The fundamental fallacy under which most Americans labor is the fatuous conceit that journalism is, or even should be, objective. That is the product of the biggest propaganda campaign in history, far longer in extent than Goebbels was able to muster. It has been going on so long that memory of man runneth not to the contrary - indeed, that was already true before most of us were even born. It started back in 1848 with the founding of the Associated Press, which quickly established a telegraph news distribution monopoly which was obviously a propaganda colossus, and was challenged on that basis. But it deflected criticism of its monopoly status by claiming that the Associated Press was (all say it together now, class) "objective."The telegraph and the the AP "wire" transformed the newspaper business. Founding Era newspapers were openly opinionated, with Jefferson and Hamilton each sponsoring a paper to attack the other. And early newspapers were frequently weeklies rather than dailies, and some had no deadline at all and just went to press when they were good and ready. In fact they most resembled our modern local freebie weeklies, which also assume that you get distant news from some other source by the time you see their publications.
The claim of journalistic objectivity is fatuous because the one thing journalism is in favor of is that journalism be assumed to be important. That is its underlying bias, and that explains the fact that reporters and journalistic organs do not question each others' objectivity. They are unified on the importance of their business, far more fundamentally than they are competitive about anything. The reality is that, most days, if you pick up a newspaper in a library from the same date five year earlier you won't remember anything in it because nothing of lasting significance was reported that day. Most days, the most significant thing that happens is all the routine work that the tens of millions of employed people in the country did that day - none of which is ever going to be reported in a newspaper.
So even in the unlikely event that the newspaper contains no outright falsehoods on a given day, it will be a half truth because it systematically ignores the big picture. And that makes the conceit that journalism is objective absurd. The only "evidence" for that conceit is the opinion of journalists that journalists are objective - and belief in your own objectivity is the very essence of subjectivity.
So Bush could not have successfully "declared" the "Iraq War" over when it actually achieved its objective (ousting Saddam Hussein), and can not do so now. The media dominate perceptions of when it's "over", unfortunately.
I dislike the formulation, "the media" for two reasons. First, although the entertainment media such as fictional TV and fictional films are in fact "liberal," there is actually no point to complaining about fiction not being true. And nonfiction books are not the problem. And that leaves journalism as the actual culpable villain of the piece. Second, the term "media" is a plural noun and - as Rush is wont to say - if you have heard one news outlet you have heard them all, but if you miss Rush who else is going to tell you what he would? So the formulation I prefer is the singular term, "Big Journalism."And why is Big Journalism singular, why does it speak with one voice? The answer is bound and gagged, and lying on your doorstep. Big Journalism is singular because the Associated Press is singular. Full Stop. The bias of Big Journalism is that the news services are objective, and the bias of the news services is that the news services are objective.
And since arguing from the assumption of one's own objectivity is the very definition of subjectivity, Big Journalism is a baying example of hubristic arrogance which calls itself "objective." And which calls in nonjournalists any reflection of its own perspective, not "objective" but "liberal" or "progressive" or "moderate."
The bias of Big Journalism is not only its belief in its own objectivity but its belief that its product - mere talk, criticism, and second guessing - is more important than action. Journalists think that journalism is more important than growing food and distributing food, or producing and distributing electrical power, or producing and distributing fuel, or producing security by the police and the military.
Big Journalism - and its "liberal" fellow travelers who are not in the journalism professsion but who in principle can become "objective" journalists simply by changing hats (as George Stephanopolis did) - reject the idea that the military knows more about fighting, or the fuel companies know more about delivering fuel, than journalists do. On the grounds that journalists are objective, and journalists have access to the newswire.
Consequently Big Journalism rejects the possibility of military success - or economic success - under the leadership of a president who is not "liberal."
Happy Xmas, your war is over! http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article563496.ece ^