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.

A further point should be made here: collectivism means the end of truth. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the ends selected by those in control; it is essential that the people should come to regard these ends as their own. This is brought about by propaganda and by complete control of all sources of information.
The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language.
The worst sufferer in this respect is the word ‘liberty’. It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said that wherever liberty as we know it has been destroyed, this has been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people. Even among us we have planners who promise us a ‘collective freedom’, which is as misleading as anything said by totalitarian politicians. ‘Collective freedom’ is not the freedom of the members of society, but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society that which he pleases. This is the confusion of freedom with power carried to the extreme.
It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced. Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken support of the regime. As Sidney and Beatrice Webb report of the position in every Russian enterprise: ‘Whilst the work is in progress, any public expression of doubt that the plan will be successful is an act of disloyalty and even of treachery because of its possible effect on the will and efforts of the rest of the staff.’

Control extends even to subjects which seem to have no political significance. The theory of relativity, for instance, has been opposed as a ‘Semitic attack on the foundation of Christian andNordic physics’ and because it is ‘in conflict with dialectical materialism and Marxist dogma’. Every activity must derive its justification from conscious social purpose. There must be no spontaneous, unguided activity, because it might produce results which cannot be foreseen and for which the plan does not provide.

The Road to Serfdom (Link to the Readers' Digest Condensed Version in PDF!)

[Moyers] has gotten rich off supping at the public trough, treating PBS as his personal fiefdom (in part because he filled his friend Lyndon B. Johnson's head with the bad idea for PBS) while violating the law mandating balance that set it up years ago.

Not just PBS but broadcasting as a concept is based on the idea that the government should enable us to get the word. But the First Amendment says something different:
Amendment I
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.
Each aspect of freedom mentioned in the First Amendment reinforces all the others. The federal government is explicitly forbidden to conduct the religious discussion. But the fact that government noninterference in religion, politics, or any other public discussion is mandated in a single sentence rebuts the conceit that bright lines can separate religion, journalism, and politics. The public discussion ought not to be conducted by the government.
The law purports to assure fairness in PBS, and the "Fairness Doctrine" purported to assure fairness in all broadcasting. But he natural tendency of government is to censor dissent.
So naturally, government "fairness" censors dissent. Government attempts to enforce fairness in radio had the effect of enforcing as the Establishment the inherently arrogant, negative, and superficial perspective of "objective" journalism.
And it is not to be thought that what the Establishment labels "dissent" necessarily is such in fact; "establishment dissent" is a classic oxymoron. In America only those whom the Establishment labels "conservative" truly dissent from the Establishment.
Tired of the PBS (Kenneth Tomlinson is doing heroic work.)
The American Prowler ^ | 5/3/2005 | George Neumayr

"Objective" journalism is the Establishment in America. It exists as a coherent entity worthy of the appellation, "Establishment", because the things which all journalism hold in common - the things which make journalism profitable - are things which have a planted socialist axiom within them:

Journalism is superficial because of its deadlines (a quickie book is much better researched and will be more certain to have enduring significance than a news article).
Journalism is negative, because it's the easiest way to grab the attention of an audience.
And journalism is arrogant in claiming the virtues of objectivity and courage.
Journalism is not courageous but cowardly; journalism is the establishment and it picks on those who have no means to effectively respond (in a word, Republicans). Journalism is a mutual-admiration society; mainstream journalists cannot bring themselves to question the objectivity of other mainstream journalists because that would put the Establishment, and especially their own membership in it, at risk.
Journalism glorifies "dissent" - but, pardon the oxymoron, Journalism glorifies Establishment "dissent" by such as Ward Churchill. That "dissent" agrees with Establishment journalism and is perfectly safe from journalistic criticism.
Actual courageous dissent will get you labeled by mainstream journalism, all right - but the label you are tagged with will not be "courageous dissident" but "right wing extremist."
VANITY: My college's newspaper pays tribute to Ward Chuchill

These are the actions of out-of-control ideological fanatics, not of a legitimate news organization.

