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.
The Mayor was recently reelected. He did more than merely win overwhelmingly; he won both primaries. He filed as a Republican, but won the Democrat primary as well, by write-in votes over the previous Democrat Mayor as an opponent. Why is that fact important? It shows that an article which presents the views of pro- and anti-Barletta spokesmen as fairly equal, is actually false. And why is this nationally important? Because the national press on the subject of illegal immigration has been just as biased, and just as spotty in reporting the facts, as this writer on this story about just Hazleton.
Well, in fact there is a principled reason for some government restriction on speech so long as there is any requirement for application for renewal of FCC broadcast licenses. Specifically, FCC licensees should no be allowed to claim the government's imprimatur on their "objectivity."bias is, in fact, hard to prove since it impacts news topic selection; selection of spokesmen for different points of view; timing of the news items; and innumerable other considerations beyond obvious, demonstrable, slant by the newscasters.The government does not have the right to claim objectivity for itself - else there is no logic to having elections which might change the wonderful "objective" government in being. So logically the government does not have the authority to tell us that the broadcast licensees - or anyone else - is purveying "objective" truth. And therefore it is an abuse for a broadcaster to claim objectivity in a way that suggests the imprimatur of the government.
IOW, it is not conservative talk radio or liberal talk radio but "objective journalism" - exactly the form of discourse which McCain-Feingold presumes to advantage over candidly partisan opinion - which should be censored from broadcast.
That is exactly correct, sinceHalf the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin FranklinThe actual bias of journalism is however quite patent - journalism is biased in favor of journalism. Journalism's rules for commercial success - "If it bleeds, it leads," "'Man Bites Dog,' not "Dog Bites Man,'" and "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" - a.k.a., "Always meet your deadline," a.k.a., "The show must go on" - are entertainment rules rather than rules which are in any sense calculated to promote wisdom (or "objectivity"). Journalism is simply the promotion of criticism (the function of journalism) over action and accomplishment. It is not true that journalism is biased toward liberal politicians, the causation runs in the opposite direction - liberal politicians promote journalism because they lack any other principle. "The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR."Socialism is simply the conceit that critics who have no bottom line constraints are, by their ability to second guess and make executives look bad, qualified to supervise those who actually are responsible to get things done.
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
We need a Fairness Doctrine for media
Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | July 11, 2007 | BRUCE CHAPMAN
The opposite of scientism and of mysticism is candor. Rush Limbaugh is candid - he expresses himself openly, and continuously for hours at a time daily. Contrast that with the constricted "news" report which is scripted in advance (if it's not "breaking news") and which in any case is about a defined subject on which the reporter is, putatively, the expert and you and I are presumed to be ignorant. The reporter is always in a race to stay ahead of the rest of us in his knowledge of the story - and when that is no longer possible, the reporter drops the story as "old news" and moves on to another story in which the reporter has the advantage over the audience.
Don't we wish! I had the experience of being "outted" as a conservative in a setting where I thought it inappropriate to start a loud political discussion, and the "outter" said, "You probably thing that the media isn't objective." I thought that hilarious, since I of all people consider myself expert on "Bias in the media." But in the event, I allowed myself to be bogged down in the usual minutia arguments which seem, at least, to boil down to "He said, she said."I put "Bias in the media" in scare quotes because IMHO that is our opponent's preferred formulation. It isn't focused enough, and it has false assumptions embedded in it.
So I find that "bias in the media" is an unhelpful formulation of the problem. The actual problem is the extent to which the people believe things which are not so:
- First, "the media" includes not only journalism but fiction entertainment such as movies and TV. If you are going to attack "bias," you should IMHO limit your attack to putative nonfiction - to so-called "objective" journalism.
- Second, "media" is a plural noun. If we are able to speak of the question of bias in "the media," the very question implies that "the media" is not plural but a single entity. Just as the Red Sox and the Yankees are plural if considered as two individual teams but singular if understood as representing major league baseball.
- Third, "bias" implies that something is wrong with "the media" having a perspective. The First Amendment does not say that journalism is objective, it says that people can print whatever they wanna.
