You were doing so well...WHY did you have to ruin my day bringing up the poster child for CU ?
Posted on 11/18/2005 4:17:11 AM PST by ajolympian2004
I gave a talk recently on one of my favorite topics: liberal bias in the media. In the course of my remarks I referred to a quote made famous by Finley Peter Dunne's fictional alter ego, Mr. Dooley, a caricature of an Irishman from the old country who once sarcastically declared that the job of the newspaper is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Dunne, himself, was a one-time Progressive who saw the light and became a Teddy Roosevelt Republican and a critic of sanctimonious do-gooders. Contemporary journalists may be unaware that the context of the Dunne quote was critical of arrogant newspapers abusing their influence and power to "comfort and afflict."
Today, this bromide has become a credo of media liberals who proudly explain that it was taught as dogma in journalism school. Should you visit the Web site of the leftist Independent Press Association, you'll learn of its Campus Journalism Project, "a national network of progressive \[that's a euphemism for left-wing] campus publications and journalists, founded to serve the thousands of students who are making social change through the media." They also tout their manual, Afflict the Comfortable, Comfort the Afflicted: A Guide for Campus Alternative Journalists.
Following my talk, I received a letter from a member of the audience who accused me of "seriously offending" Catholics, informing me that comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable is the core message of Jesus, the pope and the Roman Catholic Church, and that I had "derided this theory."
Whoa! I wrote him back explaining how he had misinterpreted my point. While clergy and their flocks may choose to adopt this mission in their personal lives, supposedly objective journalists - reporters - are obliged to maintain their neutrality and not take sides or crusade for issues while on the job. Of course, they do. But it's unprofessional activism.
When it's convenient for them, journalists like to strut their objectivity and detachment by describing themselves as messengers rather than advocates. (They certainly cut terrorists a lot of slack, even shunning the use of that term.) But they're highly selective in the messages they choose to deliver. My mailman doesn't read my mail and edit it before he gives it to me. That's precisely what the media do as the gatekeepers of public information. And that's exactly why "old media" - the dominant liberal mass media - are so resentful of "new media" - the Internet, the blogosphere and guys like me on talk radio. Old media covet the monopoly they once enjoyed.
But let's go back to this notion of afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. Superficially, it has a noble ring but there's also a down side to it. For one thing, it sounds remarkably similar to the fundamental Marxist refrain: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
The fatal flaw of socialism is its incompatibility with human nature. It's delusional to believe that one will work as hard for the benefit of a stranger as he would for the benefit of his family and himself. Socialism penalizes excellence and rewards sloth. As such, it inevitably gets too little of the former and too much of the latter. One need only observe the economic failure of the Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba vs. the resurgence of China, as capitalism increasingly takes hold there.
Afflicting the comfortable is another way of saying let's punish the successful. What's evil about success? If one is successful because of initiative, creativity, imagination, hard work, talent and risk taking, why should he be punished? This is how a free society creates wealth and capital for reinvestment, job creation and economic growth. It's why the United States is the most prosperous nation on Earth. It's also how we generate the means to help those in need.
Comforting the afflicted is a well-intended, kind and charitable thing to do if we define an affliction as a distressful condition caused by a misfortune beyond one's control. But what about self-affliction? Is one equally entitled to someone else's property - to afflict the comfortable - if his poor condition is the consequence of his own negligence, laziness or irresponsibility? Doesn't God help those who help themselves?
Journalists can't have it both ways. Objectivity and advocacy are contradictory, unless, that is, you're an advocate for objectivity. If journalists value their credibility, they shouldn't go around afflicting anyone. And if they want to comfort the afflicted, they should do it on their own time and their own nickel. Volunteer for a soup kitchen or write out a check to your favorite charity. But keep it out of your news reporting.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA.
Mike's webpage at 850am KOA: http://www.850koa.com/shows/rosen/index.html
If you want to be included on a PING list for Mike Rosen columns and/or for a heads up on interesting guests to his show send me a quick FReepmail.
Ping
The fatal flaw of socialism is its incompatibility with human nature. It's delusional to believe that one will work as hard for the benefit of a stranger as he would for the benefit of his family and himself. Socialism penalizes excellence and rewards sloth.
Mike Rosen, in very simple terms, nailed it! France is a firsthand example of how and why socialism doesn't work!
Comforting the afflicted is a well-intended, kind and charitable thing to do if we define an affliction as a distressful condition caused by a misfortune beyond one's control. But what about self-affliction? Is one equally entitled to someone else's property - to afflict the comfortable - if his poor condition is the consequence of his own negligence, laziness or irresponsibility? Doesn't God help those who help themselves?
I am impressed that, although Mike Rosen is not a religious man, he has a better understanding of Jesus' teachings, than many Christians do. Yes, Christians (NOT the government) are to help, widows and orphans, and the poor...but the Bible is very clear that people are expected to take care of themselves and their families!
"For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we [kept] working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right [to this,] but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example.
For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. 2 Thessalonians 3:7-12
I think this is worth repeating...
"For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies."
Now who does THAT remind you of?
Sorry for the rant...I am sick of the ENEMEDIA and Liberals....
Having been to the old Soviet Union (Russia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan) both before and after the fall of communism, as well as China, I can attest to that from personal experience.
Socialism penalizes excellence and rewards sloth.
It instills in them a sense of entitlement, but no sense of personal responsibility. It breeds generations of lazy whiners who use all their "productive capability" to think of more ways of how they can milk their system, while doing less.
No wonder their lives feel so empty. No work, no God, No responsibility... what sense of self worth do that have?
(preview is my friend)
And you end up with a population dependent on the government...just as the democrats want it...
Exhibit A... New Orleans!
Now why did that comment conjure up visions of Kruschev banging his shoe on the podium?
Listen to me! I want more! I want more money I want more recognition! I want more adulation! I want a statue a hundred feet tall! I want I want I want...
Name one dictator or one DemocRAT who wouldn't benefit from a couple of weeks of Super Nanny!
Spoiled brats, all of them. Bad, bad behaviour unchecked leads to mayhem and tyranny.
Enjoy your blessings and give thanks.
Drudge Report headline:
Murdoch predicts gloomy future for press...
Murdoch didn't have to go too far out on a limb, did he? ;o)
LOL! Me too!
Well, I heard somewhere that the DemoRATS have a fatal contagion: ill-liberality.
Hey, Jan in Colorado,
What's the latest on Psycho-Ward Churchill?
One of the weekend hosts on what was the Art Bell show opens with a paraphrase of that line.
I wondered where it came from, and why the Art Bell guy, a graduate of theology school would spout such a thing.
I instinctively knew it bizarre, and now I know the reason why.
On the other hand, maybe not...that would be too honest!
You were doing so well...WHY did you have to ruin my day bringing up the poster child for CU ?
The OSM (old stream media) is history and they know it.
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.