Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

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.

The education of children never was, never can be, and never will be religiously, morally, ethically, culturally, or politically neutral. NEVER! It is impossible, because it is the passing on of the important values and history of a culture. It can never be all inclusive because time and money or finite. Choices must be made as to what to cover and what to ignore. In making those choices government schools uphold the religion, culture, and politics of some and destroy that of others.

Exactly - education is culture. If I am teaching my culture, you are prevented from simultaneously teaching your culture.
It is blindingly obvious - but how many refuse to consider it? None so blind.
The whole First Amendment thing is remarkably simple, if you are willing to accept the actual meaning of it. But most people - not to mention the Supreme Court - have to make it complicated to keep its actual meaning from goring their own ox.
Freedom of speech, and of the press, simply means that I can speak if you can speak - but no one has to listen to me if they prefer to listen to you - or to neither of us. I can print if you can print - but no one has to read what I print, either. And by implication, I can post a web site if you can post a web site, and anybody or nobody can pay attention to it. And by the same implication, I can transmit on the radio if you can transmit on the radio.
But of course, that's not the way the law reads, is it? Principled interpretation of the First Amendment would destroy broadcasting just as it would destroy government schooling.
Public Schooling Divides Far and Wide/( Government schools can't be neutral)
EdNews.org ^ | December 19, 2008 | Neal McCluskey

The entire attack of the MSM in this disected article is based on the notion that reader to reader discussions about the MSM articles are unworthy and unnecessary. They forget that the freedom of assembly is also part of the first amendment so that people can and DO exchange ideas.

Though they bray all the time about how they cherish the First Amendment, the fact of the matter is that most "journalists", IMO, think the First Amendment is a "collective" right that belongs only in the self-selected establishment media and to a few select "enlightened" "artists" . . . The rest of us (i.e. anyone who doesn't share to the very last detail the narrow world view of Joseph Rago and his fellow Ivy League journalism school graduates who lived off family trust funds before graduating and getting paid to write fatuous nonsense like this column) are just too stupid and/or untrustworthy to be entrusted with that kind of power.

Think of how the left views the Second Amendment as applying only to National Guard units (so-called "militias"). This is the attitude that Rago and the rest of the mainstream media are trying to push in regards to the First these days, with them holding the power to decide just who is worthy of admission to the club of the protected.

The Second Amendment comes far closer to indicating that the public interest requires that I own a gun (for a 'necessary' militia) than the First Amendment does to saying that the public interest requires that the Sultzberger family own a printing press. Operating a press is a right - but in no sense a duty.
Opinion Journal: Bloggers are a Mob -- 'Written by fools to be read by imbeciles'
NewsBusters.org ^ | 12/20/06 | Warner Todd Huston

most thinking people would have far less of an issue with the media if it would be honest about its biases, rather than continually presenting themselves as "middle of the road"

Yes, of course. I say "of course," and am reminded of the sign an engineer had on his wall,
This problem, when solved, will be simple.
Because after all my labors in this thread to hash out the reasons for "bias in the media" it now seems simple to me. The reason Big Journalism exists as the establishment in America is because it can exist as such. That the First Amendment butresses the position of Big Journalism to exist as an establishment is obvious. But once accept that, and the question becomes not "why?" but "Why not?"
And the answers one might propose to "Why not?" turn out to be risable. Let's see . . . how about, "Because not being objective would violate the code of ethics up there on the wall?" Snicker. How about, "Because The New York Times says the Washington Post is objective, and the Washington Post says The New York Times is objective? Snort.
The existence of those "codes of ethics" is testimony to the incentives and motives journalists have to violate them. The propaganda power of the Washington Post is ample reason for The New York Times to avoid any flame war with the Washington Post - and vice versa. So they just go along and get along. Within the constraints of that imperative to go along and get along within Big Journalism, each outlet of Big Journalism is free to promote itself - and does so with abandon.
The net effect is that in seeking to exalt its own reputation, Big Journalism pushes down on the reputations of everyone in society who, because of the constraints of reality - a.k.a., "the bottom line" - must do unpopular things. Industry must modify nature, at least to some extent, and must charge for its products and cannot pay unlimited wages. To accomplish its mission the military must kill people and break things, and so on.
The State Department, the UN, teachers, unions, and advocates of minorities - all are professional complainers who talk much but ultimately do not work to a bottom line and have no responsibility. They are therefore free to go along and get along with Big Journalism - and that is precisely what they do. Big Journalism flatters itself with the label "objective," and flatters its sycophants with positive labels such as "progressive" or "moderate" or "liberal."
The entire project is little else but arrogance.

