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.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The operative word in my first sentence you missed is "just", as in yes, they are concerned about job security but it isn't their only agenda item by a long shot.

Of course I agree that people who dedicate their careers to writing contemptuous articles about the people upon whom we (and they) depend for food, clothing, shelter, fuel, and security have political issues a priori which make that project congenial to them. My point is not to reject that. My point it to delegitimate the very idea that anyone should in principle accept journalism, or any other industry, as the definition of the public interest.

The Second Amendment comes much closer to saying that I should have a gun to serve the public interest (in a "necessary" militia) than the First Amendment comes to saying that the Sulzberger family should have a printing press to serve the public interest. At a time when dialog between the WH press secretary and a reporter can go,

Reporter: The news from Iraq is all bad.

Tony Snow: You aren't reporting the good news from Iraq.

Reporter: Bad news sells, good news is boring.

Reporter: What are you doing about the bad news from Iraq?

it is not (remotely) too much to say that journalists conflate their interest with the public interest. And in fact and logic there is precisely zero justification for that attitude. The only justification for that attitude is that, with their propaganda power, they can get away with it. But here on FR, that should cut no ice at all - and that is my point.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but I think you're over-thinking the entire matter. Yes, they want to keep their jobs but the leftism isn't as abstract nor as necessarily tied as closely to the process of journalism as you state. For one thing, journalism has been around for a very long time. It's been in this country since we landed at Plymouth Rock, basically, but it only became a strong instrument of the left in the last fifty or so years.

Larry Sweigart (FReeper LS) says he's writing a book on the topic of the political tendency of journalism in the past 50 years; I will be very interested in his conclusions. Because if you read Ann Coulter's Treason, you will understand that at the very dawn of the 1950s Big Journalism executed a jihad against people (Whittaker Chambers, Senator Joseph McCarthy) precisely because they were right about Communist infiltration in the US government. So IMHO it won't do to say that leftist activism in journalism has been building up over the past 50 years; it was in full flower at the dawning of that time period.

At any rate, I subscribe more to the Fifth Column theory, which is really a cart-before-the-horse argument in terms of our discussion. I think leftists seek out journalism careers because they have an agenda to undermine and bend this country to their will and their world view, rather than them conforming to the demands of the industry as being the sole reason for journalism being leftwing

. . . and my point is that the two are not mutually exclusive. If you are willing to do the work of a journalist I think you are not conservative.

No - The Cops Didn't Murder Sean Bell (Heather MacDonald Slams Drive By Hustlers Alert)
Frontpagemag.com ^ | 12/05/2006 | Heather MacDonald

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I subscribe more to the Fifth Column theory, which is really a cart-before-the-horse argument in terms of our discussion. I think leftists seek out journalism careers because they have an agenda to undermine and bend this country to their will and their world view, rather than them conforming to the demands of the industry as being the sole reason for journalism being leftwing.

My theory agrees that there is limited competition in journalism, but explains that lack of competition in economic terms. It does not attribute good motives to journalists, but it does not The limitation of the Fifth Column theory is that it is a pure conspiracy theory.

The Yankees and the Red Sox are noted rivals in Major League Baseball. The disclaimer is crucial; they are rivals only when competing for talent and when playing their games. The rest of the time they are trying to drum up an audience for their contests - and in that they are in cahoots. That is, The Yankees do not claim too loudly that the umpires favor the Red Sox, and vice versa - because all interest in their games (thus, their livelihoods) depends on the assumption that the umpires are neutral. Neither the Yankees nor the Red Sox can afford for the public to believe that the outcome of a given game is foreordained.

Similarly, NBC News and CBS News are competitors for market share even as they cooperate in the effort to increase the size of the market for journalism generally. The similarity is that the umpires of Major League Baseball are MLB's reporters who tell us whether the 3-2 pitch was over for strike three, ending the game, or was a ball, walking in the tying run. Just as NBC News, The New York Times, et al tell us that Al Gore has won Florida's electoral votes, or tell or do not tell us information which we interpret as meaning that we should vote one way or another (for example, during the 2000 election night they expeditiously told us the states which had gone for Gore but were much slower telling us when a state had gone for Bush - creating the impression that Bush's vote was weaker than expected).