Journalism is politics, and anyone who claims otherwise is selling something.
Journalism was politics when Jefferson and Hamilton were sponsoring competing newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles and Journalism is politics now. Journalism always will be politics. If you think you see journalism which is not politics, you are actually seeing journalism which expresses your politics.
What the article speaks of as "a legitimate news organization" is Tooth Fairy journalism. It'd be nice if the Tooth Fairy would pay my electric bill, and it'd be nice if "a legitimate news organization" would tell everyone exactly what was important in current events. But what we actually have is concensus journalism - a go-along-and-get-along concensus rather than courageous open partisanship is what passes for wisdom - excuse me, "objectivity."
It is not merely the BBC, and not merely the BBC and NPR and PBS which are illegitimate government-sponsored partisanship. No more than those unworthies could CBS, NBS, or any of the other BS broadcast networks operate without government favor. All require the censorship of the many so that those few might "give us the word" from their Olympian perch.
Broadcast journalism is unnecessary - the Constitution and the British Parliamentary system long predate the advent of broadcasting - and broadcast journalism is illegitimate government-sponsored meddling in politics. In sum, an abuse of government power.
WHO'S HOT & WHO'S NOT! (Iconoclast)
Iconoclast ^ | R. Bastiat

To claim objectivity is to claim wisdom. To claim wisdom is to reject the idea that you have anything to learn - thus, to reject the need to listen to the facts and logic of others.
Obviously you cannot get away with that sort of arrogance without power. PBS is part of the Establishment which has that power - and uses its power to maintain itself. That Establishment is Objective Journalism^TM, and membership in that Establishment is available for a price. The price of membership in the Establishment is conformity to it, and furtherance of its agenda.
The first objective of Objective Journalism^TM is self-preservation, of itself and its members. To do that it must protect its brand - which it aggressively uses its propaganda power to do. That is why the objectivity of, say, CBS News is never questioned by the Establishment.
Never mind that 60 Minutes was caught in bed with a dead girl, a live boy, a smoking gun, and a hand in the cookie jar. CBS can institute an "independent investigation" of the "TANG Memos" for the purpose of not learning that the "memos" were patent frauds. And the rest of the Establishment studiously avoids noticing a thing. There can be no piling on a "competitor" for a failing like that.
There is only one cardinal sin to the Establishment, and that is breaking ranks with the Establishment. Piling on a member of the Establishment is just not done. Now if a Bernard Goldberg, say, breaks ranks and announces that broadcast journalism is tendentious then he is not a member of the Establishment from that very moment, if not indeed retroactively. It is not failing to make a good-faith effort at objectivity which excludes you from the Establishment; if that were the case there would be no members of it. But pointing out tendentiousness in the product of a member of the Objective Journalism^TM Establishment.
You are a member of the Establishment if you are useful to the Establishment. You are useful to the Establishment if you facilitate the profitable operation of its members. And the profitable operation of the members of Objective Journalism^TM depends on second-guessing and cheap criticism of the people and institutions upon whom the ~~suckers~~ public depends. Because Objective Journalism^TM is simply cheap talk.
You do not have to be a journalist to be a member of the Objective Journalism^TM Establishment; all you have to be is willingly useful to its cheap self-aggrandizing criticism of the people we depend on. For example, if you announce that an innocuous chemical used to help produce high quality food inexpensively is a threat to public health, you are useful to the Establishment. And if you are critical of politicians who want the economy to grow smoothly and who favor values which will facilitate the growth of the middle class, you are useful to Objective Journalism^TM and are a member of the Establishment.
And that is why there is a revolving door between journalism and the Democratic Party. And why Republicans - be they never so numerous in seats of political power - are not accepted in the Establishment. Republicans are useful to Objective Journalism^TM only as bogeymen.
PBS "Objective?" Our Future ^ | 5-11-05 | TheRobb7

No competent lawyer could read Gonzales' opinion as a rebuke of "judicial activism" on the part of Justice Owen. Yet the mainstream media have consistently repeated as a "fact" the Democratic talking point that Gonzales so criticized Justice Owen. This is an extreme case of journalistic malpractice. And, without this absurd fabrication, the Democrats have nothing to justify their fiibuster of Justice Owen. Is anyone in the mainstream media paying attention to what top legal experts are telling them?

