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.

If ~~one~~ Peter Arnet is fired from CNN, where does ~~one~~ he go?

CNBC, I think . ..
It's an article of the journalists' religion that the power of PR overwhelms the memory of the sheeple. They concentrate on the present moment, and not on the past--because the past has an untidy habit of turning out more positive than the extreme negativity of journalism would ever suggest.
A journalist just won't debate the issue with you, they'll change the subject to whatever the latest "breaking news" is. The day after the "Gore Wins Florida" fiasco journalism was abuzz about--the fact that it was Bush's cousin who first--and correctly--called "Bush Wins Florida."
Their fascination with that also betrayed, as Ann Coulter pointed out in Slander, the fact that their fast calls of Gore wins and slow calls of Bush wins had been a conscious strategy to give Gore a PR boost where the polls were still open. The journalists were accusing the Bush cousin of exactly what they in fact had done, were in fact still doing.
The rules of commercial journalistic success creates the PR tailwind which liberal politicians exploit (IOW, both are demagogic). Liberalism simply follows journalism, adopting journalism as a mainstay element of the Democratic Party. The reason for the Democratic Party's refusal to let go of the "Gore Beats Bush" scenarios is blindingly obvious.
It is journalism which still can't believe that they got Gore within 500 votes of victory in Florida, but couldn't put him over the top!

CNN GIVES CHRISTIANE 'PRIVATE' DRESS DOWN

Your argument might have packed a bigger punch thirty years ago when the broadcast networks had a virtual monopoly on audio and video news. Maybe it will be stronger twenty or thirty years from now if media concentration continues. But in our day, cable, satellite, and the Internet have cut substantially into the broadcast news oligopoly. Look at the declining ratings of the big networks nightly news programs. When you can get the news on your telephone, it may be a sign that times have changed.

Yes, and talk radio too. But the demographics of broadcast viewership are probably skewed toward the lower economic class--those whom the limosine liberals seek to exploit for votes in their effort to seperate themselves from the middle class constituency of the Republican Party. (note that it is not only the "poor" cities but the affluent suburbs which constitute Gore country; Bush won a majority only in the counties which are dominated by the actual middle class.

I'd agree that broadcast news is mostly entertainment. And unbiased news is an impossibility. But there are better and worse news outlets.

Better or worse--or bad and worse? i get the Wall Street Journal and I love its editorial page, but you have to look out for the spin everywhere else in that paper just like all the rest. And that is IMHO because the nature of free competitive journalism is to report news that you can't ignore--"Is Your Drinking Water Safe?" rather than "Boy Scouts Learn About Honor." There exists conservative commentary but no conservative commercial journalism; even Fox News Channel is not conservative but "Fair and Balanced"--giving conservatives an even break in commentary is considered "right-wing" by establishment journalism's standards.
And in news itself rather than commentary, FNC is just as superficial as the rest of them, just not as negative. For example, FNC went just as gaga over the rescue of Jessica Lynch as the rest of the pack. Fine, it was an interesting story--but that militarily insignificant event got equal billing with the news that coalition forces had brushed aside what had apparently been a defensible position the Iraqis held south of Baghdad. The fact was that the dreaded "sandstorm quagmire" had helped destroy the Iraqi army by suckering it into attempting to maneuver--thus exposing the positions of all its vehicles to JStars radar, and allowing the US to bring its precision munitions to bear on those vehicles.

Things took a wrong turn when those labelled the quality press or media began to think that "quality" meant holding the same opinions, rather than aspiring to truth.

What happened was that journalism learned--reached a concensus--to not engage in flame wars but to style concensus "objectivity." And, thereby, to become the establishment. From the self-interested POV of the members of the establishment, it was the right thing to do. IOW, to sell the "sizzle" of objectivity and "the right to know"--but deliver the "steak" of concensus superficiality and negativity.

First Amendment freedom of the press allows those who know the truth to print the truth provided that they are willing and financially able to do so. And that has undoubtedly been the dominant factor in preserving whatever remains of our democratic republic. In fact, freedom of the press has gradually reduced the abuse of minorities which existed in America as it did anywhere else (indeed, elsewhere those who were not abused were--in gross population of the world still are--in the minority).
So on the great issue of protection of we-the-people from Saddam-style tyranny, freedom of the press has been a success. On smaller issues, however--even on the protection of freedom of the press itself--the record of the free press is mixed. What freedom of the press could not do--what it forbade the government to attempt--was to assure that those who were willing and financially able to print would know and choose to print the truth.
Unfortunately but inevitably, the big newspapers which survived in the competitive arena did so not by competing on relevance and reliability but by going along and getting along with their competitors. The big newspapers survived and grew by systematically herding together around a concensus which enabled all members to evade responsibility for editorial content. This consensus labeled itself "journalistic objectivity," and produced "codes of journalistic ethics" which sound as wonderful in theory--and are about as relevant to practice--as the old Soviet constitution.
"Objective journalism" was the establishment even before the advent of broadcasting.

