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.
"I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, they can hardly be good newspapermen." - Walter CronkiteThis is perfectly true, as journalism is properly understood.
Because as properly understood, journalism is superficial entertainment which systematically filters out the unvarying things which conservatism nurtures. Journalism emphasizes only the reasons to eat the seed corn, and not the reasons for gratitude for our blessings or for passing them on to future generations.
An Open Letter To John Kerry (by Walter Cronkite)
Yankton Daily Press ^ | 03/18/04 | WALTER CRONKITE
Where does he fit into your synopsis?
Or . . .
Not all writing is journalism. Journalism defines itself by its deadlines first of all, and secondly by its affectation of objectivity.The deadline has the effect of demanding of the journalist that something which happened - or at least was learned about - since the last deadline shall be deemed to be "important." Significant enough to demand the public's attention. All very well, if the Titanic sank yesterday - but what are the odds that you would be able to recall any portion of the front page headline story of The New York Times ten years ago today? The deadline is simply, "The show must go on," applied to topical nonfiction entertainment.
The affectation of objectivity - the classic formulation of which is The Times' "All the news that's fit to print" - has an ironic effect. A serious reader will always discount statements of fact by the estimated effect of the reporter's own perspective. For example, you as the reader of this note understand that I am a conservative who wishes to inspire people to reevaluate the position journalism is accorded in America. You as the reader will naturally scrutinize my arguments for unstated assumptions which call my conclusions into question. And I want your feedback especially if you do find a flaw in my reasoning.
But the "objective" journalist lays down the word from on high, demanding with the force of journalism's PR power that the perspective of journalism be accepted as the perspective of society. The fallacy lies in the fact that journalism's perspective - which systematically focuses on the unusual and atypical rather than the ordinary and the representative event - is good for entertainment but filters out the work people do every day. It is a blinkered perspective which ignores most things that are really important.
Political leftism is a planted axiom of the "objective journalist" perspective. Frank opinion pieces such as those by Mark Steyn et al are entirely different because they do not implictly patronize the reader. Journalism does.
Generally agree with one caveat, journalistic given: liberalism, and what it stands for is normal, therefor good - conservativism, and what it stands for is abnormal; therefor, bad. The atypical events supporting this idealogy is, to them, newsworthy entertainment.
From your home page:
Such is the power and duration of the propaganda campaign which supports the fatuous idea that we are "entitled to the truth" that it took me well over 50 years to see through it.
I'm not sure I follow. Are we not entitled to "expect" the truth???
FGS
You are entitled to your own opinion, and you are entitled to make up your mind based on whatever you think is interesting and significant.If you find out that someone is a liar, you don't listen to him but unless libel or slander is involved you usually can't sue him. That is, the government will not punish someone just because you do not consider him a reliable source. If you decide that you don't agree with my perspective you can't get the government to punish me because of it.
Ultimately there is no downside to lying to you other than your own decision to ignore the liar. It's up to you to read between the lines and decide who is reliable as a source on what topic(s). This is the perspective which accords you the reader maximum respect. The opposite perspective tells you, "Don't worry your silly little head about things, sonny - I'm here to tell you the truth so you won't strain your synapses thinking for yourself."
The frankly opinionated columnist writes up to a critical audience and expects reasonable people to differ; the leftist writes down to an audience of presumptive sheeple who have to be led by their betters. The journalist fits the latter category, and styles the former to be "not a journalist, not objective" when the frankly opinionated columnist is typically far more reliable than the "objective" journalist usually is. The "objective journalist" occasionally will misstate or lie, but more often will tell half the truth and cause you to jump to the wrong conclusion. You will be more likely to look for that - and know where to expect to see it - in the frankly opinionated columnist's work. And for that reason the latter is more on his mettle to guard his reputation with you.
Lemme phrase it another way... Unless I know someone to be a habitual/chronic liar, I'll generally accept what they say as true. UNLESS it involves matters that could have an effect on me, others, or even society; and more importantly, do I care. If I care, it becomes a matter that requires investigation. Here's the kicker; too many people don't care. The useful idiots on the left don't know, and furthermore, don't want to know. Most conservatives, if they think about it at all, discount it and move on, rarely sharing their misgivings about the faux press.
Gotta run.
