Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

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.

Rush Is Right About Liberal Arrogance
vanity ^ | 9/15/06 | conservatism_IS_compassion

This is my suggestion to Rush Limbaugh on critiqueing the arrogance of liberalism:

Your 9/14/06 rant about liberal "arrogance" was of course dead on . . BUT.
Why can they be SO VERY arrogant? How can they get away with it? The DriveBy Media is "their willing accomplices," of course..But WHY?
Remember, Friedman pointed out a year or so ago that the media don't follow liberals but rather, LIBERALS FOLLOW THE MEDIA. Specifically, "objective" journalism - the DriveBy Media..
The DriveBy Media constitute an entity because although they are many organs - CBS, ABS, NBS, NYTimes BS, etc - it doesn't matter which one we see because they all say the same thing - as you have often said. BUT WHY?
ONE PARTICULAR BIAS THEY ALL SHARE. The DrivBy Media LUST after attention and respect. If they are listened to all over the country they can be more important than anything else.(in thier own minds at least). That's a self-fulfilling prophesy; if they are important they will be listened to, and if they are listened to they will be important.
THE PRESUMPTION THEY ALL SHARE IS THAT THEY ALL ARE IMPORTANT. But if THEY are to be important as mere talkers, the people in flyover country who make the country work - oil companies, Walmart, MacDonalds, Coca Cola, AND even POLICE AND THE MILITARY - are THE COMPETITION for importance (and for that matter YOU are, too).
The DriveBy Media is united in hostility and contempt for Flyowver Country because UNITED THEY STAND in competition with the people who actually DO things. It is the DriveBy Media and not liberal politicians who have motive and opportunity to trash everyone ELSE but the DriveBy Media and their sy! cophants.
DriveBy Media award their sycophants good PR, includi ng labels like "progressive" and "moderate" and (until they ran the word into the ground) "liberal." DriveBy Media assign only THEMSELVES the label "objective" - but then, any "liberal" can get a job in journalism and suddenly become "objective." A conservative, OTOH, can never do that.
That explains socialism - it is only second guessing of the people who DO things. And that is why Bill Clinton was such a quintessential liberal politician. He is wonderful at deflecting blame and second guessing others. But as president - as chief executive - he was a disaster BECAUSE HE COULDN'T TAKE RISK. Liberalism is all about stabbing those who take risk in the back, and all he knew how to do was to protect his own back. And leading - actually DOING instead of talking - exposes your back.

So long as we and our spokesmen only rail about how journalists are "willing accomplices" to liberal politicians, we are missing the point. Journalism - its arrogance and its demand to be taken seriously as the important thing in politics - is the driving force behind liberalism. It is the liberal politicians who are the "willing accomplices" to the DriveBy Media.

The democrats think that Allen having a jewish mother would be a problem for him, and have been trying for a few weeks now to figure a way to get it out without linking it to the Webb campaign. Getting a reporter to ASK the question is a good way to do that, we could use help proving that the reporter had connections to the Democrats.

her name was Peggy Fox, she works for WUSA-TV in Washington DC.

Oh, come on now. You know perfectly well that all Democrats are connected to all "objective" reporters. You generally don't look for direct links of individual reporters the the DNC, that's not the way it works. The general link is that liberalism is nothing more than toadying to journalism.
That is, journalism's bias is in favor of its own importance, and "liberal" is just a common code word for someone who has no scruple about promoting journalism. "Objective" journalists and "liberals" promote journalism at the expense of the rest of society by attacking every institution except journalism.
Certain people support journalism's jihad against all other institutions, and in return journalism excepts those people from that jihad. Those who support journalism's jihad are favored by journalism with positive PR - including the label of "moderate" or "progressive" or, before they ran it into the ground, the label "liberal."
Since it is the politician called the "liberal" who associates himself with the actual position of journalism - rather than the journalist who associates himself with the position of the "liberal" - it is inherently impossible to seperate the two on any principled constitutional basis. But of course the situation makes a mockery of any constitutional rationale for the regulation of all political money except for the money spent by "objective" journalism.