The difference between MLB umpire reporting and Establishment Journalism reporting is interesting. First, MLB is a private business, explicitly an entertainment and therefore not raising anyone's taxes or drafting anyone's son into the army. Decisions of umpires merely raise or lower the morale of people who choose to care what they say. Big Journalism as the Establishment in America denies its own existence as a unitary entity.

Big Journalism claims that its various organs are entirely independent on the one hand - and yet Big Journalism defines "objectivity" strictly in terms of group solidarity. If CBS News is caught in an outright lie about the Texas Air National Guard and George W. Bush, no other organ of Big Journalism points it out. CBS is able to concoct an "independent investigation" for the purpose of "concluding" that obvious forgeries might not be forgeries - and that in any case the effort to prevent the reelection of George W. Bush was not politically motivated. And the rest of Big Journalism sleepily nods its head. "Nothing to see here, just move on."

When it comes to criticizing people who actually do important things like providing water, food, shelter, clothing, and security, Big Journalism has a duty to pick every last nit. But let a public corporation which has a fiduciary duty to the public to report "in the public interest" - in exchange for exclusive licenses to do what we-the-people are forbidden to do - intentionally perpetrate fraud, and conspiracy element of the definition of "objective" comes into play. PR hell would descend on any member of Big Journalism which broke Big Journalism's "nonexistent" solidarity. That journalist would suddenly become "not a journalist, not objective." Career Over.

It is not necessary to posit the assembly of a cabal of journalists who mutually pledge themselves to adhere to the code of never questioning the objectivity of a fellow member of Big Journalism. It is simply understood that "you never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the carload" - even if you buy ink by the carload yourself.

The disadvantage of the pure "Fifth Column" conspiracy theory is that we are in fact "picking a fight with someone who buys ink by the carload" - and you are calling them partisan and they (should they deign to respond) will call you partisan. Who wins that fight?

My analysis is intended to stand up in the Supreme Court, which - if as expected the Democrats assay to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine and knock Rush et al off the air - is where we will soon find ourselves. And even if there is no resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine to contend with, cases under McCain-Feingold (and probably its threatened followup bills) must necessarily arise and go to SCOTUS. When that happens I want us to be represented by a lawyer who will make the case that

• journalism is a private matter under the First Amendment, not legitimately a government function any more than forming a religion is a government function.

• journalism is not even testimony under oath, and it certainly is not revealed truth.

• Journalism is of the people, and has no claim on rights apart from those of the people. If print journalism is allowed to talk about politics within days of an election - and they cannot be forbidden to do so - then the people at large, and any grouping of them, is allowed to talk about politics within days of an election.

• the Internet is a means of communication, and everyone is allowed to post on the Internet if anyone is allowed to post on the Internet (but if they want to post on FR in particular, they meet the criteria of the owner of FR, or they hit the highway - and find or create a web forum which will accept their postings).

• broadcasting of topical nonfiction (even if speculative) reports of traffic and weather give the people actionable information and are in the public interest.

• but discussion of political news in government - restricted formats such as radio and TV broadcasting is a suspect category subject to strict scrutiny. This does nothing to censor print journalism or in-person speech - nor the novel but popular Internet - but it controls the government and its agents and holders of restricted-access licenses from the government.

• neither the government nor its agents is authorized to presume to be, or define what selection of stories, or tellers of stories, is objective (for to allow that is to allow the government to, for example, make perpetual incumbency "objective"). It follows that the FCC is to be enjoined to discipline licensees who violate this rule - and sufficiently to prevent recidivism. And for the protection of the Court from undue influence by the government and its licensees, that rule emphatically bans on-air criticism of this ruling by SCOTUS by government licensees claiming to speak from objective authority.

