Posted on 11/14/2007 7:44:30 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
Ping.
Ping.
Broadcast journalism was created out of neccessity for World War II and it became a means to promote opposition to Hitler, sympathy for England and American involvement in the war.
After the war it transplated itself back home and found its niche promoting liberal causes in the United States.
It bears repeating: Objective journalism is an illusion. A reporter may try to be objective, and in many cases may approach an objective viewpoint, but the mere process of observing and reporting upon those observations is subjective. It's human nature and it cannot be avoided---nor should it be, really, because the subjective opinion of the reporter often provides the slant that makes the story compelling.
C-SPAN probably comes the closest to objective journalism when they plant a camera and let their viewers observe the action.
Great article, thanks for posting.
As you probably know, but for anyone interested, George Orwell was bitterly disappointed that his lung condition, caused rejection for the armed conflict. He lent his talents to the BBC. He conceded that it was necessary to deal in lies to defeat fascism. The BBC told us a number of lies. Whether it was fed them and they did not know, maybe gives them a pass in some cases.
One big lie was the U-Boat surfacing, to machine gun survivors of a British merchant ship. It was a British Sunderland flying boat that machine gunned the U-Boat. Likely British survivors unintentionally. The Liverpool mob tried to lynch another U-Boat commander who had been captured. The police rescued him.
True, from there on in the U-Boats mercilessly sank merchant ships. Then crash dived.
Orwell partly based 1984, on a giant propaganda machine that was the BBC. I chuckle at many of my generation who were children in WW2. They still repeat what they had to believe then. Of course, lies notwithstanding, the enemy did enough evil deeds to last for all time.
The almost amusing thing, is that books are written constantly boasting of how lies were told. If one follows as to how deception was the perogative of British counter-intelligence, one has to have two minds. One for the old BBC propaganda on the evil cunning of the enemy and one for the "true" stories of how stupid the Germans were.
'"Bodyguard Of Lies" etc. Not to forget the Nazi plot to take over Mexico and then drive up to the USA>
I think Fox News does a pretty good job representing the Right. There’s Tucker Carlson(sometimes), Glenn Beck.
Conservatives definitely control most talk radio, I mean radio America is a joke and a HUGE proportion of Americans sit in their cars each day in traffic going to and from work.
Broadcast journalism, the ABC/CBS/NBC’s I think and am assuming here that a lot of retired people must watch them or people put it on in the background, and they do have a liberal tilt as not many conservatives go into journalism, and probably never will, it’s not that profitable, and there’s a lot of “warm fuzzy” crap they would have to deal with. No thanks.
When you say some American is "conservative," you actually mean that they think that a contract written yesterday has the same meaning today, and that it should be enforced as intended, not as might come to seem "nice" to people judging it later. Especially as might seem "nice" to people with no skin in the game.Americans actually believe in liberty, which is not conservative because liberty means a lot of people making up their own minds about what they will do, and therefore tends to result in change rather than in maintaining the status quo. Consequently "liberal" is a positive label to Americans - and as such is a label which those with propaganda power here have tended to award to their friends. And "conservative" - although in a very limited sense germane - is actually on the surface a negative to Americans, and therefore is a label which those with the propaganda power to do so have tended to award as a booby prize to their adversaries.
Discussing WWII politics puts me in mind of The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II. Mandatory reading for discussion of WWII, IMHO. It opens with an imbroglio which occurred the week before Pearl Harbor stirred up by a Chicago newspaper.
BTTT
I found this intriguing: "IOW, the newspapers of the founding era were pretty much like the local freebie advertising weeklies we see today - which don't do national/international newswire stories because the presumption is that the customer has seen all that on TV, heard it on the radio, or seen it on the Internet just as quickly as the local printer saw it."
I *terminated* the local rag (& you know why) and noticed more than ever before the "paper box" I left up filled with all manner of freebies, 99% advertising.
Interestingly my *2* neighbors continued their subscriptions but they did not receive the blizzard of freebies as was I.
Strange, that.
A close examination revealed something fascinating.