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin

(Video)Allen Responds To "Jewish Question".
Washigton Post

Citizenship in a Republic
Theodore Roosevelt Association ^ | April 23, 1910 | Theodore Roosevelt

Posted on 09/19/2006 9:42:46 AM EDT by conservatism_IS_compassion

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
"Citizenship in a Republic," Theodore Roosevelt, Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: LIBERALISM; MEDIABIAS; OBJECTIVITY; Click to Add Keyword

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

It is not the critic who counts - but journalism's primary emphasis and pride is in proclaiming that people we depend on have let us down. No new is good news because good news "isn't news.

Journalism needs bad news and works overtime when there is a natural disaster or a war. And as we see in Iraq, it is not enough that a war is a human disaster inherently but - precisely because American arms are in reality the primary stabilizing and protecting force in international affairs - journalism needs war to be a failure of American arms and (witness the crowing over Abu Graib and the other courts martial) even a failure of American intentions. Nor do the police fare any better than the military - journalism always considers police to be both brutal and inept.
And the police and the military are far from the only ones to feel the sting of journalism's jihad against society. According to journalism, oil companies don't produce enough gasoline (or else the price would be lower) but what it does produce causes polution, Walmart doesn't pay its work force enough, McDonlds makes us fat, the defense industry and the civilian arms industry are greedy merchants of death, farmers put toxic chemicals on apples, spinach is going to kill us all . . . in short anyone who does anything important is second guessed by journalism.
And whatever suits the convenience of journalism in its role as critic is precisely what Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, and the rest of the usual suspects find it politically expedient to trumpet. Journalists reward with positive PR and positive labelling anyone who toadies to journalism's agenda that journalism be considered preeminently important. It is for that reason that such feckless toadies are called "moderates" or "progressives" or - so much so that the word has been completely run into the ground - "liberals." It is not possible to regulate politicians to prevent them from riding the windstorm of "objective" criticism emanating from journalism. The First Amendment prohibits that, and we should not wish any other outcome.

One label positive journalism reserves exclusively to itself - "objective." The entire house of cards of "liberalism" stands on the premise that journalism is objective. That assumption has no means of support other than the propaganda campaign of liberalism. On that point, Adam Smith's rueful dictum must apply:

It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Citizenship in a Republic
Theodore Roosevelt Association ^ | April 23, 1910 | Theodore Roosevelt

Terhaar said the front page always will have the most significant news story of the day but that shouldn't exclude "other kinds of stories that appeal to a variety of readers; stories that connect with them."

Which is it? Are the stories on the front page the most "significant" ones, or are some of those stories chosen for "appeal . . . to readers?"
In fact of course, the front page has to sell the paper. And although the paper tries to flatter its readers that they are interested in the important stuff, the important stuff doesn't change much from day to day - so if your brief is to report the news of the day you will naturally deemphasize important stuff in order to interest the reader in fluff. On 9/10/01 (and on 9/9 and 9/8 and 9/7) the important stuff was al Qaeda, airline security, and the dots that hadn't been connected. But the newspaper editors did not know that that was particularly important then. They were fixated on "Man Bites Dog" stories to interest readers rather than on the big picture.
Journalists are fixated on interesting the public - and conflating that with "the public interest." Preparation for war is the military's business, but actually having to fight is bad news for the military. Actual war represents failure of deterrence, and deterrence is the actual mission of the peacetime military. It is not the military but the journalist who profits by war.
No, interesting the public is not the public interest, that's your interest, Mr. Journalist. And the fact that you emphasize bad news and go into overtime work when there is a war or natural disaster marks your interest as the most special interest of all.
Sinking Ship (advice for Dallas Morning News)
D Magazine ^ | Sep 25 06 | Wick Allison

With Liberals all that matters is Intent, Not reality or results. As long as you have good intent then they will over look the consequences of those decisions. It's like dealing with a bunch of Jr. High scholl kids.

"Objective Journalism" is a singular noun. As Rush put it, if you miss ABC News, read The New York Times. If you dont see The New York Times, catch NBC News. If you don't catch NBC News, read The Washington Post. Whatever. It's all the same.