The plain fact is that journalism is criticism, in that journalism is simply talk, not action, and is free to second guess those who have to take responsibility for their actions or inactions. - Theodore Roosevelt's critique
- that journalism is plural because there are competitive outlets like ABC and CBS, when in fact journalists function in a guild mentality and refuse to criticize each other. For example, other journalists did not declare the obvious fact that Dan Rather and 60 Minutes jumped the shark with the "Killian memo" fraud. So much for "competitiveness" in reporting.
- that journalism is, and of right ought to be, objective. As noted, the Constitution does not suggest that at all - and no other authoritative source such as the Bible will suggest it, either.
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arenais opposite to journalism.Another plain fact is that journalism promotes journalism. And journalism promotes those who help journalism promote itself - and that includes all "liberals." In fact, as used by journalism the words "liberal" and "progressive" are simply positive labels intended to promote people who promote the hypercritical perspective of journalism. Just as "conservative" and "right wing" are simply negative labels intended to denigrate people who are skeptical of journalism's presumptuous second guessing.
It is difficult to define "objectivity," because de facto it is a synonym for wisdom - and it is arrogant to claim wisdom. But it is fair to say, I think, that objectivity is detachment from one's own interest - and thus that preoccupation with one's own interest, or subjectivity, is the opposite of objectivity. And to the extent that journalism blows its own horn and promotes those who criticize everyone except journalists and those who do likewise, journalism is the most subjective and least objective of professions.
Not going strong, mind you ... more like the responses keep dribbling along like those annoying drops that keep falling down your leg.
(Not a commentary on the topic itself, just the nature of this long-lived thread....)
IOW, PBS prejudged the issue by assuming that the "established media organizations" - ie, The Establishment - were "objective." And dismissed the primary sources - the testimony of the people who were there - out of hand.Detecting More Than History? (PBS smears Swiftboaters. Twice!)
pbs ^ | 7/13/07 | Michael Getler
On the merits, I can't get excited over editorial independence from the ownership of the media. The only thing that ultimately matters is independence of readership/audience. If the people are willing to accept the word of a cabal of self-interested owners and reporters/editors, then they will get it - and will be dominated by the sort of people who are willing to suppress the word of the people who know in favor of their own tendentious templates.
I get it now and it is an appropriate parody. Thanks.
I am glad that you pointed out that you "do not even accept the premise that journalism should be objective."
I agree because for me to disagree I would, in my mind, be contradicting my praise of "the way it used to be;" to wit, many sources of news via many (often biased) newspapers.
Perhaps I should have worded it a little different "True, the MSM should be objective if they are to be the virtual sole gatekeepers of news and issues. I agree, the MSM can only claim to be objective; and yes that is their right.
Some MSM employees may feeeeeeel that they are "objective;" or, as they used to respond to my complaints in the 1960s, "We're professionals and you're not."
Ping to this ongoing thread, wherein I have cross-posted many of my comments about "bias in the media" since shortly after 9-11-01. I think you will like it.
This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.Summary: DailyKos is explicitly an arm of the DemocRat Party. Compare to FR, where RINOs are blasted with as much venom as Pelosi, Reid or Teddy K. That admission might change a few minds on this thread.
43 posted on 07/24/2007 4:24:36 AM EDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
IMHO you make the case that DailyKos is explicitly in violation of the law as written, in a way that FreeRepublic is not. Nice work. But . . .FR is pretty damn active in supporting candidates, publicizing campaign activities, mustering shows of activist support. Once the general election starts, FR will certainly be aggressive enough in supporting the Republican candidate.
Jim Robinson owns this site, sets the rules, moderates (or his “agents” do) the discussions. So it is not just a non-partisan bulletin board.
If you don’t think the Democrats can make an argument out of that, then you underestimate them.
