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.
Faked photo "evidence" is really of a piece with the edited footage we were incessantly shown of the arrest of celebrated motorist Rodney King.
One conclusion is that California Gov. Pete Wilson showed his mettle that day - or rather, his lack thereof. A Mensch worthy of consideration for the Republican presidential nomination (which he later sought) would have faced down the TV studios of California. He would have ordered them to stop broadcasting exculpatory "explanations" or "demands" of the rioters, rebroadcasts of the King tape, or any real-time indications of the limitations of law enforcement to the tactical disadvantage of the police. He would have ordered them to instead broadcast only in the interests of immediate restoration of public order. On pain of immediate arrest.
- The jury in the trial of Sgt Stacy Koon, shown the entire tape and given an explanation of the action of the police by Sgt. Koon's lawyer, found for the defendant.
- Mr. King's ethnic group, OTOH, was repeatedly shown the tape with all the exculpatory video deleted and with demagogic mockery of the possibility of any explanation.
- Many of them found against the rule of law.
- The result was disaster for Los Angeles - and great ratings for TV journalism because the nation could not but watch in horrified fascination.
Another conclusion is that, take it as it runs, broadcast journalism - which depends for its existence on exclusive licenses granted by the government - is not in the public interest but rather runs counter to it. The utter lack of conservative perspective among journalists is stunning.
Finally, those who suffered from the riot should have sued the socks off of broadcasters who operated counter to the interests of order on that day. Where is the plaintiff bar when you actually need them? Why is it actually impossible for the purveyors of panic to be called to account? It is neither necessary nor legitimate to censor print journalism - but broadcasting is a creature of the government and must serve the public interest.
Who needs al-Jazeera when you’ve got the Guardian and the BBC?
The Sun ^ | May 7, 2004 | Richard Littlejohn
Code of Ethics
Ethics > SPJ Code of Ethics
| Preamble |
| Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice. |
|
|
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
How true this is and how right you are. I worked in a television newsroom for a number of years and I saw this kind of thinking firsthand. In fact, our station once paid big bucks for their consultants to conduct a thorough study of what viewers want to see in newscasts. The number one item was "more positive news". "Stories about issues of faith" was in the top ten.
The station management totally ignored their own pricey survey. The news director did make a half-hearted attempt at starting a weekly segment dedicated to "hometown heroes" but it was corny and canned. He was forced to give attention to one of the primary anchors when she asked and later had to demand to be able do a worthwhile segment about issues of faith and hope in our community. She was relentless in her pursuit of the "good and hopeful news" and personally interviewed Mother Teresa. Her weekly specials became the most popular and talked about reports by viewers statewide.
Even with the knowledge of what viewers want to know about, the news department continued to follow the "if it bleeds it leads" philosophy and "what can we scare people with today" investigations.
Which is exactly why politicians, and the liberal ones in particular, are so frightened of it.
Get over it liberals are in control and that's what the voters want.
We must wait for the scenario outlined in Atlas Shrugged. I believe in cycles and our time will come again.
At the current rate of decline it won't be long.
BUMP
Journalists should: . . .
Journalists should: . . .
Journalists don't.Read the Geneva Convention, and you will see a description of what al Qaeda will not do.
Read an insurance risk analysis and you will see what the terrorist may attempt to do rather than, as is the intent of risk analysis, prevent.
Read a code of journalistic ethics and you will see a pretty good description of what journalists should do that they don't, and what they should not do, that they in fact do.
Why? Because First Amendment protection and the conspiracy against the public interest, operating in plain sight, by which journalists go along and get along with other journalists generally means that they can.
I would not be in favor of placing the responsibility for enforcing the code on the government.
. . . and journalists are members of an informal guild whose one premise is that journalists will not question other journalists' ethics on pain of being dismissed by the rest as "not a journalist, not objective." Which naturaly raisesl questions about the seriousness of any proposal for journalism to be "called on the carpet when they don't" adhere to their codes of ethics.I also would not accept that the government, because it licenses news media, can therefore control their decisions as to what they should broadcast and how to slant a story.
If you think about it,
Merely on the evidence of this thread you know that I've been thinking about it for two years; the root of the idea actually traces back about a decade. I blush to admit that it does not go back further.I think you will agree that the solution you are advocating is not a conservative one, but instead based on mistrust of the judgment of individuals and the invisible hand in the private sector.
With all due respect, not so. It is distrust of private individuals in open collusion with a tentacle of the government to disadvantage my rights as opposed to those of the employers of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, et. al.I think that the private sector is best suited to address this problem rather than creating massive additional governmental intrusion in the flow of available information to us. The emergence of ombudsmen and weblogs, as well as Bernard Goldberg's books Bias and Arrogance, have made great strides in making the media feel the heat when they exclude the government's or the conservative point of view.