And the "sameness" about the various organs of "objective journalism" lies in its central controling proposition: that cheap talk is superior to concrete action. In that artificial reality (one example of which was the "reality" of Baghdad Bob, in which Saddam's legions were invincible and no coalition troops were anywhere near Baghdad):

police are always both brutal and unable to enforce the law

the military spends too much money on weapons and the weapons are ineffective, and the military is brutal and always in a quagmire and unable to prevail

corporations pollute too much and don't pay enough wages, they charge too much and don't produce safe products

apple growers poison their apples to make them look better

and so on and so forth and so on.

anyone who participates in that incessant barrage of carping and second guessing gets favorable PR and favorable labelling from "objective journalism." Journalists are called objective, all others are called "progressive" or "moderate" or, less often now, "liberal." "Progressive" politicians can become "objective journalists" at the drop of a hat because they accept the basic priority of journalism that second guessing is superior to taking necessary action.

naturally, the great PR journalists award "liberals" helps them tremendously on election day. Just as naturally, people whose forte is cheap second guessing are risk averse and unable to lead in substantial endeavors. But, in office, they still get the best possible PR the circumstances will allow. Thus, we are called upon to judge them by their intentions rather than their "results."
Finally an End to Massive Genocide Caused by Environmental Extremists’ DDT Ban
LifeSiteNews | 9/27/06 | Steve Jalsevac

I don't understand. So this Greenhouse woman is invited to a function and she spouts her personal opinions to a group. Now here's my bad question, so?

Are journalists to go about their personal lives unbiased in everything they say and do? I can understand if they're 'righting' (smile) columns on specific news events, but outside of work, shouldn't they have the same rights as we all do?

Excellent question. The answer is that any reporter has "freedom of speech, and of the press." The only issue is whether you and I are credulous when journalists claim to to be objective when speaking "ex cathedra."

I remember Scalia saying that Catholics who didn't believe in capital punishment shouldn't be on the Supreme Court because of their beliefs on Capital Punishment. Wasn't that a personal opinion?

See, the issue is whether you think anyone is authorized to argue from the assumption that they are objective (or wise, or moderate, or any other virtue). IMHO no mortal is.
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
Whenever someone claims or insinuates that I am obligated to believe them, my response is to quote Adam Smith - and to joke, "I was born at night - but it wasn't last night!"
Objectivity - absence of bias - is at best an unprovable negative. But to state that some statement could not be proved true whether or not it actually was true is no guarantee that the statement actually is true - it may even be possible to prove that it is false.
Journalism has well-known business imperatives. One is that journalists have to make their deadlines. Why? Because - in actual fact - "the show must go on." That is, journalism has an entertainment function which it has to meet to make money. Likewise, "'Man Bites Dog' rather than 'Dog Bites Man'" - that's an entertainment imperative having nothing to do with whether a story is objectively significant.
But the biggie is, "If it bleeds, it leads." That causes journalism to be systematically negative. For example, reporters will argue that the news from Iraq is bad, with the implication that the sky is falling and we have to withdraw from Iraq before we are all killed. But if someone objects, "there are good things happening in Iraq," the answer is that good news "isn't news" - does not get reported. And then the reporters return to the argument that the news from Iraq is all bad and the sky is falling and we have to withdraw from Iraq before we are all killed.
Bottom line: journalism argues from the assumption that what is good for their business is in the public interest. In fact of course, what's good for their business - wars, natural disasters, etc - is precisely what is not in the public interest. Freedom of the press is in the public interest - the Constitution is the public interest, and the First Amendment is part of it - but Adam Smith's "incredulity" is also in the public interest.
So Ms. Greenhouse can announce that she's a liberal - I think that is all to the good. If that will inspire "incredulity" in her audience it will be a service to the Republic.
Critics Question Reporter's Airing of Personal Views (NYT Reporterette Drops Mask)
National Public Radio ^ | September 26 ,2006 | David Folkenflik

Bendixen says El Nuevo Herald operates more like a partisan Latin American newspaper than a typical American daily that proclaims its objectivity.