• the people are sovereign, but they exercise their sovereignty only on election day. Newspapers are free under the First Amendment to claim to know the will of the people. Broadcast licensees are not. Broadcasting of putative "polls" of the people which are not given by legitimate counts of election results as registered by actual votes is illegitimate.

How do you like them apples?

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[beyond the sea]

Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

Just wondering, after all this time, if broadcast journalism in "unnecessary", in this electronic era what do you suggest take its place?

****

I was just thinking, isn't that title at least just a little silly?

By the way, I happen to believe that broadcast journalism as it is today in the U.S. is not only "illegitimate", but I also believe that many of the journalists and government officials involved in journalistic crimes should be tried for the same and then imprisoned immediately.

****

I vaguely heard a "news" piece some time yesterday on the radio that there was some "study" done by some group somewhere that reported that the U.S. media is "ranked" 53rd in the world with respect to "freedom of the press". If I have some of that wrong I apologize in advance. But, just to me, I consider our journalism/mainstream/old/media a major ugly cruel joke on the citizens ..... with a similar effect as the old Pravda.

The limited and relatively meaningless stories that are reported upon mostly are needless, and the very important stories (such as The Federal Reserve, The Fair Tax, etc., etc.) that are completely avoided is an even bigger joke.

This country is dying because of the media, and the media is as it is because the government wants itmjust that way.

Sleep on America.

****

(I don't have time to dress this up, this is just how I feel.)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Just wondering, after all this time, if broadcast journalism in "unnecessary", in this electronic era what do you suggest take its place?

I suggest that we use the Internet to get topical information that we need. And I suggest that we do not need breathless accounts of all the rumors circulating in New Orleans after a hurricane . . .

Broadcast journalism is unnecessary because we have an executive branch of government to respond to things that come up, and we have a legislative branch to adapt the laws which may need changing - and we only adjust the composition of those branches every two to four years. No point getting worked up into a lather over a bunch of rumors; it's the government's job to respond and our job to make sure that the government is competent.

Broadcast journalism plays the role of Henny Penny, running around screaming that the sky is falling. What did broadcast journalism accomplish in New Orleans? Only convincing the National Guard to be distrustful of the people. Without foundation. That's it. That, and promote the idea that Democrats would somehow be better presidents, despite the fact that they are exactly like journalists themselves - exactly what you do not need in an executive.

[beyond the sea]

I suggest that we use the Internet to get topical information that we need.

Good idea...... better than getting political views from Leno, Letterman, Stewart, and the rest.

And I suggest that we do not need breathless accounts of all the rumors circulating in New Orleans after a hurricane . . .

How obvious, speaking of unnecessary.

;-)

Broadcast journalism is unnecessary

What about journalism being "unnecessary"?

****

I think you're way off base on saying "broadcast journalism being unnecessary".

But ........ whatever.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I think you're way off base on saying "broadcast journalism being unnecessary".

The Constitution was composed before the advent of electronic communication. It was, therefore, designed to work without broadcast journalism. There is news which you can act on, which can be valuable because it is very up-to-date. It's called traffic and weather forecasts. But the things that have political implications are simply not actionable information until it's time to vote - you can get that via pony express in plenty of time to know how to vote.

Considering that broadcasting depends on censorship for its very existence, broadcasting in general and broadcast journalism in particular are fundamentally illegitimate. There is no case that I have seen that broadcast journalism is necessary. Over the side with it!

[beyond the sea]

Over the side with it!

LOL

I love your fine mind and excellent words......... but, how do you suggest that should be done???

Actually ....... I wish it could be done!!!

