Posted on 09/14/2001 7:02:19 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
“Pinch”, among others, think of us as “subjects”. Or, is it as “objects”?
Communism pays those willing to sell their souls.
From opening post by c_I_c on this great thread...
“If somehow you nail them dead to rights in consistent tendentiousness, they will merely shrug and change the subject.”
A real life example from this year here...
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/02/charlotte-county-files.html
...thanks to PapaBear3625 for the link from another thread.
Oh, and Christine from Fairfax, Virginia....THANK YOU!
Nice link.
BTTT
I’m all for setting a new tone, but time and time again the Democrats play by different rules. Setting a new tone should not be confused with allowing Democrats to lie and misreprent the truth and go unchallenged.
The "new tone" is simply an expression of the old bromide, "It takes two sides to make an argument."But you can count on the Democrats to show that Ogden Nash had it right - "in real life, it only takes one side to make an argument."
"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" --- KJV
Quite.But how different is it here in the US, where people listen to National Public Radio and think that they are being told the whole truth?
The reality is that here we talk the king's english, but the "king" is Big Journalism and its version of english is a form of Newspeak. In that language, journalists are objective journalists - meaning that they toe the comfortable establishment line that second guessing is legitimate because actual performance "in the arena" is in no way superior to journalism's criticism thereof.
In that language those who toe the line that journalists' criticism is the important thing, but who themselves are not (presently) employed as journalists, are good guys who are called "liberals," or "progressives," or "moderates." They can have any label they want, except "objective," which is reserved to working journalists and not just those (such as Walter Cronkite) whose attitudes are indistinguishable from those of working journalists.
In that language those who oppose the line that journalists' criticism is more important than performance and that second guessing is legitimate are objects of calumny. The only labels applicable to them are negative, such as "right wing," or "extreme," or - even though they prefer innovators to innovation-inhibiting bureaucrats - "conservative."
That's an awfully good label for the conceit that criticism is superior to performance.Mark Steyn: A bad case of malignant narcissism
ocregister.com ^ | 12 Aug 07 | MARK STEYN
The craving that "Everything must be different!" begins in personal psychology, and then becomes articulated in political beliefs. That's why the same people can turn into anarchists or Nazis, Communists, or today, Post-Modernists, Deconstructionists, Radical Feminists, Socialists, Hillary followers, Islamo-fascists, you name it. It is why the ACLU chooses the worst criminals to defend; they secretly adore criminals, who are the ultimate rebels against society.
"Everything must be different!" implies that changing society - a whole people and culture - for the better is , as a long-ago professor characterized his extraordinarily neat chalkboard lettering, "a mere act of will." And since the existing society and culture is the product of many prior generations, that conceit is arrogant in the extreme. It is easy to criticize - but then,The Left's Lust for Revolutionary TransformationThere 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.That is a perfect put-down of the mindset of the leftist - and it is also a perfect put-down of the arrogant "objective journalist." Mark Steyn's characterization of the phenomenon is perfect - malignant narcissism.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 . . . Theodore Roosevelt
Did you ever consider the possibility that, in and of itself, being an "objective journalist" is being an ad man for the Democrats?We can dispose of the claim of objectivity by noting, first, that if you or I were to claim that we were objective, no one would hesitate for an instant in taking that claim as evidence, not that we were actually objective, but that we were grossly self-absorbed and therefore distinctly subjective. And secondly, we observe that "objective" journalists not only label each other "objective," they assign similarly positive labels to everyone who supports the conceit that the criticism and second guessing which is the mainstay of journalism. And negative labels - "reactionary," "right wing," or merely "conservative" - to those who agree with Theodore Roosevelt when he asserted that
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arenaFinally, we note that the rules of journalistic story selection (If it bleeds, it leads, and so forth) are not rules for gaging the societal significance of stories but for gaging how useful those stories will be in attracting the attention of the public, which is significant to the bottom line of the newspaper.IOW, no matter how "objectively" you apply story selection rules which are themselves self-interested, you cannot use that "objectivity" as a measure of societal virtue. Only of your benefit to the bottom line of your own newspaper. This is true no matter how accurately you may tell the stories that "objective" process has selected, since
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin FranklinThe difference between a conservative talk show host and an "objective journalist" is that the talk show host is responsible to his audience for his topic selection and for the thoroughness of his discussion of each story. Whereas the "objective journalist" hides story selection behind self-interested rules and, by format standards, regulates audience expectations to limit the discussion even of the stories which are selected. The conservative talk show host is a man exposed, and the "objective journalist" is a man behind a curtain.
The old advertising slogan, "Progress is our most important product," has never applied to the left. Whether it is successful black schools in the United States or Third World countries where millions of people have been rising out of poverty in recent years, the left has shown little interest.
Progress in general seems to hold little interest for people who call themselves "progressives." What arouses them are denunciations of social failures and accusations of wrong-doing.
One wonders what they would do in heaven.
. . . their interest in the poor [is] greatest when the poor can be used as a focus of the left's denunciations of society.
An Investment in Failure (Thomas Sowell)
Townhall.com ^ | August 21, 2007 | Thomas Sowell
It is "the mainstream media's" business to promote - the mainstream media. And it does that by promoting alarms which suggest that it is vital to the public that they pay attention to - the mainstream media. So if "The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice [that fear of carbon combustion is unfounded]," the answer is, quite certainly,
"NO!" Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | August 20, 2007
Once, I expedited setting up an email address and was congratulated for "striking a blow for the first amendment." Seriously.