The fundamental fact is that, to "liberals", the facts don't matter. The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR. Another way of putting it is that "there is no such thing as 'the long run'." That is, "in the long run" - when the chickens threaten to come to roost - we will change the subject.
Changing the subject is the fundamental propaganda power of the Establishment which is Objective Journalism^TM; what an acolyte of the Establishment said yesterday need not, as the Clinton mouthpieces used to say during the troubles (1993-2001), be "operative" today.
It's Unanimous: The Democrats Are Sliming Justice Owen
Powerline ^ | 5/12/05

Wendy's has offered a $100,000 reward and has said it has lost millions in sales since Ayala made the claim

And why, pray tell, did Wendy's lose all that revenue? Why, because Objective Journalism^TM hyped the story, of course!
It's far from obvious what sanction can be put on this behavior by Objective Journalism^TM, of course. First Amendment, and all that.
But the bottom line is that this is hardly the first case on record in which Objective Journalism^TM in general - and broadcast journalism in particular - has been positively detrimental to society.
And of course the First Amendment doesn't apply to broadcasting . . .
Finger Traced to Woman Who Blamed Wendy's
Yahoo News ^ | 5/13/2005 | GREG SANDOVAL/AP/a>.

even if the report were true, the magazine was highly irresponsible when it published the report. It could have only one effect: inflaming the wrath of hundreds of millions of Muslims against America.

If an American interrogator of Japanese prisoners desecrated the most sacred Japanese symbols during World War II, it is inconceivable that any American media would have published this information. While American news media were just as interested in scoops in 1944 as they are now, they also had a belief that when America was at war, publishing information injurious to America and especially to its troops was unthinkable.

This is not a particularly good example; a better one would be allegations of war crimes by Americans in WWII. And I cannot but think of the sacking of General Patton on grounds of slapping a couple of shellshocked American soldiers at a hospital. Reporters made that a cause, and got Patton taken out of the planned landing at Anzio. As a result the landing, which achieved surprise initally, was not pressed aggressively enough and instead of being a victory the operation was allowed to degenerate into a bloody stalemate costing 100,000 American lives - as much as the whole war in the Pacific consumed.

Such a value is not only not honored by today's news media, the opposite is more likely the case. The mainstream media oppose the war in Iraq and loathe the Bush administration. Whatever weakens the war effort and embarrasses the president raises a news source's prestige among its domestic, and especially foreign, peers.

I am put in mind of Michael Medved's point about Hollywood: Hollywood feigns cultural innocence on the one hand, and on the other hand it glories in making films hostile to American tradition and culture. Hollywood would rather give an Oscar to an R-rated flop than a G-rated profitable hit.
The obvious point of drawing that parallel is that "the media" - but not including "talk radio" and the Internet - promotes an external rationale and an internal rationale, and the two are different and inconsistent. The external rationale of journalism is "satisfaction of the public's right to know," and the external rationale of Hollywood is "satisfying the public demand for entertainment." But those turn out to be half-truths; "the public" doesn't have a "right to know," there is only a right of individuals to hold and promote their ideas, beliefs, and ideals without discrimination by the government.
And examples keep cropping up - CNN's "Tailwind" and its admittedly propagandistic coverage of Saddam's government, CBS News' use of obvious forgeries purporting to be TANG memos (and its earlier hit pieces on the US military in Vietnam), an intentionally sabotaged exploding truck gas tank in another famous network hit piece, you name it - that journalism "would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth." That is what it means to "make a difference."
The Republican Party is slandered as "the party of the rich" but it is not really that; the Republican Party is the party of responsibility and of bottom lines. The rich (and, as Eliza Dolittle's father in My Fair Lady illustrates, also the poor) can in their own ways evade responsibility; it is the middle class which is driven by hope and fear to adhere to self discipline and the discipline of the bottom line. The Republican Party is the party of the military officer who must make life-or-death decisions in the fog of war, and of the entrepreneur and the small businessman - and of everyone who respects the discipline and value that such professions represent.
The Democratic Party is the party of the second guess, the party of symbolism over substance, the party of PR. It is the party of the natural allies of establishment journalism. And of those who, for whatever psychological or seemingly practical reason, are willing to be patronized by them.

