Posted on 09/14/2001 7:02:19 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
The framers of our Constitution gave carte blance protection to “speech” and “the press”. They did not grant that anyone was then in possession of complete and unalloyed truth, and it was impossible that they should be able to a priori institutionalize the truth of a future such human paragon even if she/he/it were to arrive.
At the time of the framing, the 1830s advent of mass marketing was in the distant future. Since that era, journalism has positioned itself as the embodiment of nonpartisan truth-telling, and used its enormous propaganda power to make the burden of proof of any “bias” essentially infinite. If somehow you nail them dead to rights in consistent tendentiousness, they will merely shrug and change the subject. And the press is protected by the First Amendment. That is where conservatives have always been stuck.
And make no mistake, conservatives are right to think that journalism is their opponent. Examples abound so that any conservative must scratch his/her head and ask “Why?” Why do those whose job it is to tell the truth tell it so tendentiously, and even lie? The answer is bound and gagged, and lying on your doorstep in plain sight. The money in the business of journalism is in entertainment, not truth. It is that imperative to entertain which produces the perspective of journalism.
And that journalism does indeed have a perspective is demonstrated every day in what it considers a good news story, and what is no news story at all. Part of that perspective is that news must be new--fresh today--as if the events of every new day were of equal importance with the events of all other days. So journalism is superficial. Journalism is negative as well, because the bad news is best suited to keep the audience from daring to ignore the news. Those two characteristics predominate in the perspective of journalism.
But how is that related to political bias? Since superficiality and negativity are anthema to conservatives there is inherent conflict between journalism and conservatism.. By contrast, and whatever pious intentions the journalist might have, political liberalism simply aligns itself with whatever journalism deems a “good story.” Journalists would have to work to create differences between journalism and liberalism, and simply lack any motive to do so. Indeed, the echo chamber of political “liberalism” aids the journalist--and since liberalism consistently exacerbates the issues it addresses, successful liberal politicians make plenty of bad news to report.
The First Amendment which protects the expression of opinion must also be understood to protect claims by people of infallibility--and to forbid claims of infallibility to be made by the government. What, after all, is the point of elections if the government is infallible? Clearly the free criticism of the government is at the heart of freedom of speech and press. Freedom, that is, of communication.
By formatting the bands and standardizing the bandwiths the government actually created broadcasting as we know it. The FCC regulates broadcasting--licensing a handful of priveledged people to broadcast at different frequency bands in particular locations. That is something not contemplated in the First Amendment, and which should never pass constitutional muster if applied to the literal press. Not only so, but the FCC requires application for renewal on the basis that a licensee broadcaster is “operating in the public interest as a public trustee.” That is a breathtaking departure from the First Amendment.
No one questions the political power of broadcasting; the broadcasters themselves obviously sell that viewpoint when they are taking money for political advertising. What does it mean, therefore, when the government (FCC) creates a political venue which transcends the literal press? And what does it mean when the government excludes you and me--and almost everyone else--from that venue in favor of a few priviledged licensees? And what does it mean when the government maintains the right to pull the license of anyone it does allow to participate in that venue? It means a government far outside its First Amendment limits. When it comes to broadcasting and the FCC, clearly the First Amendment has nothing to do with the case.
The problem of journalism’s control of the venue of argument would be ameliorated if we could get them into court. In front of SCOTUS they would not be permitted to use their mighty megaphones. And to get to court all it takes is the filing of a civil suit. A lawsuit must be filed against broadcast journalism, naming not only the broadcast licensees, but the FCC.
We saw the tendency of broadcast journalism in the past election, when the delay in calling any given State for Bush was out of all proportion to the delay in calling a state for Gore, the margin of victory being similar--and, most notoriously, the state of Florida was wrongly called for Gore in time to suppress legal voting in the Central Time Zone portion of the state, to the detriment of Bush and very nearly turning the election. That was electioneering over the regulated airwaves on election day, quite on a par with the impact that illegal electioneering inside a polling place would have. It was an enormous tort.
And it is on that basis that someone should sue the socks off the FCC and all of broadcast journalism.
Journalism has a simbiotic relation with liberal Democrat politicians, journalists and liberal politicians are interchangable parts. Print journalism is only part of the press (which also includes books and magazines and, it should be argued, the internet), and broadcast journalism is no part of the press at all. Liberals never take issue with the perspective of journalism, so liberal politicians and journalists are interchangable parts. The FCC compromises my ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas by giving preferential access addresses to broadcasters, thus advantaging its licensees over me. And broadcast journalism, with the imprimatur of the government, casts a long shadow over elections. Its role in our political life is illegitimate.
The First Amendment, far from guaranteeing that journalism will be the truth, protects your right to speak and print your fallible opinion. Appeal to the First Amendment is appeal to the right to be, by the government or anyone else’s lights, wrong. A claim of objectivity has nothing to do with the case; we all think our own opinions are right.
When the Constitution was written communication from one end of the country to the othe could take weeks. Our republic is designed to work admirably if most of the electorate is not up to date on every cause celebre. Leave aside traffic and weather, and broadcast journalism essentially never tells you anything that you need to know on a real-time basis.
“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.