Regard.............. Thom

[RobRoy]

There is a reason I dumped tv. And the article is spot on. In the time it takes a person to watch the nightly news, I can cover ten times the stories on the internet and, more importantly, will have "pulled" the stories that are really relevant, as opposed to the fluff that has nice pictures.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

but, how do you suggest that should be done??? Actually ....... I wish it could be done!!!

from my 1142:

My analysis is intended to stand up in the Supreme Court, which - if as expected the Democrats assay to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine and knock Rush et al off the air - is where we will soon find ourselves. And even if there is no resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine to contend with, cases under McCain-Feingold (and probably its threatened followup bills) must necessarily arise and go to SCOTUS. When that happens I want us to be represented by a lawyer who will make the case that [broadcast journalism is illegitimate].

I'm saying that we are going to be forced to sue the government to defend the Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular. When that happens, the defendants must include the FEC, the FCC, and all licensees of the FCC. The FCC has not assured that its licensees operated in the public interest as required by law. We see that it is not even trying to keep broadcast journalism from being extremely tendentious when it is required by law to be in the public interest. How is lying about the Texas Air National Guard in order to defeat a sitting president in the national interest??? But the licensees aren't at all concerned with their responsibility. They think, and claim, that if they do the same thing as the New York Times does, they can't be criticized. But the New York Times has no credential of objectivity at all - according to the First Amendment it doesn't have to be objective.

Fundamentally the FCC doesn't try to do its job, which is natural since its job is fundamentally impossible. As long as anyone thinks that broadcast journalism can be both guaranteed objective and guaranteed free, there is no possibility of the FCC doing that job. Freedom is incompatible with enforcing someone's idea of "objectivity."

[beyond the sea]

Freedom is incompatible with enforcing someone's idea of "objectivity."

Wow ....... what a drag.

Pardon me....... I'm going outside to slit my wrists.

****

By the way, you seem to be something of a libertarian CUBED!

How uncomfortable.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Freedom is incompatible with enforcing someone's idea of "objectivity."

Wow ....... what a drag.

Be realistic!

How is it possible to enforce objectivity when any editor who wants to can omit any story he wants to? Who says that story was important? It's a matter of opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion and, on your own dime, you are entitled to try to attract attention and converts to your opinion. That is what journalism does, and it does it by promising objectivity but delivering criticism. As long as you aren't the target of the criticism, you may enjoy seeing the other guy get it. Even if you are the target of the criticism, you will pay attention to it. Either way, they have an audience.

Objective truth would include a recital of everything that everyone got done at work today - all the foundations that were poured, all the classes that were taught, all the roofs repaired and all the pipes that were fixed and all the crops that were cultivated of watered, &c. IOW, objective reality includes a vast array of information which nobody would be interested in. So how do you hang someone who leaves something out? And yet since

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

leaving something out might be a distortion, and not objective.

[beyond the sea]

How is it possible to enforce objectivity when any editor who wants to can omit any story he wants to? Who says that story was important? It's a matter of opinion.

"How is it possible to enforce objectivity" -- I wonder who ever suggested THAT.

"Objectivity" in journalism is a myth, so I wouldn't even give a thought to "enforcing" it.

[beyond the sea]

By the way, I don't want you to think that I don't appreciate your general interest in the media and especially "journalism's" effect on our people.

****

Here's one I like from our old good buddy:

Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the press, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse. -- Mark Twain

****

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Freedom is incompatible with enforcing someone's idea of "objectivity."

Wow ....... what a drag.

Pardon me....... I'm going outside to slit my wrists.

****

By the way, you seem to be something of a libertarian CUBED!

How uncomfortable.
1,151 posted on 12/07/2006 1:53:59 PM EST by beyond the sea

I wonder who ever suggested THAT.

"Objectivity" in journalism is a myth, so I wouldn't even give a thought to "enforcing" it.

Looks to me like you did - and pretty strongly, at that . . .

[beyond the sea]

You are so mixed up, I don't know where to start, so I will only say:

When did I suggest that anyone should "enforce objectivity"? YOU were the one who brought up the ABSURD concept of "enforcing objectivity".