Newsweek and the rioters - (of all world religions, only Muslims can riot without being criticized!) TOWNHALL.COM ^ | MAY 17, 2005 | DENNIS PRAGER">Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

He certainly rips a strip off of Newsweak.

Yes, Rush was really on a roll yesterday! He came right to the edge of adopting the philosophy on Objective Journalism^TM which my #7 reflects, and which I've been developing since 9/11/01 in the ongoing thread,
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
The transcript referenced by this thread will become "subscription only" around 6PM today when today's transcript goes up, right? I read the whole transcript, and it was very good as spoken English but not tightly structured as written English. That's natural, that is life. In the same way that it's natural for FR postings to have typos in them sometimes, even tho we do edit them. It's informal. But I read the whole transcript, and it defied easy summarization.
In a different part of his program he referenced a NY Times writer (Friedman?) who said that the MSM had become a political party. And that is my take, exactly. It's not a problem that a given newspaper has a political perspective, that's what the First Amendment protects. And that is exactly what the founders of the Republic actually engaged in - Hamilton and Jefferson waged their political contests in newspapers which they sponsored. In a very real sense those newspapers were the vanguard of political parties (which the framers of the Constitution had actually hoped to avoid).
But, as I noted in #7, the reality today is that the MSM coheres as a single Establishment, and that is an unfair and virulently tendentious political party. That political party is the actual leadership of the Democratic Party. And that is the real Establishment - the one which put "protesters" on TV during Vietnam in order to mouth the ridiculous notion that "the Establishment" was something which opposed the MSM.
I sincerely hope that McCain-Feingold will prove to be the Gettysburg of the MSM, its high water mark. Feingold is unconstitutional, root and branch, and I hope that it will implode before the next election and be swept away, and perhaps most of the preexisting CFR legislation with it.
Newsweek Lies, Who Dies?( America's Anchorman)
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | 5/17/05 | Rush Limbaugh

Most people have no idea what goes on even in Journalism 101. 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.)

Having actually taken Journalism 101, and subsequent courses, I can pretty much say that's bunk. The truth is that journalism as a major is rather dry and techincal. 101 basically covers the basic writing styles, pyramid, inverse pyramid, some basic headline stuff, how to calculate the word count into inches, etc etc. Then you get to move on to the really fun courses like intro editing, which is copy-editing and is about exciting as watching water sit in glass, and about as political as the average poodle. Don't even get me started on photojournalism, one of the few courses I ever had to repeat.

I believe it was Howard Fineman who wrote about the death of the MSM as a political party.

The death of the MSM as a political party? What about the fact that it IS a political party!? The fact that it is a political party - a SINGLE political party - is one of my biggest contentions on this thread!
It is a fact. A fact which puts paid to any rationale for "Campaign Finance Reform" as anything other than a way to undermine opposition to George Soros and the rest of the Objective Journalism political party establishment. As anything, that is, other than a raid on the First Amendment. The MSM as anything other than a unitary party which is actually the leadership of the Democratic Party is such a huge fraud that "establishment" is scarcely a big enough word for that party. Quite literally I feel like the boy who is trying to point out that the Emperor has no clothes when I try to discuss this topic!
I'd very much like to find the reference by Fineman, if anyone can scare up the link.

"Objective Journalism" was the Establishment in America long before Vietnam and Watergate produced the templates which that Establishment has been using since then. It was the same Establishment which, in the early days of the Eisenhower Administration, seized on the statement "What is good for the country is good for General Motors" (by Charles Wilson, Secretary of Defense nominee) as occasion to prove that "Objective Journalism" and not the chairman of General Motors was the Establishment in America. Journalism did that by inverting Wilson's statement to read, "What's good for General Motors is good for America" - a boldfaced lie about the intent of Wilson's statement.
Yes, the Objective Journalism establishment is insular.Newsweek can assume a pose of injured innocence after having admitted that a story which it published which injured the reputations of the entire US military and everyone in it. Let whoso marvels at that reflect on the fact that throughout the Rodney King riot journalism was broadcasting exculpatory statements by the likes of Maxine Waters and was informing the public (potential looters included) in real time as to where the police were not able to maintain order. The Objective Journalism establishment has only one concern, and that is to aggrandize its own importance. Its central idea is that NOTHING actually matters but PR. Los Angeles being torched was a great story - and the police trying to protect the city were not sympathetic figures in the eyes of "objective" journalism.
Yesterday the President's Press Secretary was asked if the president was saying that Newsday ought to publish a story about how wonderful the US Military was. He should have replied that President Bush has repeatedly praised the honor, courage, and professionalism of the US Military, and the president would properly and proudly do so in any venue whatsoever. And it would always be the view of the president that any story which truthfully pointed out the virtues of the American military would be a good thing.