25 posted on 07/23/2007 11:04:54 PM EDT by Maceman
The reality is that, from the perspective of the First Amendment, there's not a dime's worth of difference between FR and The New York Times, or between The New York Times and the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. They are all organizations run by people, and they are all entitled to freedom of speech and of the press - meaning that they can spend all the money they can get their hands on running printing presses, paying reporters and so forth, or even going on speaking tours - whether or not they are able to make a profit by selling newspapers or selling advertising space in newspapers."Should the DailyKos be Subject to the Federal Election Commission?"That is, whether or not they are supported by voluntary donations, in whatever amount. From whatever source, so be that it is not tax money. The government has no business telling Americans how to vote.
And that is why Jim Robinson is correct:
Not only no, but hell no! The first amendment protects our God-given unalienable rights to free speech, free press, freedom to dissent and freedom of association. All of the campaign laws enacted by congress in violation of the first amendment should be repealed as unconstitutional and the FEC disbanded.13 posted on 07/23/2007 10:15:59 PM EDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
You make the case that going after DailyKos under McCain-Feingold would not justify going after FR under McCain-Feingold . . . but since McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional it would be lawless to go after anyone under McCain-Feingold.
Ping to a thread which analyzes the "objectivity" of journalism, and what it means for America.Journalism claims objectivity, but its basis for that claim depends on the conceit that what is good for journalism - namely, journalists attracting an audience to advertisers - is the public interest, and all of it. That is of course absurd, but journalism simply declines to discuss the point.
In the founding era, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et. al. were liberals. And as Thomas Sowell points out in On Classical Economics, Adam Smith in his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, and the classical economists generally, were reacting against aristocracy - that is, against government of, by, and for the Establishment. Here's a quote from a review of Smith's classic:An interesting choice for an introduction is Robert Reich. He is one of the few intellectuals from the left, and while I disagree with him more often than not, I respect his thought process. He offers his interpretation of Smith and how the ideas found in TWoN fit neatly with his positions. Selective reasoning or not, Reich does offer a nice summary line: ". . . it is important to remind ourselves of the revolutionary notion at the heart of Smith's opus - that the wealth of a nation is measured not by its accumulated riches [i.e., by its "balance of payments"], but by the productivity and living standards of all its people."I think that is a perfectly fair definition of the English (note the emphasis) word, "liberal." It was what the American Revolution and the War of 1812 were all about, and the failure of British establishment designs in those wars must have had a salutary effect on British politics - chastening the British conservatives who stood for the exploitation of the people of the colonies (and indeed, of the people of Britain proper), and heartening the British liberals.So Americans who adhere to the principles of the founders of the US are, by British standards, not remotely "conservative." We are, in English, liberals. Since the exalted founding fathers such as Washington and Franklin were liberals, being a liberal was a good thing for an American to be - and conservative was a bad thing for an American to be. What can have happened to make "conservative" a positive word to American patriots, and "liberal" a bad one?
The English language, especially in its American variant, is highly dynamic and "living." Word meanings change with usage, nouns become verbs, and so on. IMHO the operation of journalism in the American context is relevant. The Louisiana Purchase set off a vast land rush, and like other aspects of American life the press was a creature of that land rush. In his classic The Americans: The National Experience, Daniel Boorstin pointed out that when tiny villages like Shawnee, Oklahoma or Ada, Oklahoma - or Chicago or Milwaukee or Denver, or any of tens of thousands of towns which no longer exist - were founded, they were all land speculations. Anywhere you chose to settle, the first thing you wanted to improve the prospects and value of your land was a newspaper to publicize your town. And printers who settled in the West selected towns, committed to those locales, and promoted those towns in order to promote themselves.
I put it to you that the last way to accurately characterize presses which existed to promote themselves and their locales would be, "objective." But, like "liberal" - and in contradistinction to "conservative" - "objective" is definitely a flattering thing for an American to be called. So, for a press which is self-promoting and not objective, the most natural thing to call itself would be, "objective." And equally, it was natural for self-promoting journalism to call people who agreed with the idea that journalism was the essence of the public interest, "liberals." And to call those who, like Theodore Roosevelt, reckon that
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena"conservative."Journalism does nothing but criticize, and the promotion of journalism is therefore the promotion of criticism above performance. And what journalists call "liberalism" is the promotion of critics to positions (in government) of power over those who actually take responsibility for getting things done.
