Posted on 09/14/2001 7:02:19 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
The framers of our Constitution gave carte blance protection to “speech” and “the press”. They did not grant that anyone was then in possession of complete and unalloyed truth, and it was impossible that they should be able to a priori institutionalize the truth of a future such human paragon even if she/he/it were to arrive.
At the time of the framing, the 1830s advent of mass marketing was in the distant future. Since that era, journalism has positioned itself as the embodiment of nonpartisan truth-telling, and used its enormous propaganda power to make the burden of proof of any “bias” essentially infinite. If somehow you nail them dead to rights in consistent tendentiousness, they will merely shrug and change the subject. And the press is protected by the First Amendment. That is where conservatives have always been stuck.
And make no mistake, conservatives are right to think that journalism is their opponent. Examples abound so that any conservative must scratch his/her head and ask “Why?” Why do those whose job it is to tell the truth tell it so tendentiously, and even lie? The answer is bound and gagged, and lying on your doorstep in plain sight. The money in the business of journalism is in entertainment, not truth. It is that imperative to entertain which produces the perspective of journalism.
And that journalism does indeed have a perspective is demonstrated every day in what it considers a good news story, and what is no news story at all. Part of that perspective is that news must be new--fresh today--as if the events of every new day were of equal importance with the events of all other days. So journalism is superficial. Journalism is negative as well, because the bad news is best suited to keep the audience from daring to ignore the news. Those two characteristics predominate in the perspective of journalism.
But how is that related to political bias? Since superficiality and negativity are anthema to conservatives there is inherent conflict between journalism and conservatism.. By contrast, and whatever pious intentions the journalist might have, political liberalism simply aligns itself with whatever journalism deems a “good story.” Journalists would have to work to create differences between journalism and liberalism, and simply lack any motive to do so. Indeed, the echo chamber of political “liberalism” aids the journalist--and since liberalism consistently exacerbates the issues it addresses, successful liberal politicians make plenty of bad news to report.
The First Amendment which protects the expression of opinion must also be understood to protect claims by people of infallibility--and to forbid claims of infallibility to be made by the government. What, after all, is the point of elections if the government is infallible? Clearly the free criticism of the government is at the heart of freedom of speech and press. Freedom, that is, of communication.
By formatting the bands and standardizing the bandwiths the government actually created broadcasting as we know it. The FCC regulates broadcasting--licensing a handful of priveledged people to broadcast at different frequency bands in particular locations. That is something not contemplated in the First Amendment, and which should never pass constitutional muster if applied to the literal press. Not only so, but the FCC requires application for renewal on the basis that a licensee broadcaster is “operating in the public interest as a public trustee.” That is a breathtaking departure from the First Amendment.
No one questions the political power of broadcasting; the broadcasters themselves obviously sell that viewpoint when they are taking money for political advertising. What does it mean, therefore, when the government (FCC) creates a political venue which transcends the literal press? And what does it mean when the government excludes you and me--and almost everyone else--from that venue in favor of a few priviledged licensees? And what does it mean when the government maintains the right to pull the license of anyone it does allow to participate in that venue? It means a government far outside its First Amendment limits. When it comes to broadcasting and the FCC, clearly the First Amendment has nothing to do with the case.
The problem of journalism’s control of the venue of argument would be ameliorated if we could get them into court. In front of SCOTUS they would not be permitted to use their mighty megaphones. And to get to court all it takes is the filing of a civil suit. A lawsuit must be filed against broadcast journalism, naming not only the broadcast licensees, but the FCC.
We saw the tendency of broadcast journalism in the past election, when the delay in calling any given State for Bush was out of all proportion to the delay in calling a state for Gore, the margin of victory being similar--and, most notoriously, the state of Florida was wrongly called for Gore in time to suppress legal voting in the Central Time Zone portion of the state, to the detriment of Bush and very nearly turning the election. That was electioneering over the regulated airwaves on election day, quite on a par with the impact that illegal electioneering inside a polling place would have. It was an enormous tort.
And it is on that basis that someone should sue the socks off the FCC and all of broadcast journalism.
Journalism has a simbiotic relation with liberal Democrat politicians, journalists and liberal politicians are interchangable parts. Print journalism is only part of the press (which also includes books and magazines and, it should be argued, the internet), and broadcast journalism is no part of the press at all. Liberals never take issue with the perspective of journalism, so liberal politicians and journalists are interchangable parts. The FCC compromises my ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas by giving preferential access addresses to broadcasters, thus advantaging its licensees over me. And broadcast journalism, with the imprimatur of the government, casts a long shadow over elections. Its role in our political life is illegitimate.
