Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

Conservatism IS Compassion ^ | Sept 14, 2001 | Conservatism_IS_Compassion

[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.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The dirty little secret is that profit or loss is a (relatively) small difference between two large numbers--income and expenses. For example, expenses might equal 90% of income, yielding a 10% profit. In such case it only takes a 1% change in income or a 1.1% change in expense to change the profit by 10%. And a 10% change in income or an 11% change in expense can double the profit--or obliterate it.

That means that behavior which easily might be portrayed as Scrooge-like may turn a failing business into a highly successful one. And that explains why people risk being portrayed as Scrooge. And when one considers that the same constraints apply to the management of newspapers, it is no wonder that a newspaper manager who knows that math perfectly well is willing - nay, eager - to portray other managers as Scrooges in the hope of increasing income by a few percent.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

gobucks: the article makes a connection between how Atkins is being downplayed and how the Passion movie was downplayed the same way.

It is clear that the press is using its tried and proven method of "piling on" to discourage consumers from starting on the Atkins Diet. The same scenario recently took place with the Mel Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ" where the press fabricated one scenario after another on why the viewer should avoid the film; however it was easy to disprove their lies simply by sitting through the two hour movie. It is much more difficult, and they know this, to disprove their lies about Atkins because it requires at least two weeks of dedication and commitment to the diet for its first phase. Simply put, their bias is not as obvious with Atkins as it was with "The Passion of the Christ".

Press Depressed Over Atkins Success
The Free Republic of Naspino ^ | 3/4/2004 | Naspino

Thanks, gobucks and Naspino.

I like to link articles which reflect on the "bias" of journalism to this thread.

[E.G.C.]

Media bias bump!!!!!!

[gobucks]

Ah, thank you very much. I was not aware of this thread.

[ForGod'sSake]

I like to link articles which reflect on the "bias" of journalism to this thread.

Fertile ground to till, eh? How about the latest from AP and the media darlings re "W's" recent ad: 9/11 Victims' Kin Angered by Bush Ads (Big time media bias alert)?

FGS

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

9/11 Victims' Kin Angered by Bush Ads

Yes, except that that one is almost too easy. It's a pure case of a Democrat complaining about a Republican ad because it might be effective.

Of course if you thought that there was some reason to believe that the reporter who wrote it was objective it might surprise you a little. It's just a routine case of selecting people to quote who will give you the hook you want, the excuse to say what you want to say. There is no implication, reading between the lines, that the reporter knows how many kin of 9/11 casualties reacted to the ads one way or the other; apparently the reporter may have only talked to one.

As Thomas Sowell points out, tho, that selective quotation technique worked great for Nader in his propaganda classic, Unsafe at Any Speed. Sowell admits even he fell for the con at first.

Jewish World Review March 3, 2004 / 10 Adar, 5764
Thomas Sowell

Can you imagine Thomas Sowell being that naive? Hard to imagine!

But back in the '60s we were bombarded with TV pictures of "massive" demonstrations which turn out to have been staged affairs with relatively few protesters made to look like part of a multitude by very cooperative cameramen. No different from the case of the pickup which was supposed to burn in a crash test--a result which was guaranteed by the use of an incindiary in the mouth of the gas tank filler tube. Even then, the fuel only flared briefly, but that was enough when they broadcast the tape and ended the "report" with a freeze-frame image of the fire at its maximum extent.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

 

Journalism is negative and superficial, for perfectly understandable business reasons. And that translates directly into liberalism; indeed liberalism is best understood as a simple play into the predelictions of journalism for poliical profit.

Really good point. I never thought of these basic similarities between journalism and Liberalism this way.

It's one of the ideas which I developed in this thread, over the past couple of years. You could find the thread interesting.

[syriacus]

Thanks for pointing to this thread, conservatism_IS_compassion. I'll take a look at some of the posts.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I've never done ham radio, but I am interested in the political implications of FCC regulation.

It is my thesis that FCC broadcast licenses are unconstitutional "titles of nobility", in that the FCC stipulates that the license operates in the public interest--which means that the FCC essentially certifies the licensees to be truth-tellers.

And that is just the sort of thing that the First Amendment says is outside the purview of government.