ALL the freebies AND the daily (I terminated) are owned, produced/printed by the *same* entity: Connelly Media.
Imagine that. :o)
Kind of self evident.
Newspapers today --large or small-- are in the SOLE business of selling advertising FIRST and provide "news* secondarily. Whatever "news" a rag's subscriber receives regardless the originating source is without a doubt hand picked information. Isn't that by definition, propaganda?
Nonetheless the rags pay their bills via advertising, not *news* and we know how important circ numbers are to ad rates, eh?
So it begs the question does the daily I had (as well as all others) as a matter of business plan cook their books for the purpose of upping circ numbers using freebie giveaways to that end?
Think of it: The daily I terminated pay for materials & labor to get into my hands what's really the most important product they produce and it's for free.
HA!!
Who'd a thunk it was never about protecting the republic's citizen's right to know as their amendment was meant? {g}
I for one put nothing past the insidious limousine Liberal-Socialists infesting the media when it comes to *profit*, and that's the only reason I've related my experience to you.
BTW I'd not seen the term, "Big Journalism", used before reading your well researched, written piece.
I LOVE IT!!!
Sorry my friend, but *I'm* stealing it.
...for my own!! ;^)
Big market. All we have now is the Washington Times and the New York Sun. The Times is daily in Washington and weekly in the rest of the country. The news arrives too late, after I’ve already gotten it on the internet. The Sun isn’t available in my state.
Forget print media.
We need an internet-based medium that goes out and finds the news. Not a bunch of links like we already have (FR, Lucianne, World Net Daily, Drudge, etc).
Then we need local news. This is the catch. For local news we are stuck. We have no choice except the local liberal rag.
How about it, some of you rich Republicans? Start financing a good news source?
A reporter may try to be objective, but that effort must begin with introspection into what the reporter wants to be true. Without that introspection, the reporter merely assumes that he is objective. And no one is more subjective than someone who is taking their own objectivity for granted.
The reader (or consumer as the Marxists like to think of us) also contributes to the construction. That is one of the reasons these discussion forums exist.
Precisely. Everyone I knew in j-school thought he or she was objective. With an interior audience of one, how could you think otherwise?
Newspapers that try to promote objectivity are full of sh*t. Anyone who gets his or her news via newspaper is a complete fool if he or she believes otherwise. A New York Times reader in the 1930s, for example, would think that the Soviet Union was a paradise based on Walter Duranty's "reporting" alone.
What we need is the wisdom, as I see it, to recognize that journalism as we know it is by design anticonservative.Look, it is patent that I have very strong and, I hope I have demonstrated, firmly grounded logical opinions about the tendencies of journalism. They run essentially perfectly counter to the discussions you are likely to see on places like Wikipedia (which is IMHO merely a new MSM outlet). But even though there exists a "conservapedia" designed to counter Wikipedia, I have not posted to it. Why? I tried - but was defeated by the demanded format.
I actually believe that Jim Robinson has hit on a superb format for the dissemination of conservative perspective. If you are conservative and you want to see discussion of current events in which you are not bombarded by so-called "liberal" sophistry, the best way to get it is from FR. And if you think you want to be told "what is going on," you actually need to check your premises and realize that that is not realistic.
We do not have a "right to know," we only have the right to our own opinions, and to spend money at our own discretion to try to promote our opinions. And we have the implied right to access to the opinions of others (on mutually agreed-upon terms).
IMHO there is no reason why all our information cannot come to us, from the bottom up, on the Internet. We should not trust any claim of authority; we do not need it. We can talk things over and make up our own minds. Simply allowing someone to tell us "what is going on" just doesn't cut it.
I do have hope for the future though. I’m finding more and more articles previously posted in Free Republic picked up in the Journal Sentinel, the following day! Dare I hope Big Journalism is taking its queue from the very citizens it deigns to serve? Could it be the tail is wagging the dog?
Nah, just wishful thinking again; seeing what I want to see. I've been warned (rightly so) about this once already today . . .
You might not have seen it before; I never saw it anywhere but in my own writing either. But you certainly are welcome to be the first to pick it up. Go for it, and welcome!
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.