The First Amendment, far from guaranteeing that journalism will be the truth, protects your right to speak and print your fallible opinion. Appeal to the First Amendment is appeal to the right to be, by the government or anyone else’s lights, wrong. A claim of objectivity has nothing to do with the case; we all think our own opinions are right.
When the Constitution was written communication from one end of the country to the othe could take weeks. Our republic is designed to work admirably if most of the electorate is not up to date on every cause celebre. Leave aside traffic and weather, and broadcast journalism essentially never tells you anything that you need to know on a real-time basis.
It's clear that, if there's a story which truly shocks, then people will leap to the TVs and the ratings will skyrocket. Ted Turner earned a lot of dimes with this basic rule of TV ratings.
But these profitable blips are clearly windfallish in nature. Randolph Hearst may have proved to have a raw talent in "making news," but this clearly can't be put into a managment textbook in a communicable way: his flair cannot be passed along through business school.
So any promotion-seeking executive would have to come up with some substitute because they know that the shock-and-huddle makes for better ratings.
What better way than by using a clique of reporters with an us-against-America attitude? Or a bunch of hysterics making much ado about ephemera? Or people that combine both?
The anti-Vietnam bias in the late 1960s got ratings. For all we know, the inspiration for the confrontational mode was far less Ramparts than Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In - a show with 40+ ratings.
As far as their wooden-headedness is concerned, another durable source of ratings is a fan base. Narcissistic arrogance, as displayed in verbal behaviour, actually leads to such a journalist being idolized and even worshipped. This implies (counterintuitively) that a queen bee - whose style of interviewing essentially is "see thing my way or all you'll hear is 'when did you stop beating your wife'" - makes strategic sense as a hire.
The fact is that extreme liberalism and moderate anti-Americanism is an optimal choice for a television reporter. The average American will be induced to watch regularly, because of the mild shocks administered and (quite possibly) the hunger-for-seeing-notoreity factor, which will raise news ratings higher than they otherwise would have been.
The fact is that liberalism of the New Dork type in television journalism seems to be as conducive to a successful corporation as don't-offend-anyone Republicanism is in the regular kind of big corporation.
"What's bad for America is good for the media - and Vice Versa!"
The home video of the arrest of Rodney King made sensational news. But the entire tape, as commentated on by defense lawyers, shows behavior on the part of Mr. King which--the first Sgt. Stacy Koon jury held--explained the behavior of the police sufficently to make the police not criminally liable for what Mr. King endured. But the interesting fact is that the videotape made even more sensational news after editing than it did initially--for the very understandable reason that all portions of the tape having any bearing on the reason for the police behavior were edited out.
Endlessly rebroadcasting the remainder of that tape is exactly what I would have done if I had wanted to see a riot in Los Angeles. That is exactly what broadcast journalism did after the initial Stacy Koon verdict of "Not Guilty" came down. Not only so, but reporters broadcast interviews of the "No justice, No peace" activists. And to top it off broadcasters reported, in real time, where looting without police interference was ocurring.
In sum, if journalists had any other thought than to exacerbate the situation and cause the nation to watch in horrified fascination, they had a remarkably strange way of showing it. And were I a business owner who had been burned out in that riot, I would have wanted to sue the broadcasters for their very underwear.
I agree with you that breaking ranks with other journalists is very dangerous. All you can hope to do is get into a shouting match with the other journalist, and your "objectivity" as well as the other's objectivity will be called into question. And if that weren't enough, all the other journalists will see your critique as being out-of-bounds, and your own credibiliy will be questioned by journalism at large, not just your target.
So even though non-journalists fear getting into an argument with you as a journalist who "buys ink by the barrel," you as an individual journalist must fear the pack as a whole, which collectively "buys ink by the truckload." And that IMHO deters journalists from competing on the basis of credibility. National Enquirer and Star excepted, of course. Journalists will not deign to be compared in veracity to them.