A typical American daily proclaims its own objectivity. Not only each daily individually but all of American journalism in general proclaims its own objectivity. The Washington Post doesn't question the objectivity of ABC News, and ABC News doesn't question the objectivity of The Washington Post - or CBS News, or The New York Times, or . . .
IOW - as Rush puts it - if you miss The Washington Post watch ABC News, and you miss CBS News read The New York Times - and so forth and so on. They are all the same. You need look no further for the "conspiracy" in that than "mutual assured destruction."
Each individual journalism organ buys ink by the truck load, but no individual "objective" journal dares break the rule that "you don't pick an argument with people who buy ink by the carload." Because the moment you do that, you have marked yourself as the target of all of journalism, not just the particular journal whose objectivity you questioned. "Objective journalist" is a lucrative franchise, and participation in it is by consensus.
Given the resources, you can create a new member of "objective journalism" quite readily - you just report the same type of story that the rest of "objective journalism" reports. And what kind of story is that? Simply put, stories that documents the foibles and failures of everyone. Everyone except any member in good standing of "objective journalism" or anyone else who criticizes everyone or every institution which does not adhere to the "objective journalism" concensus.
The targets which "objective journalism" considers legitimate to attack are all people and institutions which have a bottom line - everyone who must make decisions in the face of uncertainty because they are not merely talking but are trying actually to do something important. That includes not only institutions such as oil companies and manufacturers and truckers and doctors, but also (note that they are part of the government and not private at all) the police and the military.
The people who are not considered legitimate targets include:

"objective journalists" in good standing

people who help criticize those the "objective journalist" considers a legitimate target. Members of this category include:

Democrat politicians

union leaders

plaintiff lawyers

paradoxically, many of the most financially successful (e.g., Warren Buffet, Bill Gates) will buy membership with rhetoric and with substantial financial contributions.

anyone without expertise in a given PC hobbyhorse issue but who feels a need for facile protection from criticism on that paarticular issue - such as

Miss America pageant contestants
movie stars
liberal arts professors
etc.

"The Cuban community in Miami is not particularly objective in terms of the battle against Fidel Castro," Bendixen says. "There's only one side to that argument."

Here "objective" is clearly code for opposition to Fidel Castro; partisanship in favor of Fidel Castro would not draw criticism. Because . . .

"You're either the voice of the free press, or you're the voice of the [American] government," Hiaasen says. "You aren't the voice of both."

This is a definition of "the free press" as being

a unitary institution (real freedom there! </sarcasm>)

in opposition to the American government. IOW, not distinguishable from a political party.
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Miami Herald Publisher Resigns
AP ^ | 10/3/6 | DRIAN SAINZ

Story selection - what news is reported above the fold, what is buried in the paper, and what isn't reported on at all - makes a mockery of any possibility of proving that journalism is objective. Journalism has rules - "if it bleeds, it leads" and so on - but those rules clearly are justified not in any cosmic "public interest" but in interesting the public - which is the commercial interest of the journalist. But some things which interest the public, including the unclothed appearance of your daughter, are not in the public interest and it is therefore generally illegal for the public to obtain it.

The fundamental of liberalism is that the objectivity of journalism is not questioned. But the truth of this story is that

Foley has resigned and is not running for reelection.
A Democrat in a far more compromising position fought back and retained his seat in Congress.
To whatever extent minors were endangered by Foley's access to them as pages, whatever time passed between the time ABC got the information and the October Surprise time that ABC aired the story is time during which ABC was responsible for the continuation of that access.

The interest of the Democratic Party and ABC News had nothing to do with the protection of minors and everything to do with the suppresion of conservative, and especially religious conservative, voter turnout.

Democrats can mutter about FCC licenses when ABC is illustrating the fact that ben Laden prospered during the Clinton Administration in part because Clinton didn't become president to protect America but for his own aggrandizement. But while the suppression of conservative voter turnout is no part of the ostensible charter of the FCC, that is precisely the effect and intent of what ABC and the rest of the FCC's licensees do with their "objectivity."

Compare and contrast with todays media.

Worth spending some time here http://www.viet-myths.net/, especially http://www.viet-myths.net/Session08.htm and http://www.viet-myths.net/Session12.htm

There is a surprise for you at ~ 24minutes into this vid: http://www.vnmaps.net/videos/session12S.wmv

Be sure to see this: http://www.viet-myths.net/AimImpact.wmv

Video: The Impact of Media (Requires Windows Media Player) 45 MB, 58 mins run time.
This video is Part II of Television's Vietnam, narrated by Charlton Heston and scripted by Peter Rollins.