"When illegitimate authority rears its ugly head, it's time to take our country back."

Congress long ago presumed to determine--through a "quasi-judicial" (read, "quasi-constitutional') agency--whose "speech" should be promoted "in the public interest." Those who received from that agency the grant of a presumption of veracity/significance have, not surprisingly, exploited it to shamelessly promote themselves.
The grant of a presumption of veracity/significance amounts, in the realm of public relations, to a title of nobility. That would have amazed and apalled the framers of the Constitution.
But it was remarkably simple to institute and gain public acceptance for the FCC and its creature, broadcast journalism. After all--apart from the direct and overt involvement of the government in this case--the self-same swindle had already been instituted by private enterprise in the realm of print.

Freedom of speech. Period. WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, September 17, 2003 | Joseph Farah

Among incumbents, only Clinton and Reagan were reelected after submitting to live TV debates--and Reagan had serious trouble in the first one. Partly, I believe, that is because reporter-moderated presidential TV debates are creepy--even the non-incumbent candidates should be above being led around by the nose by a reporter.

And since reporters are liberals, it stands to reason that the reporter moderation of debates would put any Republican seriously on the defensive. Bush should prefer not to need debates. But if they are inevitable, he should demand that the debates be

moderated only by a chess timer controling the two microphones, that there be
no restriction on the use of notes, computers, or aides, and that
the total duration of the event should be two or even three hours long.

The first demand would dispense with the positioning of the president below a reporter in the heirarchy, and prevent the moderator from changing the subject immediately after the challenger got in a zinger.

The other demands would reduce the pressure on the participants and reduce the need for preparation time out of the president's busy schedule. The effect of the availability of notes is obvious. The effect of a lengthy rather than short debate puts the premium on coherence of vision rather than on the sound bite; no amount of cramming will change your vision or its fundamental coherence or lack thereof.

Reporter moderation, time pressure, and lack of notes are all calculated to produce a "gaffe", especially from a Republican and especially from an incumbent. The president should reject all of them.

And the president should challenge the Democratic nominee to an Internet debate along the lines of FreeRepublic, in which the participants would all be aides of the candidates, and the candidates would take full responsibility for all postings. That would be conducted over a period of days or weeks, would delineate the parties' positions with clarity and precision, and would be essentially gaffe-proof. All those are reasons that reporters would scorn it, of course . . .

It would also raise the possibility of indirect participation by Freepers, whose posts in response to the Democratic postings would be available to the Republican participants in timely fashion. The ready indirect participation of we-the-people (think, college students) would be a difficult selling point for the Democrats to rebut.

If a presidential internet debate preceded a presidential TV debate, the participants would tend to use the results of the former as a script for the latter. Since the candidates traditionally use scripts anyway, having them preprinted--and not having to pretend to respond to an irrelevant question while reciting them--would all be to the good.

Gotta disagree with you on a few points.

"Kids, aspiring newhounds, are taught that "objectivity" is impossible. Kids are taught that rather than _trying_ to be objective, the reasonable thing to do is to choose a point-of-view and deal with it. (I heard a journalist on talk radio just yesterday discussing this point.)"

Well, no pun intended, this is news to me. My professor (Western Kentucky University) pounded objectivity into our heads. He told us that while absolute objectivity isn't always possible, it should be the goal. Before you write my professor off as some Backwater State U. hick, realize that Western has perennially one of the top rated broadcasting schools in the nation, rivaling Missouri and Washington for top honors. What happens to some young cub reporter after he or she goes off to the "real" world isn't necessarily the fault of the professor that spawned him or her. It's that of the news director, the program director, or peer pressure from fellow reporters, either at the station where he or she works, or at competing stations.