As to the comparison of FreeRepublic with ham radio, I think that the Internet in general is the free press grown up--it is "the poor man's soap box" with a global reach. In a way it might be thought of as taking the sport out of DXing . . . and it gives the "operator" the ability to make his text and images accessible globally.

The other difference between ham radio and FR is that ham radio has relatively few channels to operate on, I think--whereas the Internet has basically unlimited capacity to allow people to establish their own addresses for the rest of the world to access. Again, the broadcast licensee has the right to talk, and we-the-people have the right to listen--and the duty to shut up, as far as the licensed bands are concerned. That turns the First Amendment principle on its head.

FreeRepublic, Amateur Radio's Cousin?

[Elliott Jackalope]

"I've got news for you, man: "aspiring newshounds" aren't taught that "objectivity" is impossible---they know it already. This is so obvious I'm surprised you made the statement. If 100 people witnessed the exact same car crash, you'd get 100 stories about it that were completely different. The facts may be roughly the same, but each take would be different. That's the angle. Angle = objectivity."

I have a question for you. Let's assume for a moment that true objectivity is an impossible goal. Fine. However, as a former member of the engineering community (I.C. layout designer) we also knew that perfection was an impossible goal to achieve. But that didn't keep us from trying to achieve it.

Rather than simply throwing up our hands and saying "since we can't make it perfect, let's try to make it flawed in a particular way" we said "we can't make it perfect, but let's try our very best to make it as close to perfect as we possibly can".

Assuming that true objectivity is impossible is not bad in and of itself. Abadoning the pursuit of true objectivity, however, is a bad thing IMHO.

[ForGod'sSake]

...but I am interested in the political implications of FCC regulation.

It's for our own good doncha know. We can't have just anybody that wants to broadcasting willy nilly. It might make the natives restless ;^)

FGS

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

we also knew that perfection was an impossible goal to achieve. But that didn't keep us from trying to achieve it.

You are talking about the issue of diminishing returns on the optimzation of a design, I presume. The same thing that hits us all when we use word processing (or html) to make our writing presentable, and we come to realize that we have to just go to press at some point rather than continually optimizing the phrasing of the paragraphs and the use of fonts, colors, etc.

Assuming that true objectivity is impossible is not bad in and of itself.
Abadoning the pursuit of true objectivity, however, is a bad thing IMHO.

The truth is that objectivity can be approached more closely the longer you spend researching your subject, but that--ironically--admission of your own POV makes your writing more objective than presuming to actually be objective does. That is, if objectivity is impossible--and it is--claiming to be objective is hypocritical, and anything but objective.

[ForGod'sSake]

Excellent points cIc.

That is, if [perfect] objectivity is impossible--and it is--claiming to be objective is hypocritical, and anything but objective.

Better?

FGS

[E.G.C.]

Media bias bump.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Take a look at the politics of most of the critics. They're on the political left. And among the views held on the political left is support of affirmative action. Many on the left support slave reparations. Many blame American actions for the acts of 9/11.

In short, most of the left believe in collective guilt. They may not call it that, but penalizing members of certain groups and rewarding others for misdeeds in the past is collective guilt.

Leftism can best be understood as the political implications of the perspective of journalism.

Given a free, competitive journalism whose profits depend critically on circulation (if expenses are 90% of revenue, a 10% increase in revenue would double your profit), journalism should be expected to be dominated by the most facile and demagogic reporting--it's only natural.

And collective guilt is precisely a facile and demagogic excuse for lovingly retelling stories of past evils. A natural topic for cheap excitement. And as the example of reparations for slavery illustrates, the collective to which guilt is assigned need not exclude the target audience; the putatively guilty find it impossible to ignore the accusation.

So naturally, collective guilt is a component of the perspective of journalism--and the politician who sails down the propaganda wind of (so-called "objective") journalism--the leftist--is attracted to collective-guilt mongering. Link to this thread on the leftist perspective of journalism.

Did Jews Kill Jesus? So What?
Vanity | 3/9/2004 | Charles Lipsig (Me)

Nice piece, Charlie.

[E.G.C.]

Media bias bump.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Ping.

[TexasTransplant]

Thanks for the ping