Charles Wiley often lectures about Vietnam - including events in the United States, as well as those in southeast Asia. In addition to covering the war in 1962, 1964, 1968 (the Tet Truce offensive) and 1972 (the Easter offensive), he has returned to Vietnam, North & South, and Cambodia, since the conflict. He knows many of the key players. During critical periods, Wiley had very long one-on-one interview/briefings with General Westmoreland, Presidents Diem and Thieu, Marshal Ky and other top figures. He learned much about the Vietnam war during his many extensive trips to China, the Soviet empire and Russia.

Wiley’s extensive knowledge about the home front during the conflict is based on vast personal experience with leaders and rank & file from both camps: those supporting the American armed forces and those in the anti-war movement. He was at numerous college teach-ins during continuous travel in the United States.

Charles Wiley has reported from 100 countries and regularly continues his world travels. His in-depth search for facts led to his arrest eight times by secret police throughout the globe, including the KGB, and imprisonment in a Cuban dungeon while he was a correspondent for New York City radio station WOR.

Wiley has covered 11 wars, including reporting for NBC, UPI, the London Express and numerous other U.S. and foreign news media. A graduate of New York University, Wiley's freelance articles and photographs have appeared in numerous publications, including the New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek and Time. A well known radio/TV talk show personality and commentator, he has appeared on hundreds of network and local programs throughout the country - including many times on CNN Crossfire and C-Span. Wiley has lectured in all 50 states and on five continents - including talks in Germany, Taiwan, Australia, South Africa, Thailand, Belarus, Namibia and Albania. He lived briefly in the Soviet Union while giving talks at Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) University. Wiley lectured, and resided on campus, in China (Jinan University, Guangzhou), Russia (Moscow State University) and elsewhere abroad.

He contributed to establishing guidelines for a free press in Mongolia, spoke in Spain and Luxembourg (under the auspices of the U.S. government) and was a speaker for the White House Public Outreach Group. Wiley has played a major role at international conferences in Great Britain and Italy - and lectured in New Zealand at the Ministry of Civil Defence Academy. He frequently addresses military audiences - in the USA and abroad – including the Naval War College, the Defense Intelligence Agency school, the Air Force school for its top NCO’s, the Navy Postgraduate School, CincPac, the UK intelligence school and many others.

What other evidence do we need other than the admissions by Harpers and the WaPo that they dealt with democrat operatives and used democrat sources bent on impacting the coming elections? - AJ Strata

Evidence that the Washington Post is Democratic? I'm shocked - shocked!
Politics is controversy about what constitutes the public interest. In claiming to be objective, Journalism identifies the public interest with itself and its own interest.
But the interest of journalism is the promotion of journalism at the expense of the rest of society. Journalism's "objectivity" promotes journalism's hypercritical outlook over business, which journalism belabors as paying its employees too little and its management too much - and of polluting and depleting the earth while charging too much for its product. Journalism promotes itself over the police, which it accuses of brutality and failure to capture fugitives. And journalism promotes itself over the military, which journalism accuses of spending too much money, killing too many people and breaking too many things, and failing to accomplish its mission with no loss of American lives.
Those who promote journalism's self-interested agenda journalism flatters, those who oppose that agenda journalism slanders. "Liberals" and "progressives" and "moderates" promote talk and criticism above action and responsibility for results. In its halcyon days journalism called those who respect concrete action such as manufacturing and law enforcement and national defense "right wing cold warriors." But then Ronald Reagan had the temerity to win the Cold War. Now they are reduced to decrying "Tax cuts for the rich" when their opponents promote the real economy.
BUSTED....WASHINGTON POST REPORTS DEMOCRATS BEHIND FOLEYGATE!
Gateway Pundit ^ | 10/11/06

