Replies

What responsibility for the murders, therefore, and for more murders to come, lies with NBC, to whom the killer sent written and videotaped public statements about his rampage which NBC obligingly broadcast? “It was a tough call” for NBC, according to Bob Schieffer of CBS in a radio interview I chanced to listen to. Really? Funny, then, isn’t it, that it always gets called the same way—that is, for making such demented ramblings public instead of consigning them, unopened, unviewed, and unread, to the incinerator. We have to try to understand why these things happen, the media cry. No, we don’t! In fact, it’s the trying to understand that makes them happen. By telling a potential killer that he’s eligible for understanding, you confirm him in the belief that there are reasons for him to kill and therefore, to that extent, that it is all right to kill. The therapeutic approach, which the media find it convenient to adopt in these cases, essentially concedes the killer’s case that he is a martyr to whatever wrongs, imaginary or real, he sees himself as avenging. And, of course, his efforts at self-glorification depend on the media and their ability both to elicit such a response to his actions and, by doing so, to make him famous.

The importance of prospective fame as a motivator for those whose grievances against the world so often include their own obscurity and loneliness can hardly be overstated.

Getting it right (The Media)
The New Criterion ^ | June 2007 | James Bowman

Hunter is my first choice also. I’ve sent him some $$$ and talk him up to anyone who will listen.

My big gripe is that the MSM won’t let him be heard. In the debates he could barely get a word in edgewise. They constantly called on McCain, Romney, Guiliani. I know, they were the first tier, but I wanted to hear Hunter and the others.

I favored Alan Keyes in '00, so I'm not completely unwilling to interest myself in a second tier candidate, but electability does have to be a consideration. Otherwise we'd all just favor our own selves to be president, more or less. Sadly, I think Keyes completely jumped the shark in Illinois. But Keyes will make valid, thought-provoking constitutional points from time to time.
On point, Objective Journalism^TM is in the business of using printing presses and radio/TV transmitters for fun and profit. Journalism is topical nonfiction, and it stands or falls commercially on its ability to attract attention (and thereby to attract eyeballs to advertisements). And it does so by promoting itself generally as being important and "objective, and specifically by promoting its reports with "headlines and other emphases which suggest that your trust in the people/organizations which get things done (e.g., the police/military, businessmen, Republican politicians - not to put too fine a point on it, white men generally) is misplaced.
And in claiming objectivity but never competing among themselves on that basis, Objective Journalism^TM functions as a single entity, an establishment, which promotes its own interest as "the public interest." That is what claiming to be objective actually implies. But as the "'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man'" dictum makes clear, journalism is about what interests the public. Journalism conflates that with "the public interest," but they are different matters entirely

the public interest is in a growing economy and the public is therefore interested and alarmed by reports of weakness in the economy.

the public interest is in 'domestic tranquility,' and the public is therefore interested and alarmed by reports of riots.

the public interest is in justice, and the public is therefore interested and alarmed by reports of injustice and police brutality.

the public interest is in the common defense, and the public is therefore interested and alarmed by reports of weakness and venality anywhere in the military.

In short, journalism promotes itself by promoting the idea that the rest of society does not fulfill its obligations - in effect, that our society 'couldn't be worse' and our constitutional order is deeply flawed. IOW, Objective Journalism^TM is inherently radical.
In an FR posting, in print, I can express that concept using the ^TM device to make clear that I am not speaking about actual objectivity, which it is inherently arrogant to claim, but the ersatz "objectivity" of the deeply committed ideologues who run establishment journalism who honestly do not realize that they even have a viewpoint, let alone that a different viewpoint might be legitimate. Objective Journalism^TM therefore functions in American politics the way a bull does in a china shop - completely oblivious to values outside itself. But the spoken word is limited in its ability to express the concept, because Objective Journalism^TM promotes Newspeak inversions of the English language which limit discussion of any criticism of itself. "Objective" becomes an adjective which applies to journalists only, and its meaning is distorted to the point of inversion. "Liberal" and "progressive" become synonyms for "objective," but never apply to journalists even though they refer to exactly the same attitudes that make a journalist "objective." "Conservative" becomes a pejorative for attitudes which are in reality progressive and liberal, but which are in opposition to "progressive" and "liberal" ideas.
Once understand that Objective Journalism^TM is inherently radical, and it becomes obvious that there a distinction but not a difference between Objective Journalism^TM and what Objective Journalism^TM calls "progressive" or "liberal" politics. A Hillary Clinton can therefore speak of a desire to transform American society without raising the slightest alarm among journalists.
So we see that there is no reason why Objective Journalism^TM would promote any conservative idea or candidate.
A Very Big Thank You(Duncan Hunter's family reads FR!) Email | June 17,2007 | The Hunter Family