In this article Dick Morris reminds us that:

BBC maliciously, vociferously, and wrongly claimed that Blair "sexed up" prewar Iraq intel.
CBS maliciously used transparent forgeries to attack Bush's TANG record.
The NY Times launched an attack on the Bush Administration in the last week before the election, fraudulently claiming that the military had negligently allowed terrorists to steal 370 tons of explosives which it had control of.
Newsweek has published - and had to retract - its inflammatory Koran abuse story.

Morris correctly summarizes these as political attacks against Bush, and concludes that, notwithstanding the constant scandal reports on the Cli;ton Administration, there was no negative reporting on that Administration which was not substantively, or entirely, true. Indeed he points out that Monicagate was broken by Drudge only because Newsweek was spiking the story lest it harm Clinton.

Morris then proceeds to lamely call on the MSM to " examine their own bias and correct it" - as if it were possible that the MSM had some doubt as to the political tendency it projects.

Morris makes half of a fine analysis. The truth is not only that the above facts are indisputable, but they omit such jewels of "objectivity" as

wrongly calling of the Florida 2000 vote for Gore while Bush was ahead in the reported vote and polls in the panhandle were still open, and continuously insinuating afterward that Bush's win was tainted even after their own recounts showed otherwise.
continuously portraying the impeachment of Bill Clinton (for lying to a judge under oath in a case he could have honorably settled out of court) as hypocritical harassment of Clinton's "personal life."
And, worst of all IMHO, allowing FBI Filegate - between 900 and 2000 felony counts committed in the White House, and no Administration figure held politically or legally responsible - to fade away without even being an issue in the 1996 renomination and reelection of Bill Clinton.

That is not the behavior of an independent press, that is the behavior of a political party. "Objective Journalism" is an establishment which can get "Campaign Finance Reform" laws passed to eviscerate First Amendment freedom of the people for the enhancement of its own relative influence. The fact that it behaves as a coherent politically motivated entity is in plain sight. And anyone who is responsible for preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States had, and has, an affirmative duty to remove from our laws and precedents any trace of favor to any member of the MSM.

That is the only challenge which really matters. And, be it remembered, it was Ronald Reagan who killed the Fairness Doctrine which was suppressing all serious examination of the MSM from the airwaves.

Newsweek is biased like the rest of the media elite [Dick Morris]
The Hill ^ | May 18, 2005 | Dick Morris

The mentality behind the MSM? Selfishness, pure and simple. Selfishness and cowardice.
Cheap talk about how bad everyone is who has to make decisions and live with the results - who have to work to a bottom line - makes journalists feel superior to the people who make the country work. That is pure selfishness.
The MSM coheres in the idea that nothing actually matters except PR, and each individual component of the MSM gets good PR from all the others. Provided, of course, that the favor remains mutual. But the moment any person or institution ceases to support the pretensions of any of the others, all of the others will turn on him and drum him out of "objective journalism."
So the MSM is at bottom a mutual admiration society and a non-aggression pact which makes the MSM cohere in selfishness and fear. It is united for the purpose of picking on people who are natural Republicans - people who have responsibilities and who naturally make mistakes because they actually do things.
The result is that the MSM is hyper partisan under its facade of "objectivity"; liberal politicians do not so much lead and direct the MSM as they follow it, and operate in symbiosis with it.

THE MENTALITY BEHIND THE MSM
RCP ^ | Thursday, May 19 2005 | Tom Bevan

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.