The First Amendment says nothing about journalism, it speaks of "the press." The difference?
- "The press" includes book and magazine printing as well as newspapers. And,
- the First Amendment doesn't apply to broadcast journalism - if it does, that would be news to everyone who has been arrested for broadcasting without a license.
The reality is that journalists (and fellow travelers whom journalists label "liberals" or "progressives") systematically promote the idea that journalism is identical with the public interest. The rules of journalism - "If it bleeds, it leads," "'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man,'" and "Always make your deadline," have nothing to do with what is or is not "the public interest," and everything to do with interesting the public, which is a different (and frequently contradictory) matter entirely.
Journalism interesting the public is in the business interest of journalism, so equating "interesting the public" with "the public interest" amounts to identifying the public interest with the business interest of journalism. And that is pretty much the sum of the historical reason for the Spanish American War - to say nothing of sundry other aspects of American history.
An Investment in Failure (Thomas Sowell)
Townhall.com| August 21, 2007 | Thomas Sowell
Quite.The great problem being the extent to which, pace Theodore Roosevelt, at present it is "the critic who counts," and emphatically not than "the man who is actually in the arena."
That is the natural narrative of journalists accustomed to successfully employing a mutual admiration society "proof" of their own heroic "objectivity."
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena - Theodore RooseveltTeenage Dream ... Mark Steyn
Steyn Online ^ | 21 August 2007 | Mark Steyn
In the early days of the United States, it took so long to obtain information from afar that people lived their lives more in its absence than its presence. On average it took 22 days for news to travel between New York City and Charleston . . .We knew there were cultural differences between the North and the South, but - WOW! The South was a backwater - and that's the way the powers-that-be liked it! It's truly amazing how close the South came to winning the Civil War. Unless you read about people like General McClellan designing a blitzkrieg strategy and then implementing it as a sitzkrieg . . .The result of such physical dspersion was economic and cultural diversity. Distance encouraged differences. . . . The government [the framers] created enshrined the opportunity for many of these regional differences (including slavery) to continue . . .
During the second third of the 19th Century, technology began to chew away at the geographic buffer that had allowed those differences to flourish . . .
For a brief period the longest rail line in the nation emanated from Charleston, South Carolina. Responding to the threat of contamination of local customs and states rights by such high-speed intercourse, however, Southern state legislators enacted laws prohibiting rail lines from crossing state borders.
. . . One of the principal opponents of [a proposed telegraph line to New Orleans to expedite news from the Mexican-American War] was states rights champion John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who challenged the constitutionality of the the federal government extending such communications through the South.
. . . the Census Report of 1850 featured . . . a map of all the existing telegraph lines. North of the Mason-Dixon Line it looked like a spider's web. South of that demarcation, however, were only two threads, one running down the east coast and the other down the Mississippi Valley.
The history of journalism and the First Amendment has long been a particular interest of mine. This article is excellent for its summary of the legislation and the court findings relevant to the "Fairness Doctrine."Apparently journalism was provincial and openly partisan until the advent of the telegraph. The telegraph was revolutionary in its ability to disseminate information across the continent and around the world. Indeed, the conservative American South saw the revolutionary implications of the telegraph - and actually prevented the propagation of long-distance telegraphy and rail lines in the South (and that obviously had a major effect on the ability of the South to wage war against the heavily wired and rail-interconnected North).
But in comparison with the modern broadband Internet connection, telegraphy was unimaginably expensive. Hence, the advent of the Associated Press as a way of sharing the expense of news gathering and dissemination. I take it that it was the homogenizing effect of AP which unified the perspective of journalism. In any case, journalism now is just as partisan as ever but, being unified in its perspective and claiming "objectivity" for its output, much more arrogant. There are many outlets, but they are competitive only in the way that the Yankees and the Red Sox are competitive. The big picture is that, when it comes to promoting their games and their league, they are in league with each other.
Essentially, "liberal" and "progressive" are simply code words for people who agree that the public interest, and the interest of journalism - which is to interest and impress the public - coincide. Just as "objective journalist" is a code for a person with same opinion as a "liberal," who happen to be employed as a reporter. The "liberal" and the "objective journalist" are in agreement that NOTHING actually matters except PR. And the "liberal" and the "objective journalist" accordingly agree that "objective journalists" should define what is "fair" for their opponents - whom they label "conservatives" or "right wingers" - to be able say on the radio. They also agree that "objective journalists" should be able to exercise free speech during election season - but that others should simply shut up.
The First Amendment looks better - and the Fairness Doctrine looks worse - as technology progresses.
Well, that encompasses Rush Limbaugh.
He puts on a good entertaining show but I'd be a retard to go around quoting him.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and IllegitimateWell, that encompasses Rush Limbaugh.
Certainly Rush Limbaugh is a journalist, in the sense that he puts out a daily report on whatever interests him, and - he therefore assumes - will interest his audience. But, just as certainly, in the eyes of the MSM Rush is "not a journalist, not objective."He puts on a good entertaining show but I'd be a retard to go around quoting him.
Would you go around quoting Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite? That can really make you a retard!
No more than I would quote any media hack, Limbaugh included.
You begin to see the light!!!
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.