Editorial writers at The New York Times and The Washington Post, ever eager to regulate political advocacy not done by newspaper editorial writers, approved, although the Times thought the fines insufficient, and although the Post, calling the current law ``murky,'' thought the FEC should have enforced the murkiness quicker.

This sounds hard-hitting to some, I'm sure. But to me it is soft compared to what it should have said. The distinction between "news" and "editorial opinion" is artificial; it has no basis in the Constitution. It is boob bait for suckers.
In actual fact the First Amendment protects the expression of political (or other) viewpoint without regard to positioning, be it on the front page or the editorial page (if any) of a newspaper. And that is essential to freedom of the press, because it would be impossible ever to prove that story selection did not reflect an agenda (in fact, story selection inevitably relflects an agenda).
The truth is that journalism inherently promotes journalism - meaning that journalism promotes the idea that criticizing those who provide our food, clothing, shelter, and security is more important than those necessities. And that explains why Big Journalism (a.k.a, "the MSM) promotes socialism. And, under the First Amendment, newspapers are entitled to do so freely. But so are you and I, and the NRA and the ACLU.

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

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

Political speech makes a comeback
Townhall ^ | 12/31/06 | George Will

Many liberals deny any antipathy toward Christianity, hiding behind the convenient pretext of vindicating First Amendment principles. But their selective opposition to the government's "establishment" of the Christian religion and their hypocritical support for the government's endorsement of secularism betrays their true mindset.

"Liberals" are opposed to freedom and opposed to the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Liberals" expand the "establishment" clause so far that it consumes the "free exercise" clause. They promote things like McCain-Feingold to abridge freedom of the press by defining "press" to mean only the establishment I call Big Journalism. And they challenge the right of the people to "assemble" via the Internet and via contributions to political parties to promote their political opinions and desires.
How did people with such illiberal attitudes become known as "liberals?" Quite simple, actually. They were given that label by the people whom they promote, and who promote them. They were given that label by Big Journalism.
It's the Worldview, Stupid
davidlimbaugh.com | 01/04/07 | david limbaugh

I certainly do not believe the MSM should not print what it sees fit, but it should be marketed as opinion, not news, with full disclosure.

The thing that infuriates many of us is their insistence that they are impartial telling the unvarnished truth, when that is clearly not the case.

Quite so. It's pretty hard to envision "unwise objectivity," so claiming to be objective is almost indistinguishable from claiming to be wise. And arguing from the assumption of your own wisdom is what gives sophistry a bad name.
Worst of all, broadcasting licenses are essentially "titles of nobility" - the holder of such licenses are certified by the US government to be "broadcasting in the public interest" - whereas you and I enjoy no such presumption in our favor. Under the First Amendment the government has no authority to make that decision, either pro or con.
It is one thing to outlaw libel and, after the fact, to hold a jury trial over a specific statement in a newspaper. To give a broadcaster the imprimatur of the government before the fact is another matter entirely. But without that a priori imprimatur, that title of nobility, broadcasting as we have known it would have been impossible.
I put that last statement in the past tense, because the bandwidth limitations are being transcended by technology. If one thinks of the scandal of the interception of one of Newt Gingrich's cell phone call by Democratic operatives, you see a possible technological model for unlicensed broadcasting. Just make it legal to "intercept" a "cell phone call" by Rush Limbaugh, and allow manufacturers to produce receivers of those "calls," and viola! "broadcasting" without the requirement for government licensing. And there is also the satellite broadcasting technology . . . and podcasting.
The present state of the art is that we-the-people can have audio entertainment, live or on-demand, without government imprimatur and without government censorship. There is no justification for allowing, never mind promoting, licensed journalism. The fact that the licensing is done by bureaucrats rather than politicians is no comfort, and neither is the fact that licensed journalism takes on the political coloration of unlicensed journalism.
Because unlicensed journalism is allowed to be self-interested - and it is. Licensed journalism simply amplifies the political self-interest of unlicensed journalism, promoting the conceit that unlicensed journalism is "objective."

Only the media, not the military, has been distracted.

The liberal news media is not distracted.
This afternoon, NPR focused on civilian casualties in Somalia and condemnations of the U.S. air strike.