YOU wrote that in post 1150, “Freedom is incompatible with enforcing someone's idea of "objectivity."

I don't even care a bit what it means. It's just plain silly......... as I said, since "objectivity" DOES NOT EXIST! If it doesn't exist who the heck is going to enforce it, or who would want to?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

When did I suggest that anyone should "enforce objectivity"? YOU were the one who brought up the ABSURD concept of "enforcing objectivity".

YOU wrote that in post 1150, “Freedom is incompatible with enforcing someone's idea of "objectivity."

Sure - I put "objectivity" is scare quotes, and ridiculed the idea of enforcing it. And on the one hand you say I have accuse me of belonging to the party of long-haired men and short-haired women for that, and OTOH you dismiss the idea of the existence of objectivity and seem to accuse me of gullibility.

I don't even care a bit what it means. It's just plain silly......... as I said, since "objectivity" DOES NOT EXIST! If it doesn't exist who the heck is going to enforce it, or who would want to?

Look, either objectivity doesn't exist at all, or it means pretty much the opposite of what Big Journalism insinuates that it means. The way Big Journalism uses the term is simply sophistry - claiming a virtue, and using that claim to beat your debate opponent over the head.

The philosophical approach to objectivity would be to say, "I recognize that I have an identifiable perspective, and accept that I must take that perspective into account. I am a conservative, and as such I must be careful to scrutinize evidence in favor of conservatism closely, because I will be tempted to believe such evidence and to discount contrary evidence arbitrarily."

Note that the philosopher, in saying that, does not claim actually to be objective, he only accepts his own limitations. The philosophical approach is humility, the sophist's approach is arrogant. Big Journalism has propaganda power, and that power tempts it to arrogance.

[beyond the sea]

I know we agree nearly totally........ we just talk too much.

;-)

Have a great weekend. I must get out of here and move some snow around.

:-)

I very much appreciate this thread of yours, by the way!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Probably 30-40% of the population was adamantly opposed to the war in the first place--including most journalists. Is it surprising they are still against it and see every challenge as a defeat?

Fundamentally, the perspective of Big Journalism is a political party. The Democrats just belong to Big Journalism's party, and therefore get great PR from Big Journalism.

I say that Big Journalism is a political party because:

1. Big Journalism has a unitary perspective - the perspective that Big Journalism, and not the people who do things like providing food, clothing, shelter &c, is what is important - that nothing actually matters except PR.

2. Big Journalism coheres in loyalty to, and fear of, the group - anyone who questions the objectivity of Big Journalism is in for a world of bad PR. And if a member of Big Journalism itself does so, he is expelled from the group - he is "not a journalist, not objective."

Viewing politics through the prism that Big Journalism is a political party, "liberalism" - and "centrism," "moderation," and progressivism" - are simply words derived from virtues which journalists apply to people who agree with the perspective of Big Journalism. No different from "objective," other than in its usage - "objective" is applied to people who agree with the perspective of Big Journalism and who actually work as journalists. The use of virtues as labels for journalists and acolytes of Big Journalism is, transparently, arrogant self flattery by journalists.

The self-flattery of journalism explains the distinction between "liberalism" and pure boosterism of government, which is what comes to mind first when "liberalism" is mentioned. The notable exception is that "liberalism" is notably critical of two arms of government - police and military. The exception is, quite simply, that police and military actually do things, providing security. Journalists criticize and second guess them exactly because what they do is important. Just as oil companies, Walmart, &c, are criticized because what they do is important - and therefore viewed by Big Journalism as competition, and hence as targets.

[beyond the sea]

Fundamentally, the perspective of Big Journalism is a political party. The Democrats just belong to Big Journalism's party, and therefore get great PR from Big Journalism.

This is great!

****

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751133/posts

post #’s 26, 49 should interest you. They interested me.

****

And, Eddie01, this entire thread is great and should interest you! Have fun!