. . . and everyone knows that posing as a voice to protect seniors--and essentially everyone else--from "rich" Republicans, is the Democrats' entire franchise.The irony, of course, is that the Republican Party is middle class--those who do not accept, or desire to assign to others, the designation "poor."The Democratic Party is primarily the rich and powerful patronizing those who accept the designation "poor."The main tool of power in the Democratic Party is journalism. Journalists boast of the power to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" (they don't of course call it power, but what else describes the ability to decide who the "afflicted" and "comfortable" are, and to reverse their conditions?).
All Americans believe in progress.Conservatism is a long term view of progress--a vision of progress over a multigenerational span of time. This viewpoint necessarily looks at all past history worldwide in the hope of discerning long-term threats to ourselves or even to posterity.
Conservatives recognize that there are always short-term negatives going on--our own individual mortality not least--but insist on the multigenerational viewpoint nontheless. Journalism seeks those negatives out and publicizes them. "Liberalism" exploits those negatives by using them as occasions to change the rules in ways that gain political credit--with minimal regard to, and generally to the detrement of, the welfare of posterity.
No commentator or columnist who takes account of the welfare of posterity--no conservative--is accepted by any liberal as a journalist.
And they have very little say over cable TV, and zilch over the web. What does it really matter if we could order "NBC Nightly News" to be "just the facts," when MSNBC cable and MSNBC.com could go on just like they always have?
IMHO the issue is preferential addresses. FR can tell the world--the part of it that finds "freerepublic.com", and reads it--why conservatism is virtue and "liberalism" is vice. But who finds FR, compared to the multitudes who find channel 2?And, tho Fox News rules as cable news stations go, VHF broadcast TV channels are highly preferred addresses and get much higher ratings.
So, IMHO, broadcast--and, in TV, VHF broadcast in particular--is the linchpin of the problem which is journalism.
Consider the following two news stories:
I don't dispute that some form of government regulation over the EMF spectrum is necessary; if there were no such regulation, radio transmission of any form would be just about useless for any purpose. On the other hand, the fact that legislation may be a good idea (or even "necessary") does not make it constitutional. What should have happened prior to the creation of the FCC would have been passage of a constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing its existence and defining its powers. Unfortunately, courts find it much easier to let such statutes 'slide' than to insist that legislators follow the Constitution.
I don't dispute that some form of government regulation over the EMF spectrum is necessary; if there were no such regulation, radio transmission of any form would be just about useless for any purpose. On the other hand, the fact that legislation may be a good idea (or even "necessary") does not make it constitutional. What should have happened prior to the creation of the FCC would have been passage of a constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing its existence and defining its powers. Unfortunately, courts find it much easier to let such statutes 'slide' than to insist that legislators follow the Constitution.
You can see by this thread that I prefer a non-conspiratorial explanation for journalism's liberalism. However, this is IMHO a case where the story would interest and please the public. The trouble with that story is exactly that the journalists, being lefties by self-selection, prefer to patronize the audience than to indicate that the common person is competent to use deadly force.And, BTW, cops aren't noted for being pointy-headed intellectuals . . . and much as liberals dislike self defense they sure are easy to rile up about the alternative as well--i.e., "police brutality."I see it as resembling the Hollywierd tendency to make an R-rated flop when they know perfectly well that G-rated movies tend to make more money. Hollywood makes the R-movie because it's the one they want to make.Liberals are really only happy when affecting superiority over the necessity for controling the power of the sword.
I agree completely.
People who could pass the 17th Amendment without blinking an eye would almost inevitably have gotten it wrong, so I'm glad that they didn't. At least we have the principle on our side, as things stand.Unfortunately, courts find it much easier to let such statutes 'slide' than to insist that legislators follow the Constitution.
Aye, there's the rub, beyond peradventure. We have one SCOTUS justice who doesn't imbibe broadcast journalism's bile. And the FCC et al would be demanding that he recuse himself! I'd almost like to see them try it; the argument that all the others should do so is sounder. Imagine a 1-0 Supreme Court ruling!! LOL!
. . . We can all choose to "not watch" -- journalists or the media in general. But . . .
I think that bleudevil's analysis is incomplete, and that MarkWar's #19 is much more representative of reality.
C-Span thinks to consciously be fair, and I don't doubt their good faith (at least, not very much). But the Fairness Doctrine was disasterous for conservatives; it was the reason talk radio was suppressed until Reagan arranged for or allowed the FD to lapse.The conceit of enforced objectivity is directly at odds with the philosophy of the First Amendment. The fundamental problem of the Fairness Doctrine is that "fairness" is really "absence of bias"--an unprovable negative. Since it can never be proven, defending against bias charges (such as Slander itself) is a Sisyphusian task; each new charge must be independently taken on. (and of course, often the charges are actually true, which makes disproving them even harder!)
