"Objective" journalism is the Establishment in America. It exists as a coherent entity worthy of the appellation, "Establishment", because the things which all journalism hold in common - the things which make journalism profitable - are things which have a planted socialist axiom within them:Journalism is not courageous but cowardly; journalism is the establishment and it picks on those who have no means to effectively respond (in a word, Republicans). Journalism is a mutual-admiration society; mainstream journalists cannot bring themselves to question the objectivity of other mainstream journalists because that would put the Establishment, and especially their own membership in it, at risk.
- Journalism is superficial because of its deadlines (a quickie book is much better researched and will be more certain to have enduring significance than a news article).
- Journalism is negative, because it's the easiest way to grab the attention of an audience.
- And journalism is arrogant in claiming the virtues of objectivity and courage.
Journalism glorifies "dissent" - but, pardon the oxymoron, Journalism glorifies Establishment "dissent" by such as Ward Churchill. That "dissent" agrees with Establishment journalism and is perfectly safe from journalistic criticism.
Actual courageous dissent will get you labeled by mainstream journalism, all right - but the label you are tagged with will not be "courageous dissident" but "right wing extremist."
VANITY: My college's newspaper pays tribute to Ward Chuchill
Journalism is politics, and anyone who claims otherwise is selling something.Journalism was politics when Jefferson and Hamilton were sponsoring competing newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles and Journalism is politics now. Journalism always will be politics. If you think you see journalism which is not politics, you are actually seeing journalism which expresses your politics.
What the article speaks of as "a legitimate news organization" is Tooth Fairy journalism. It'd be nice if the Tooth Fairy would pay my electric bill, and it'd be nice if "a legitimate news organization" would tell everyone exactly what was important in current events. But what we actually have is concensus journalism - a go-along-and-get-along concensus rather than courageous open partisanship is what passes for wisdom - excuse me, "objectivity."
It is not merely the BBC, and not merely the BBC and NPR and PBS which are illegitimate government-sponsored partisanship. No more than those unworthies could CBS, NBS, or any of the other BS broadcast networks operate without government favor. All require the censorship of the many so that those few might "give us the word" from their Olympian perch.
Broadcast journalism is unnecessary - the Constitution and the British Parliamentary system long predate the advent of broadcasting - and broadcast journalism is illegitimate government-sponsored meddling in politics. In sum, an abuse of government power.
WHO'S HOT & WHO'S NOT! (Iconoclast)
Iconoclast ^ | R. Bastiat