What happened to make "conservative" a positive word to American patriots, and "liberal" a bad one? What happened was "objective" journalism.
No, there’s something wrong about people whose faces are fixed in rage and perpetual anger — whose bodies looked like they’ve exploded within their clothes, and for that matter, within their skins — and all they do in life is look for arguments they can get into and people they can blame and put down, thinking that makes them better than everybody else.
It’s a mental illness — that got enshrined in a lot of our institutions, so naturally there is a great revulsion and emergence of “new media,” which is something entirely different, and not just the old media done as well or worse by wannabes.
That whole world of wannabeism, also dies in the new world of being as one actually is. So if you spend all your time trying to decieve, manipulate, humiliate and harass others, it is who you are and what you do — no matter what noble and fine-sounding names you want to call yourself.
The era of demagogues and authoritarians that populate the media and try to monopolize it and demand that everyone can only say what they want everybody else to, is over.
Real freedom of information solves a lot of things — unlike suppressing, oppressing and denying most of it, and claiming the First Amendment as an exclusive right of the press — and only their press.
The unfortunate consequence for themselves, is that they start believing their own propaganda and following their own advice — with apparent, obvious disastrous consequences. That’s the way the world really works — and not just, “We can say anything we want because we own the press.”
It’s quite a different world when nobody “owns” the press exclusively — but that doesn’t stop the manipulators of the world from trying — as the only thing they know how to do.
And its institutions--the schools, universities, foundations, arts communities, and newsrooms of the world--are the most exclusive and divisive around. Conservatives and Christians need not apply.
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena - Theodore RooseveltIt is obvious that the newsroom is hostile to "conservatism," for the very logical reason that In proclaiming itself to be objective, journalism declares that the rules of journalism define the public good. Since the journalism rules that matter - "If it bleeds, it leads," "'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man,'" and "Always make your deadline" - address the entertainment imperative which supports the business model of journalism, journalism thereby proclaims that what is good for journalism is good for the country. But what is journalism but criticism?The powerful leftist tendency of academia must likewise follow from the classic rules of teaching. "Them as can, does. Them as can't, teaches" points out that, like journalism, teaching is talk, and criticism of students' work, but it is not performance against a bottom line. Like journalism, teaching has a powerful tradition of putting its own interests at the top of its list of the nation's priorities.
Foundations are, perhaps, a lot like academia - strong on telling others what to do, but insulated from the risks which they recommend that others take.
The Real Long War
The American Thinker ^ | July 31, 2007 | Christopher Chantrill
I put it to you that journalists will gleefully attack a manufacturer, or the police, or the military, or the water company - and that the common feature of the preferred targets is responsibility to a bottom line.If you are a fellow journalist, of course you get a pass - professional courtesy (and fear of retaliation, of course . . .). But you also are safe from journalistic attack so long as you do not attempt to gain credit for actually accomplishing something - and do not publicly come to the defense of those who do. Rather than (as journalists and like minded so-called "liberals" do) by criticizing those who do so.
That is why I find myself quoting Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sorbonne
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
Journalists call journalists - and none other - "objective."
Journalists call those who are simpatico with journalists "progressive."
Journalists call those who are not simpatico with journalists "progressive."
Of course, assigning yourself and those who agree with you positive labels and assigning negative labels to those who disagree with you marks you not as objective but as highly subjective - and arrogant.
Journalists call journalists - and none other - "objective."
Journalists call those who are simpatico with journalists "progressive."
Journalists call those who are not simpatico with journalists "conservative."