FGS
"We captured an Iraqi brigadier general in the raid," he said. "He was completely surprised there were American tanks in the city. He believed their propaganda that the Americans were a hundred miles south, dying by the thousands. All of a sudden he's coming to work and there is a tank battalion rolling down the center of Baghdad."So propaganda was causing people to try to kill American soldiers.It became apparent to Perkins that the propaganda being put out by Saddam's regime was giving the Iraqis a false sense of security and emboldening them to continue to fight.
But Peter Arnet had an absolute right to parrot that propaganda line in an interview with al Jazera. </sarcasm>
Remembering the 3rd Infantry Division's Thunder RunsNotwithstanding the obvious fact that the terrorist attacks on our troops in Iraq over the past year were motivated by the hope of unfavorable PR for our president and our armed forces, print journalism could not, constitutionally, be constrained to withhold that payout to the terrorists without imposing martial law in America.
(American Forces Press Service)
www.defenselink.mil | By Jim Garamone
But the question is, "Was/is the payout to the terrorists of negative PR for the President of the United States in the interest of the United States? Was/is it justifiable for government-licensed broadcasters to provide that payout for murder? Do government-licensed broadcasters have a constitutional right to use neutral terms to describe the attempted murder of American soldiers, merely because those soldiers are on foreign soil, and in uniform? Did/do government-licensed broadcasters have the right to insinuate that the regime of Saddam Hussain remained legitimate when the U.S. government had overthrown that regime and established the policy of replacing it with a constitutional democratic republic?"
Journalism, print and broadcast, would answer that in the affirmative. I say, "No!" But then, I dont' think CFR is constitutional, either . . .
Ironically - as you may think - that suggestion is closer to being the disease itself rather than its cure.Your suggestion implies that NPR is the ideal unbiased news organization - and in fact we know that it's just about the worst. No, we don't need to evicerate the First Amendment but to actually abide by it. Which means allowing conversational media such as FR to flourish in competition with the anachronistic dead-tree medium of newspapers. It means exalting the critical reader rather than expressing contempt for the audience which is what the assumption of an air of superior objectivity really constitutes.
It does not mean censorship - and the fundamental premise of broadcasting is the censorship of the many to allow the many to hear the few.
While I generally agree, I can't find a simple yes or no answer to the questions you raise. These days, the (manufactured?)complexities create furballs of what should otherwise be simple situations. The liklihood the media is putting American lives at risk really muddies up their first amendment right....or does it? I don't find any qualifiers.
Maybe one solution might be for "W" to take it to the American people. Explain that the position most of our faux press is taking on the WOT generally, and Iraq in particular, is endangering Americans at home and abroad by giving aid and comfort to the infidels. Tell Americans the faux press has the right to spew their drivel, but that American citizens have the final word on the media's performnace, and should hold them accountable if they feel they are crossing the line. In fact, it should be our duty, but most people need a fire lit under 'em before they'll get up off the couch.
But then, I dont' think CFR is constitutional, either . . .
Can't argue with that.
FGS
It just seems to me that the "answer" is freedom of what can be free, and that is the literal press, and the Internet. On the Internet, there can be all sorts of kooks and tinfoil-hat theories, and it doesn't much matter. There can also be FR.But the uniqueness of the broadcast networks lies precisely in the government's role in making them few in number as well as high in convenience--making them great addresses. And giving them, de facto, the imprimatur of the government. With all th UNfreedom involved in that, the government intrinsically has the authority to control the networks, if it durst use it. And therein lies the tale; Democrats simply go along with broadcast journalism, and Republicans durst not attempt to break the oligopoly.
a line of argument that rejects critical thinking, exploits paranoia at the expense of reason and ignores the contingency of events in search of plots the powerful few implement at the expense of the powerless many . . . is not simply the everyday pollution of political discourse.I put it to you that political discourse is not nullified but vigorously exerted here on FR and on the typical "right wing" talk radio show, but it is nullified in news reporting. Political discourse can be nullified only to the extent that the mind is diverted from reason, and the format of discourse known as "news" is designed to do that in two ways:It is the nullification of political discourse.
Running on Hearsay--John Kerry looks to the black helicopter crowd for votes.
Wall St Journal ^ | March 23, 2004 | LAWRENCE F. KAPLAN
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.