Story selection is one area where it can be hard to hide bias...even C-SPAN has to pick and choose which events to which they'll take their cameras, and these events are often chosen by the news director's personal biases. But, if the news director is a professionsal, who values truth more than advancing an agenda, even this problem can be overcome. When I was ran a radio news operatrion, I demanaded objectivity of my reporters and anchors. I had two die-hard liberals, one die-hard conservative, and one libertarian on the full-time staff, as well as my own conservative-libertarian beliefs to contend with. To my staff's credit, they did a great job of telling the who, what, where, when and how, and leaving the why up to the listeners. They would cut a number of reports on any given story, telling it from both perspectives, but always including at least a line or two from the opposition. Objectivity can be achieved, it just takes professionalism on the part of the news staff and management.

"But our culture provides NO MECHANISM AT ALL for removing journalists who prove themselve to be scum."

Sure it does, but listeners, readers and viewers have to be proactive in getting scumbag reporters fired. Bombard the station or paper with complaints, and make sure they're good ones. Simply saying you don't like your blow dried, bleached blonde, dingbat reporterette's anti-gun bias (for example) won't get you anything but a form letter reply from the station, taking her side. But if you cite why she's wrong, how that reflects poorly on the station's credibility, and that you're going to take your viewership or listenership, and your support for the station's sponsors elsewhere, you'll get their attention. Nothing speaks louder to a station's management than money. But you have to get a number of people to help you, because one lone complaint doesn't usually get past a general manager's circular file.

So, if Americans want to continue to be lazy and just accept what they're offered from the criminal, liberal mainstream news media, that's exactly what they'll get. But we don't have to settle for the leftist dogma we're being fed.

"Also, there are serious political problems with journalism in the modern world."

Yes there are, but only because we let it happen. Think of how CNN and MSNBC are trying to copy Fox these days...they're failing, but they're trying. Sooner or later it'll occur to CommieLib News that the reason they're getting their lunch eaten is not FNC's young, hip style, but their attempt to be "fair and balanced". Even FNC can't be completely objective, but believe me, they do a much better job of telling both sides of a story than any of their competition, be it cable or broadcast.

The American news consumer has more power than he thinks. He can move mountains, but not by himself, and not just by sitting around and complaining about it.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

I don't know about the timing of the tape's release, but it is true that the first plane crash was not shown live on TV . . . since anyone who was broadcasting a live picture of a building that had been there for decades and presumably would be there for many more decades) would have some 'splainin' to do!.
However, it is beyond any doubt that Bush was simply making an inadvertent error in his words, the same kind that any of us would be "caught in" several times if we had a camera trained on us for several hours' worth of interviews. Bush obviously meant to say something along the lines of, "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw where the airplane hit the tower..." Instead he said, "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower..." BFD. Alterman's just trying to gin up a conspiracy theory because of his pathological Bush Hatred.

Let the bastard seethe. Two words, Eric: November 2004. If you think you felt pain after Florida 2000, Alter Boy ... if you saw The End of the World in the 2002 elections, just you wait. You ain't seen NOTHIN' yet.

9/11/01: Where Was George? (Alterman 'Bush-hating' alert)(your #24)

Reporter moderation, time pressure, and lack of any notes in a presidential debate are all calculated to produce a "gaffe", especially from a Republican and especially from an incumbent.
The president should reject all of them, preempting the call for a "great debate" by demanding a truly illuminating political exchange over the Internet . . . a "debate" conducted weekly over a period of a full day by the candidates' staffs, with the candidates taking full responsibility for each posting.
Each candidate would commit to reading each of their postings into the audio record for possible use in campaign ads by the opposition.
Such a debate would have essentially no potential for producing inadvertent flubs, and would reveal where the candidates acutally stood on the issues. And could be participated in vicariously by Freepers and college students, whose internal postings would be available in timely fashion to the candidates' staffs.

Story selection is one area where it can be hard to hide bias

IMHO when it come to an effort at objectivity, story selection doesn't make it hard--story selection is a show-stopper.
Most days, to state the blindingly obvious, nothing unusual happens that remotely compares in importance with, for example, a provision of the Constitution. But because journalism systematically exaggerates the importance of the new, journalism has blinders on when it comes to what is important in the long run.
And that is a perspective (to use a neutral term rather than the perjorative "bias") which is embedded in the very definition of journalism. An anticonservative perspective.
And even if you believe that journalism is or can be conducted without laying most of the emphasis on the negative (which insinuates that the powers-that-be are insufficiently benevolent or insufficiently powerful), the superficiality of journalism has that inherent effect. Most good things that happen (e.g., the completion of the World Trade Center) are foreseeable and thus only somewhat newsworthy compared with the malicious destruction of the WTC on 9/11.
No, you cannot choose your news stories carefully and avoid an anticonservative perspective; once you decided to be a journalist rather than a nonfiction book writer you have already incorporated a superficial and negative perspective into the very basis of your operation. Thus a "balanced" journalism which gives equal weight to liberal and conservative perspectives looks "conservative" to the typical journalist--and yet predictably is not conservative enough to optimally predict future historical perspective of presently-current events.

