Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine was just a little guy. With a slim figure that busted all over Washington D.C. corridors of power, his lifelong mission was one that always kept the little guy in mind. With stamina to spare, even at age 80, Reed Irvine was still going to the office.
There was something almost childlike about Reed’s unflagging belief and confidence that a wayward mainline media could be held to account. He critiqued their errors and omissions better than any journalism teacher, and kept at it for three long decades.
A Rhodes scholar, who could debate with the best of them, Reed Irvine never felt challenged by the most powerful of journalists, politicians or even presidents.
Imbued by an ever-present sense of humour, this `David of the Mainline Media’, was self-deprecating. In the face of bold lies and even threats, he chuckled, but never went away.
The most inspirational facet of Reed Irvine’s personality was his refusal to ever give up, even with all odds stacked against him. . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
MRC is one of the best sites for media bias reporting. Sad to hear of this passing of its founder.
Very sad, indeed.
Reed Irvine was one of the good ones. I had the pleasure of meeting him several times. He always seemed cheerful and friendly. I am sorry to hear of his passing. Condolences to his family and friends.
I remember reading Irvine's stuff in Human Events back in the dark days of Jim-mah Carter. He kept my sanity then by telling me and the rest of conservatism that we weren't just imagining things and that the media WAS lying - and he proved it!
Nowadays, in addition to AIM, we have Bosell and the MRC, the new media and a slew of other functions that nail the liars to the wall in real-time. As far as I know, though, he was the first - the pioneer. I think it is entirely fair to say that he sowed the seeds for overturning the monolith of media control; at least, he developed the mechanics of counter-propaganda.
RIP, Mr. Irvine.
I learned of the existence of bias in the media back in the late 1970s, and subscribed to AIM for a year or two. Why did I stop? Because I was convinced! The parade of further examples became a twice-told tale, a bit like reading a daily report on the rising of the sun.Once I was convinced of bias in the media, the issue was no longer "whether" but "why". And I have studied on *that* problem ever since. And I believe that my very reaction in discontinuing my AIM subscription is a perfect illustration of the reason for "bias" in "the media."
Why the scare quotes? Because in the first place, "the media" refers generally to *entertainment* media--and of those media in fact only *journalism* is "nonfiction," and carrying promises of objectivity. In the second place, the First Amendment requires that the government permit the expression of perspectives--and my "perspective" may be your "bias." In law a contract with a quid pro quo is binding, but a mere "promise" is NOT enforceable in court. That undoubtedly leads to hard feelings when promises are not kept. And that is precisely the position of the AIM writer and reader--journalism *promises* objectivity but delivers entertainment, then takes refuge in the First Amendment to ward off any legal enforcement of its promises. So far as PRINT journalism is concerned, the matter rests there, and the only possible response is to attack the credibility of journalism's claims of "objectivity." The Rush Limbaugh approach. Broadcast journalism is on altogether different constitutional footing, at least in principle.
This thread is my study of "the freedom of speech, or of the press".Whenever I post a reply to another thread which seems clarify my thinking on that issue I link it there.
I fear we are going to see that "proven" once again with the appointment of Arlen "Scottish law" Specter to chair the judiciary.
I remember as a young adult discovering Reed Irvine by finding a copy of a little tract called the Washington Inquirer that was left behind on a bus in Metro DC. This was a year or two before the Washington Times was first published in 1982.
Oh, those were miserable days for a news junkie who had few news/commentary sources save the likes of the Washington Post and the major networks. To see such columns as those written by Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, John Lofton, Allan Brownfeld and Reed Irvine himself was a welcome alternative to the constant drumbeat of negatively biased press that was so rampant in those days.
As a returnee to college trying to make a career change, I was privileged to have recently interned at AIM for over a year and even got a few pieces published -- which wasn't easy; their standards are high.
The days of journalists complacently spoon-feeding us what THEY think we should know are long gone. They know it and hate it.
Reed Irvine is one of the main reasons why.
With the deepest respect,
William R. Alford
The reason why is quite simple.
The Left has good intentions to "help" people.
But they cannot get all the power and resources necessary to do so.
So the Left employs all sorts of misdirection to do so.
They discredit the military and build up our enemies in order to neutralize the use of our military so that military resources can go to Welfare. They believe that oceans alone can defend America and that there is no reason for others to interfere with american interests if America poses no global threat. The failure of this is in that the more they succeed, the more we need the military because they are wrong on both counts.
They build up a guaranteed voter bases by being the permissive "parent" promising to allow more "freedom". Finding that racial freedom was inadequate, they turned to deeper and deeper forms of debauchery, sexual liberation, abortion and now homosexuality, seeking ever smaller and more marginalized groups to add to their base. The failure of this is that in promoting debauchery they create the very problems of dependence and dissolution they claimed to want to solve in the first place. But they believe that they can fix it all if they just get the money.
They seek to alienate the decision making from those who pay, who are far too niggard, to those who receive, beholden classes and the elite who run this "charity" (and exempt themselves from paying for it).
Finding all this insufficient the Left resorts to outright lies in order to fool opponents as well as conflicting constituencies to vote for people who support policies they otherwise would not. A recent example of this is the Kerry campaign's (rather inept) mischaracterization of the War on Terror in order to trick people to vote against their consciences for an absolutist on abortion and gay rights which were downplayed as issues almost to invisibility except to those in the base.
It should be noted that the elites of the Left know exactly what they are doing. Most do not live what they outwardly support. They are against racism, yet Blacks never cross the thresholds of real power. They support debauchery but are sexually conservative. They want high rates of tax but create loopholes for their own largely unearned income and trust regulations created by their minions in government for evading the inheritance taxes. Would the billionaires who recently supported inheritance taxes have felt the same if they actually paid 55% across the board? I think not.
. . . It should be noted that the elites of the Left know exactly what they are doing. Most do not live what they outwardly support. They are against racism, yet Blacks never cross the thresholds of real power. They support debauchery but are sexually conservative. They want high rates of tax but create loopholes for their own largely unearned income and trust regulations created by their minions in government for evading the inheritance taxes.
Clearly the votes of the Democratic Party come from people who pretty much take for granted the virtue (as you describe it) of the elites of the Democratic Party. I find discussion of that "virtue" itself boring; the only issue is why such claptrap exists as a politically viable hazzard to constitutional governance. My conclusion is that under the First Amendment talk is cheap, and "liberalism" is simply cheap talk.Despite - not because of, but in spite of - the socialist nostrums such as the Great Society (and note that when a socialist says "society" he actually means "government"), an American secretary would have to think long and hard about changing places with Queen Victoria. Although Victoria was fabulously wealthy and had servants, she lived in a time (1819-1901) when the medical technology and pharmacology of today would quite literally have been unimaginable, and she had nothing made of plastic or operated by electricity or gasoline. And that in the present those things not only exist and are availible to the Queen of England but are available to you and me, is an artifact not of socialism and Medicare but of competitive enterprise in the health care and electronics field.It is the cheap talk of newspapers and broad media which enables the socialist to toot his own horn by constantly questioning his betters and refusing to be questioned himself. The liberal politician does not control the liberal media; rather, the liberal politician takes the easy way to good PR by echoing the liberal media. Echoing liberal journalism always gets you good PR, and any celebrity does it unless they have exceedingly good reason - such as actually understanding the problem under discussion. And the individual journalist is just a celebrity who does not place actual expertise above the need to fit in with the herd.Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Yes......... a man such as he will be missed.
Media bias bump.
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.