What’s the result? More Americans will die of preventable costs. Isn’t that too high a cost to pay for sloppy journalism?Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin FranklinIt is less frequent that journalists tell outright untruths than that they avoid mention of germane truths such as relative risk and marginal cost. All too frequently they thereby succeed in practicing on the credulity even of highly intelligent people. The half truth problem makes a mockery of the conceit that journalism is necessarily objective if it is not inaccurate. The rules of journalistic story selection - not only "if it bleeds, it leads" but "'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man'" and "Always meet your deadline" - are not rules for telling the whole truth but entertainment imperatives. Apply those rules however dispassionately and systematically, and they will result in sensationalism rather than full information and considered judgment every time.
Broadcast journalism does indeed misdirect the public from the most important risks to the dramatic risks and from undramatic progress to the dramatic tragedy, thereby costing lives. But by attacking the people who get necessary things done it also promotes the "liberal" politicians who do likewise.Broadcast licensing is predicated on the idea that in exchange for accepting censorship of the unlicensed, we-the-people will be informed in the public interest by the licensees. Broadcast journalism has been promoted on that basis. But as you have pointed out and as I argue is inevitable in the system as it exists, broadcast journalism systematically misinforms the public by distraction and in significant ways by outright misinformation.
The Constitution was designed to work admirably in a milieu in which broadcasting and even telegraphy did not even exist. And that is Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate.
See, this is my overarching problem with the Bush Administration.so in this case (and probably others that don't instantly come to mind) Bush and his administration are attacked - and in "defending" themselves, damn themselves with faint praise. It is one thing for Mr. Bush, and for the members of his Administration at his direction, to do the "new tone" thing and accept being unjustly pilloried. It is quite another thing for people who never even met Mr. Bush and yet have supported him - yea, even unto volunteering into the military under Mr. Bush's command - to get tarred with the faint praise of a Bush Administration "defense" of itself.
- Just like in the case of the "sixteen words,"
- just like in the case of the entrapment of Scooter Libby,
- just like in the case of Hurricane Katrina,
- just like in the case of the fired US Attorneys,
In all those cases establishment journalism lies have been allowed to metastasize into "truth." This is Bush Derangement Syndrome, and the trouble is that it is no different from what happened to Joseph McCarthy back in the Eisenhower years. For two succeeding generations, "McCarthyism" has been a smear - a smear simultaneously of whoever is accused of it, and of Senator Joseph McCarthy (rest his soul) himself. The Army had information, whether the Eisenhower Administration knew it or not, which proved that McCarthy was understating the problem for which he was demanding an investigation.
- In the case of the "sixteen words," Bush spokesmen cowered when attacked for having said something which is in context absolutely true.
- In the Scooter Libby entrapment, it was known from the start that someone other than Mr. Libby was responsible, and that there was no crime to investigate in the first place.
- In the case of Hurricane Katrina, it was patent from before landfall that Bush was urging the people having the authority to act - the elected governor of Louisiana and the elected mayor of New Orleans - to take action to save lives. And that those unworthies did nothing but panic, and then scapegoat the president for their own inaction.
- In the case of the fired US Attorneys, those people served at the pleasure of the president and they had no right to any review of the actions of the Attorney General (unless, as was true in the case of the US Attorney fired in Arkansas in 1993, those attorneys were in the midst of an investigation close to members of the administration itself).
With those facts now known, at some point a Republican administration must take the offensive against the alliance of journalists who call themselves "objective" (thereby proving that they are no such thing) and who call the politicians who hold getting along with journalism as their highest principle "progressives" or "liberals" (as if they actually favored the peoples' liberty, or anything else besides their own perquisites and power).
It actually traces back to the 2000 election, which Gore came within a hair's breadth of stealing in Florida when his allies in broadcast journalism declared him the victor while the polls in Florida were still open in the Republican-leaning Florida Panhandle. Broadcast journalism proved itself tendentious and lacking in any legitimate civic justification for broadcast licenses, and hence for their very existence. The Bush Administration and the Republican Party should have sued them into oblivion. The fact that they didn't do that marked them as weak, and has lead to their being picked on mercilessly ever since.
And it is not just Mr. Bush, and not just his administration, but everyone who voted for him and everyone who serves in the military under him who pays the price. Not to mention the people of Iraq who suffer there from the effects here of the rump government known as "objective journalism."
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.