"MHO when it come to an effort at objectivity, story selection doesn't make it hard--story selection is a show-stopper."

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by story selection being a show stopper. What I meant when I said that story selection makes it hard to hide bias is that when a news director makes a decision about which stories are included in a 'cast, or how the stories are stacked, he places value on each story. His biases are revelaed in how much importance he assigns to each story. A liberal news director will put more value on a story about a bill being debated to close the "gun show loophole" than he will the companion interview with a gun show operator, where he explains how there's no such thing as a "gun show loophole". The news director has given equal time to both stories, yes, and therefore it can be said he's making an effort to be fair and balanced. But his bias against guns is revealed in how he stacks those stories within the 'cast. Of course, he could make an effrot at objectivity by stacking the next hour's newscast the other way around...the gun show operator first, then the "loophole" bill.

"Most days, to state the blindingly obvious, nothing unusual happens that remotely compares in importance with, for example, a provision of the Constitution. But because journalism systematically exaggerates the importance of the new, journalism has blinders on when it comes to what is important in the long run."

The first thing we need to do here is differentiate between "news" and "journalism". In radio, we never had time to be "journailists", because "news" was happening all around all the time. The wreck that had traffic backed up for miles on the interstate may not have the same importance as the "gun show loophole" bill, but it is more immediately important, because it affects how people get home from work. "Journalists", those self-righteous TV and print rodents who see themsevles as the saviors of the world, do have the time and column space to deal with more important stories than the house fire at 5th and Elm, but unfortunately they use thier medium to advance their own personal political agendas, or those of their management. Those agendas are overwhelmingly liberal, as anyone with a brain knows. I guess what I'm trying to do here is make sure you don't hold anything against the radio news medium, where the reporting absolutely has to be about what's happening now.

"And even if you believe that journalism is or can be conducted without laying most of the emphasis on the negative (which insinuates that the powers-that-be are insufficiently benevolent or insufficiently powerful), the superficiality of journalism has that inherent effect."

I'm really not sure what you're saying here...remember, I'm a product of the Kentucky public education system! Now, if you're commenting on the emphasis on bad news reporting, as opposed to focusing on the positive, well, that's just the nature of news. Folks have tried a couple of times now to respond to what they believe to be the demands of the public for "good news" programming, only to fall flat on their face. Why is that? Because despite what Joe and Jane Sixpack say they want to hear, "Man Bites Dog" is interesting, while "Man Pets Dog" is not, because it happens thousands of times a day. That's just the nature of news...the negative is more compelling than the positive.

"No, you cannot choose your news stories carefully and avoid an anticonservative perspective; once you decided to be a journalist rather than a nonfiction book writer you have already incorporated a superficial and negative perspective into the very basis of your operation."

Again, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but I think you're equating negative and superficial stories with liberalism? Well, yes, liberals are generally negative and superficial, but that doesn't necessarily translate to news stories themselves. Why is a negagive story liberal, per se? Why is a superficial story liberal, per se? Radio stories, because of time constraints, are pretty much always superficial, that is, in 30 seconds you don't have time for much more than who, what, where, when and how. That in itself is neither liberal nor conservative, it's just plain objective.

"Thus a "balanced" journalism which gives equal weight to liberal and conservative perspectives looks "conservative" to the typical journalist--and yet predictably is not conservative enough to optimally predict future historical perspective of presently-current events."

Okay, you had me, then you lost me. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that balance to a liberal, or even to someone who's used to biased, slanted liberal mainstream reporting, does sound conservative. That's why FNC is getting called a conservative mouthpiece, when it's not. You lost me with your last sentence...

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

I think you're equating negative and superficial stories with liberalism? . . . Why is a negagive story liberal, per se? Why is a superficial story liberal, per se?