I bought the videotape when "Television's Vietnam" was first produced, back when I was a subscriber to Reed Irvine's Aim Report. For myself, the videotape was a disappointment. Just a bunch of trenchant condemnation of the reporting of the war. True, but I couldn't see it doing anything but preaching to the choir.
If you wish to ruminate over Vietnam, you could do far worse than to read Mom, Apple Pie, and the Ghost of Quagmires Past. It's a most excellent vanity - long but exceedingly well written - I didn't even suspect it was a vanity until I finished it and looked back to see where it had been published. marron told me that every time he tried to shorten it, it got longer instead - so he finally decided to publish it on FR "before it took over my hard drive." If indeed he could have filled a hard drive with that quality of writing, he would have had a bona fide book on his hands.
I dropped my subscription to the AIM Report because it became a twice-told tale - each issue merely proved again what the prior issue had already proved. I was convinced, and felt no need for further examples of "bias in the media." At that point I was interested not in whether "the media" was "biased," but why. And that explains the genesis of this thread.
I now put scare quotes around "media" and "bias" because I find those terms either imprecise or over broad. It makes no sense to make a fuss about the perspective of a fiction writer such as a screenwriter; according to the Constitution s/he is entitled to hold and express opinions with which I disagree. And since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it isn't even a "bias" to be pejorative about when journalism is political.
The actual "bias" of journalism is in its claim of identity with the public interest. Journalism claims to be objective, and yet journalism behaves in ways that betray absorption in self-interest. Journalism will openly state - in justification of its incessant negativity on Iraq - that bad news is what sells newspapers. Fine. You are looking out for your own interest when you report only bad news from Iraq. You are looking out for Number One, as you are entitled to do. But that appeal to self interest puts the lie to any claim that you are "objective" when you make that choice.
Journalism, in styling itself "The Press," emphasizes its constitutional protection. Yet the First Amendment is not superior to the second, which protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." In protecting the newspaper printer who uses a printing press, does not the First Amendment implicitly protect the manufacturer of printing presses? And if so, as is IMHO certain, what nonsense journalism prattles when it inveighs about the evil of the manufacture of arms!

The reporters and editors go to leftist sites because that is where their interests are. Naturally what they read colors their reporting and editing, making them even more liberally biased. Blogosmearing is a cooperative venture between the media and the internet left.

IMHO "the media" is a poor formulation. Yes, movies and fictional TV evince a liberal slant. But IMHO it is "objective" journalism which objectively has the most motive and the most opportunity to function as a political party. And whatever you might think about liberal-slanting fiction, ficton has the defense of not claiming to be fact. Newspapers have pretty explicit First Amendment protection too, but no more so than people who keep and bear arms have. But being licensed by the federal government, broadcasters actually are very vulnerable to the charge of tendentiousness. And all of journalism is out on the McCain-Feingold limb - if you prove that journalism is tendentious (even if it is within its constitutional rights to be so), SCOTUS logically would have to overturn McCain.

IMHO "objective" journalism is best understood as a single entity unified by its observance of the "eleventh commandment" - "Thou Shalt Not question the objectivity of a fellow journalist." NBC News and ABC News are independent competitors in essentially the same way that the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox (on the field, they are bitter rivals; off the field they are comrades in the business of selling major league baseball as entertainment).

IMHO the single entity "objective" journalism can coherere in the the eleventh commandment only because of the shared motive of all journalists - the desire to be important as journalists. For journalists to be important, journalism has to be important. But the police and the military do things to provide security, and the industrial corporations do things to provide goods and services - and journalists only talk. That means that the motive of journalism is to denigrate action and promote talk. This journalism - so long as it is unified around the rhubric of objectivity - is well able to do. It does so by second guessing, by systematically telling only part of the truth, and by tendentiously labelling (and by the occasional outright lie).

Doing things always points the way to how they might be done better, and hence points the way to second guessing the past.

The genius of the First Amendment is that it tells the government not to attempt to censor truth, even though all truth is partial. It is up to we-the-people to factor that consideration into our deliberation on political questions. Being incredulous when people claim the virtue of objectivity is the beginning of wisdom in that regard.

Journalism tendentiously labels itself "objective," and labels its fellow travellers "moderate" or "progressive" or "liberal." Or "antiwar" (everyone is of course antiwar, so the label is meaningless. Journalism assigns the label only those who oppose action and promote talk as the only response to foreign threat).

By promoting an agenda of pure second guessing criticism and promoting essentially no serious policy action, the Democratic Party models the perspective of journalism perfectly.

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.