Now suppose that the Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh's "Excellence in Broadcasting Network" had a "right to be heard" fully equivalent to that of CBS or any of the others. Do you think that would markedly alter our political discourse? Would it be worse, or better? The fact that those two organizations do not have equal access to the public eye and ear compared to CBS is a decision of the federal government as represented by the Federal Communications Commission. Why is that a legitimate governmental decision?Recall the famous incident when a cell phone call between Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey(?) was intercepted by an "innocent couple" who just happened to have sophisticated interception gear and a tape recorder at the ready, producing a scandal. What that incident illustrated, in addition to its immediate political and privacy ramifications, is that technologically speaking there is no bandwidth shortage to prevent every Tom, Dick, and Harry from producing their own audio programming and making it broadly accessible to the public in real time. But the FCC was instituted on the basis that there was a scarcity of spectrum to be rationed - and FCC regulations have not been modified to institute sales of cell phones which could access such programming. The reason is that it might reduce the value of the existing licenses by introducing more competition into radio "broadcasting" and the FCC is important precisely because its licenses are valuable.
I put it to you that the FCC injures me by putting the imprimatur of the government on misleading signals like the call back in 2000 of "Gore Wins Florida" while the polls are open nationwide, never mind are still open in part of Florida, and of dangerously timely reporting of things like the tactical disposition of the police during the Rodney King riot. FCC licensees do that sort of thing and don't even blush afterward. Their government-favored position is unjustifiable.
arasina, your testimony puts me in mind of that of hadit2here, seen at reply #50 (to which I have made this a reply so as to produce a "TO 50" button below). I think you'll enjoy it!IMHO the fundamental reason why a news department would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the production of postive news is that whereas really bad news kicks you in the gut, it is difficult to find dramatic good news. Most of the time the good things happen over an extended period of time - and may perhaps be memorialized as the legacy of a virtuous person on the occasion of the bad news of that person's death.
The truly large blessings are so large and so close to us as to be practically invisible. The entire economy - all the productive work which will be done just in this one day - is enormous, and dwarfs most "disasters." But we take it for granted, and you cannot easily dramatize it; it simply is. No "news" about it. An American secretary today lives at a level of physical comfort to be compared with that of Queen Victoria (b. 1820). And if that be so, how much greater the comparison to an ante bellum southern slaveholder! Yet it's news - bad news - only when the power fails and large numbers of Americans are not as comfortable as the slaveowners of old.
The Internet is a far, far better venue for political argument because it is far less regulated.Which is exactly why politicians, and the liberal ones in particular, are so frightened of it.
For example, politicians could use the Internet to produce a true debate between the presidential and vice presidential candidates moderated only by a chess timer and without the participation of "objective journalists." It could be done with both candidates being equally virtually present, so it would not require significant logistics and, so far as economics are concerned, could be done on a weekly basis or even more frequently.Now as I think of it, that is a challenge which Dick Cheney might do well to begin peppering the Democratic candidate for Vice President - as soon as there is one . . .
Todays Democrats are anything but tolerant of others, they are not progressive thinkers, they are socialists.
The framers of the Constitution were progressive, and they were liberals.It is no accident that the American secretary today has a standard of living to be compared with that which Queen Victoria enjoyed in her day (1819-1901). Rather it is due to the fact that the design and intent of those progressive, liberal people allowed and encouraged the people to develop all manner of arts in the service of the common person.
That was done, not by Franklin Roosevelt but by Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Eastman, Carrier, and legions of lesser lights. Those were the true progressives, the true liberals. Why then has the meanings of those terms been inverted? That is a mystery - and to solve a mystery you must look at those who had motive and opportunity. Those who had motive were socialists; those who had opportunity were journalists. A largely co-extensive pair of categories . . .
Why then are journalists socialists? Socialism is simply the facile assumption that political power can constitute society and the economy arbitrarily and yet wisely. And journalism is, was, and always will be politics (and it is especially political to claim, as journalists do, to have no politics).
Note that the term "socialism" is understood by all to mean the intemperate exercise of political power over the economy. It is little noted that the coinage of the term "socialism" is itself an evasion of the meaning of leftism. "Social" after all describes free interaction in the marketplace - the precise target of the leftist's depradations. Outside the US, the term "socialism" for the political coopting of the social form of decision known as "the free market" was sufficiently deceptive to be highly successful. In America, OTOH, truly progressive, truly liberal politics ruled - and "socialism" as a brand name failed to con the people sufficiently. Thus the motive to rebrand leftism. This maneuver not only deceives whoever takes the dictionary definition to literally, it also destroys the true meaning of the term, leaving true liberals without a name.
Another way of saying that is to note that the "socialist" systematically destroys the distincition between "society" and "government." If there is no difference between the two, of course, the result is tyranny and the absence of freedom. The "socialist" subsumes society into government. Leaving nothing of free society but the name - "society," repeated endlessly, when nothing other than "government" is meant.
But, he signs the checks, so, unless we can find another source, this little tidbit is never going to be read on Christian-news-in-maine.com
- Sounds like your boss might enjoy this thread.
- Notwithstanding your boss' reasonable understanding that commercial mass-market journalism is a conspiracy against the public good, I put it to you (and to him) that this article is a confession against interest - and therefore is admissible even tho the source is otherwise tainted.
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.