Once upon a time I was a "news radio" listener. But I read some of Reed Irvine's "AIM reports," and relatively quickly became convinced that journalism was consistently liberal. So thoroughly convinced, that AIM reports became a "twice-told tale," boring. I let my AIM subscription lapse, and went into a gestation period of about ten years, during which I puzzled over the issue AIM never touched. Who, What, Where, When, and How AIM would have down pat--but WHY? I hit on the point that, as you put it,

Radio stories, because of time constraints, are pretty much always superficial, that is, in 30 seconds you don't have time for much more than who, what, where, when and how . . .
the emphasis on bad news reporting, as opposed to focusing on the positive, [is] just the nature of news. Folks have tried a couple of times now to respond to what they believe to be the demands of the public for "good news" programming, only to fall flat on their face.

. . . That's just the nature of news...the negative is more compelling than the positive.

That is the nature of the news--but you have not described edification but entertainment. Is there anything necessarily wrong with entertainment? Not unless you think you are being edified, and you are only being entertained. And, it must be added, the name of the person who needs edification--and is all too readily gulled into accepting entertainment masquerading as edification--is "legion, for we are many."

That in itself is neither liberal nor conservative, it's just plain objective.

The question has to be asked, "Negative towards what/whom? The answer is, negative to the reader, for the reader must read with fascination or horror and be unable to ignore it. Negative, that is, toward we-the-people, the people/institutions upon which we must depend.
The air and water are dirty and getting worse, you are going to lose your job, the country is weak and defenseless, the Soviet Union is going to surpass us economically and militarily, the police are going to brutalize you for no reason, the Soviet Union is going to attack, our president is a reckless adventurer who is gonna get us all killed.
Does that sound like the competitve journalism of America, or the censored (hence conservative) press of the Soviet Union? The answer, of course, is "both." What was conservative in the Soviet Union was anticonservative, even radical, in America. But "objective?" Hardly!
But, you will ask, doesn't all that negativity hit liberals as well as conservatives? No, not at all. The explanation is simple; journalism's negativity produces a propaganda wind, and liberal polititians sail down it. Whatever journalism says is wrong, liberal politicians say is even worse--but they will fix it! 'Course their nostrums made things worse before, but this time it's gonna work!

"Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.

These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.

But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.

During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success?"

Media's Dark Cloud a Danger
(Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq)

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 9/22/03 | Jim Marshall

-- U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

you're equating negative and superficial stories with liberalism? Well, yes, liberals are generally negative and superficial, but that doesn't necessarily translate to news stories themselves. Why is a negagive story liberal, per se? Why is a superficial story liberal, per se? Radio stories, because of time constraints, are pretty much always superficial, that is, in 30 seconds you don't have time for much more than who, what, where, when and how. That in itself is neither liberal nor conservative, it's just plain objective.

From this thread, my #192 (see "TO 192" button below)

Ron F: I'm afraid that this implies a equivalency that I don't accept; i.e., that negativity and superficiality is limited only to liberals.

Liberals--journalists and those who sail down journalism's prevailing wind for political profit--are negative toward the people and institutions upon whom/which we-the-people do and must depend.

Is your water safe to drink?
Is the supermarket meat department unsanitary?
Are the police incompetent to control crime?
Are the cops arbitrary and brutal?

That is the sort of negative questioning beloved of journalists and other liberals.

As to superificality among conservatives, that is undoubtedly to be found among rank-and-file voters. It is however subject to withering journalistic scrutiny, and therefore has no survival value for the conservative politician or spokesman. In the prevailing journalistic environment you really have to have your ducks in a row to defend a conservative position. Mouthing liberal platitudes, OTOH, is gutless--perfectly safe, if all you are worried about is what Dan Rather will say about you.

* Disapproval ratings for Governor Davis remain high (65%), and 53% of likely voters say they would vote to remove him from office.

This recall began gaining momentum within weeks of the reelection of Governor Davis. Yet essentially nothing changed, except that a coverup inevitably ended when the new budget had to come out.
Obviously that reelection was an error of the system, an institutional failure. My question is one of general principle:
What institution should have behaved differently, and how should that institution be reformed?
To say that it's the voters' fault is to beg the question of why the voters made the error.
No, it isn't the voters' fault--either:
The choices the voters were presented with implicates both the Democratic and Republican parties in malfeasance or,
the information with which the Davis Administration and journalism gave the voters was inadequate or even deceptive.
Just like the information which journalism gave the voters of the Florida Panhandle before their polls were closed in 2000 was flawed. And just like the economic information the Clinton Commerce Department deceived the entire country in 2000.

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.