Yet the charges are disposed of: they are assaulted with the propaganda power of journalism. Ridiculed, sidestepped, distorted into straw men and destroyed. In operational terms, they are ignored.
Under the First Amendment, which assumes free access to printing by any interested citizen, that tactic has no legal consequence. However, that legal situation is modified by the acceptance of the FCC, which created broadcasting by censoring competition in radio transmission. In so doing the government logically has exactly the task that the First Amendment banned Congress from--deciding "fairness" in publishing.
How then has the FCC decided the issue of fairness? By reference to the consensus of print journalism. But as we have seen, print journalism is legally unregulated; print journalism does not even have the authority of a witness under oath, subject to the laws of perjury. Yet the FCC and the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law assay, de facto, to assign journalism the authoritative voice of a jury.
All its vaunted legal independence notwithstanding, journalism (print and broadcast) manifests a patent herd instinct. Even those who buy ink by the barrel, it seems, fear to pick fights with others who buy ink by the barrel. So the media outlets compete on the quickest delivery of the most gripping telling of the hardest-to-ignore reports, but they do not compete on the basis of telling the whole story, and telling it accurately.
The whole truth, in context, takes time. The whole truth, in context, is usually less dramatic than the first breathless accounts. The whole story may, in fact, prove to be a tempest in a teapot. Consequently it is the conservative who is more inclined to take the time to get to the bottom of things--and write a nonfiction book. The journalist has moved on by then to other stories, and if new information on an old news story comes out in a nonfiction book, maybe the journalist will discuss the book. But if so, the journalist assumes that journalists are the objective ones--and the writer either confirms journalistic prejudice (the negative angle which made a profitable news story) or is presented as a conservative wingnut.
Or, in the case of the Stacy Koon verdict, the jury was presented as the wingnuts. The first jury saw the entire video of the arrest of Rodney King, and heard an explanation of everything. Journalists, OTOH, edited the tape down to the best case to be made for police brutality, and asked how anyone could justify that. Essentially propagandizing for the riot that followed the verdict.
Slander points out many well-documented examples of anticonservatism; I propose a non-conspiratorial explanation for the reality Coulter describes. The Fairness Doctrine assumes Slander away. C-Span basically operates under a self-imposed Fairness Doctrine--and wonders why unregulated callers ran 5-to-1 conservative.
Thank you for directing me to the previously posted[this] thread. It was very enlightening, and as you pointed out, post 50 was great, and I agree totally with the poster.
I studied journalism before the tabloid era, and I see everything I ever learned is not applied to what passes for journalism today. I had never been able to make myself realize that it is considered entertainment today until now. You have convinced me, and it makes me sad.
153 posted on 8/19/02 1:11 AM Eastern by ladyinredfrom
As soon as more people wake up to the fact that these enterprises are a business, not a Constitutionally protected enterprise, and that they are subject to economic pressures, we will start to see changes, viz., the Politically Incorrect/Bill Maher situation. Don't call, email, fax or Pony Express the newspaper or teevee station about their air-heads blatant liberal bias. They already know that and encourage it, and they ain't about to change unless there is an economic incentive to do so. Like one of Maher's ex-sponsors said: He has every right to say what he wants, but we have every right to put our advertising dollars where we want. Peter Jennings would be on a bus, train or plane back to Canada in a second if every business that had a commercial on any of his snooze shows were to receive cogent, coherent, non-ranting letters stating that the writer would no longer purchase their product if they continue to advertise on his show. Granted, there are millions of sheeple watching him, but very few will actually make the effort to put a coherent message down on paper, research the highest executive in charge, mail it with a "return receipt", and then follow up with either a response to their response or just a follow up later on, to let them know you are serious.I'll bump that.
me too. as i meander through life, i realize that the pursuit of money (not just making a living) pervades many, many fields. the romantic altruism of many studies that we may have been taught in school simply does not apply because the overarching goal is to make (more and more) money.
it just seems that journalism has hit the lowest in all the fields, perhaps because it is most visible. it is so sad because altruistic journalism is about truth, and truth is something we all want. being consistently lied to for decades can really make one feel duped, if not violated.
Had a chance to see Slander yet?
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.