The liberal news media is the de facto propaganda ministry of America's enemies.

Big Journalism never says out loud that "there's a sucker born every minute," but the planted axiom of liberalism is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, in contrast, take for granted that we-the-people deserve respect. But

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
Worse,
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin

Therefore we-the-people are only worthy of respect if we can read between the lines and interpret the silence when the dog doesn't bark.
In effect the presumption of Big Journalism promotes the idea that the Constitution is fatally flawed in its foundational premise. Conservatives deny that - even as we are frequently discomfited by the ability of Big Journalism to convince astounding numbers of voters to vote against the idea that they are competent enough to have a say in their own government.
Big Journalism promotes the idea that Big Journalism is objective, and that we-the-people can't read between the lines and must trust that they are being told the truth objectively.
That explains why "liberals" - who are simply fellow travelers of Big Journalism - are "anti-American," as conservatives find themselves sputtering. The arrogant, condescending conceit of "liberalism" subverts the foundational premise of liberty.
What is to be done? Should we therefore consider repeal of the First Amendment? Heaven forefend. The truth is that the abuses of Big Journalism only are threatening because of misinterpretations of, and outright violations of, the First Amendment. Big Journalism says that the First Amendment makes it free to tell the truth. And that is true, in the same sense that it is true that I am free to eat an optimally healthy diet. I exert some will in that direction, but it cannot honestly be said that no candy or cookies ever pass my lips. The truth is that I am free to eat thousands of excess calories, and that newspapers are free, within broad limits, to be tendentious and even deceptive.
Violations of the First Amendment are actually quite commonplace. The First Amendment bans censorship, and yet broadcasting as we know it is a creature of censorship. An amazing percentage of the population does not read newspapers, and yet the broadcast journalism which they do listen to is philosophically flawed and fundamentally illegitimate.
U.S. Hunts al Qaeda in Somalia - Richard Miniter (has details)
PajamasMedia ^ | 1-8-07 | RichardMiniter

"...Therefore we-the-people are only worthy of respect if we can read between the lines and interpret the silence when the dog doesn't bark..."

Now, I would hate to think I am someone who succumbs to the "soft bigotry of low expectations", but I do feel that there is a large chunk of the population who are unable to parse the volumes of disgorged news, or who simply don't care to.

Living in the real world, I just think there are some people who do not have the skills to think critically about these things. That problem is exacerbated by the "Big Media" and Liberals, which know that full well.

from your link::

16 years ago, I sat outside the courthouse (along with 6 other people in news trucks) where "Tookie" Amiralt's trial was held for 2 weeks. Every day, we did what is known in the business as "gratuitous live shots" for the noon nooz ("...Well Jack, we're outside the courthouse waiting for the jury to return a verdict. Nothing has happened since yesterday, we don't know when anything is going to happen, but if something DOES happen, we'll be here to cover it! Back to you in the studio, Jack! ") The whole thing was a media circus because the media is too greedy, lazy, and stupid to do anything important and they smelled fresh, ratings meat. Beyond the witchhunt mentality that the propaganda ministry I worked in was all too happy to capitalize on, Scott Dirtburger, er Harshbarger, is one of the biggest parasites ever produced in Massachusetts - right up there with Teddy.
26 posted on 04/22/2002 7:00:31 PM EDT by agitator

The real villain is not the Lacross team, certainly - and it isn't even Nifong personally. The villain of the piece is Big Journalism. As Rabinowitz makes clear, all Nifong did was to follow the rules as Big Journalism laid them out.

The rules laid down by Big Journalism state that Big Journalism is what is important. If you make yourself useful to Big Journalism you will get the reward you asked for - good PR. If somebody else makes you useful to Big Journalism, well, tough luck - your name is Mudd, and his name is golden. That's all this is about, and that's all anything is about to Big Journalism.

In this case, Nifong has seen both ends. He came out with a clasic liberal case: "rich" white boys, "downtrodden" black woman, Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence. And Big Journalism was happy, and smiled on Nifong.

Now Nifong himself is at risk of becoming the story, as he should have been all along.

But don't make the mistake of thinking of the editorial page of the WSJ as being "Big Journalism" - it's more like the Rush Limbaugh show.

The Michael Nifong Scandal [Dorothy Rabinowitz] The Wall Street Journal ^ | January 11, 2007 | by Dorothy Rabinowitz

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.