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.
Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary because the Constitution was designed not to need it--it was unnecessary before the Internet.Broadcast Journalism is Illegitimate because journalism is politics, and broadcasting makes some of us more equal than others. Much more equal. Before the law. The Constitutional right to speak implies the right to listen, but the FCC right to listen is the negation of the people's right to speak.
FR is a realization of the people's right to speak. It is the nations' letters-to-the-editor page.
15 posted on 9/14/01 8:12 AM Pacific by Search4Truth
You and I both. Interesting screen name you have ;`)
Mark, What_point_are_you_trying_to_make_with_this_underscore_business? Call me blind, but I can't read this crap!
Then you still think that freedom can allow you buy "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Were that so, we wouldn't need jurors; for seventy five cents and a trip to the convenience store we could just get to the bottom of things. Much cheaper than trials . . .No, freedom is exactly the right to loudly disagree with those who are rich and/or powerful. The worst feature of journalism today is its pravda--its ersatz "truth" which is really nothing more than a self-interested PR-driven consensus. It is the PR which generates the cash flow of journalism--people feel good about themselves for being "in the know" by reading or hearing journalism. That effect would be subverted by a lack of consensus among journalists, so journalistic organs define journalism by adherence to its consensus.
That is why Rush Limbaugh "is not a journalist." All he does is report, tell you the truth as he understands the truth--but he's "not a journalist" because he is outside the the consensus by which journalism defines the truth. Socialists argue by definition a lot. They're called "liberals" in the U.S. not because socialism has anything to do with liberty but because in the U.S. we-the-people were in love with liberty.
If ever you hear a "liberal" say that "society should" do some particular thing (e.g., provide medicine), try pointing out that society (we-the-people, including phamaceutical companies and insurance companies and charities) actually does quite a bit of that. Push the issue of a distinction between "society" and government hard enough, and the "liberal" will make clear that s/he defines "society" to mean nothing other than government.We-the-people in the U.S. saw thru the con which the label "socialism" really is (without necessarily being able to articulate it as above), and so the PR-savy U.S. socialists systematically applied the popular label "liberal" to their governmentist nostrums. If you read the WWII clasic The Road to Serfdom, you must understand the word "liberal" in the British sense, what Americans now call either "conservative" or "libertarian." This is explained in the foreword to the 1956 edition of Serfdom.If you understand that the socialist defines society to mean government, you can see that the coined word "socialism" should really be "governmentism". The fact that "governmentism" is essentially a synonym for "tyranny" explains why the PR-savy "governmentist" would find a touchy-feely word to conceal that nexus. The dictionary definition of "socialism"--something about "government ownership of the means of production" has nothing to do with the root-word "social" unless it be through the assumption of "democracy."
It is, accordingly, no accident that socialists prattle about democracy as if that were a magic incantation, notwithstanding (nay, in aggressive denial of) the fact that democracy is not the form of any real existing large government. It is also noteworthy that concern about voter fraud is beneath them. Voter fraud itself seems not to bother them, but concern about it sure does . . .
The upshot has been to discredit (at least in political context) the words "liberalism" and "society"/"social". The lefties have had to move from one warm-and-fuzzy word to another, but in the process they have subverted the language so that American "conservatives" have difficulty articulating the arguments against leftism which they intuit or understand. For example, if I mention that I favor "progress" you might become suspicious of me since that's used as a leftist codeword. American conservatives, however, are "conservative" precisely of the ability of we-the-people (a.k.a. society) to double our standard of living every couple of generations. Conservative, that is, not only of liberty but of its blessings, including progress for our posterity.
Mass-marketing/PR is a source of considerable destructive political power in America. Mass-marketing/PR have much to answer for, and the conceit of "journalistic objectivity" seems to be the root of PR.
I've researched the issue of media bias for the last several years and this article pretty much reaffirms a lot of my observations.
Broadcast journalism is indeed unnecessary and illegitimate as evidenced by the continued cozyness which continues to exist between some news organizations and the Democrats. Clearly we as a nation are being done a disservice as a result.
Thanks C-I-C for the bump and the article. Regards.
none of this really matters when the top dog is a lying dog!
IMHO the "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra is a challenge to moslems to live up to the name he is giving them, and a way to "draw a circle to include in" everyone with whom it is possible to deal. I don't hear him prostelyzing for Islam.You want to talk about a top dog who was a lying dog?!! Not Bush, nor all Republicans together throughout history, compares with x42 in that regard.
Of course it isn't. At that time Franklin hadn't harnessed lightning and Tesla hadn't invented radio. But broadcast journalism is great entertainment.
Yea, sure; to you or I they'd be quick to pull that kind of "brush-off" stunt.
Buuuttt...when "Daddy GE" & his phalanx of beancounters speak over at General Electric?
The Leftist-Socialist blather and obfuscation doesn't go too far, eh?
The Leftist-Socialists ignore Big Daddy at their own risk.
The present ilk of Leftist-Socialists running these network News & "Entertainment" divisions (spit...) understand all too well they risking losing their soapbox -- instantly.
Capitalism is the only thing which (up to now) has kept the Leftist-Socialists in-check this past decade; otherwise, I'd dare say this group (in particular!!) would've been a LOT braver, bolder in forcing their agenda down everyone's throats?
Capitalism is their enemy; &, why they dispise [it] so much.
Certainly has explained (to me) why Capitalism's demonized in each & every story they produce in whatever way they can fit-in the smear.
That can be said, regardless the medium, too; as this cancer infects the "Journalist-Class" from top to bottom with very few exceptions.
The Liberal-Socialist "Journalism" *professorate* taught this present bunch what & where the *prize* was to be had, in our kind of society.
The present gaggle of Liberal-Socialists in control weren't just taught what to do once they acquired their power; so, it'll be interesting to see what they were taught [to do] if/when that power were ever threatened or taken away, altogether.
These guys aren't just going to *evaporate* & go away as much as we'd hope & pray they'd do exactly that.
"The money in the business of journalism is in entertainment, not truth. It is that imperative to entertain which produces the perspective of journalism."
I've often heard that said; however, where does [abject] "fear" enter the equation??
The Lamestream are experts at keeping this nation beaten into a continual frenzy of fear.
Be it "kidnappings" (which have ocurred since time immemorial...), or the imminant doom we're all facing from the, "West Nile Virus" (which coincidentally is "Front Page" ever since the present administration began probing the CDC ~& nevermind AIDS) & all the other countless contrived, "Fear Of The Week/Month" news "stories" (past & present) the nation's carpet-bombed with 24/7?
You must agree, then; it's the WHO's using the soapbox & not the soapbox itself causing all the stink.
Although our constitution was written long before the mass media monster we're being strangled by today?
IF we infringe on any part -- as another wise poster reminded me just last week -- we risk some awful ramifications.
"In sum, if journalists had any other thought than to exacerbate the situation and cause the nation to watch in horrified fascination, they had a remarkably strange way of showing it."
Actually, I'd think they'd have spun that ugly incident precisely as they had; in order to help 'em *point* social consciousness in the exact direction they wanted & could manipulate every step of the way.
That's why these "Journalists" always seem to be one step ahead of us.
We're not taking into account the Lamestream Leftist-Socialists KNOW where they want to take the nation; while, we're merely bitching about the mechanics of their actions.
We're refusing to recognize *motive*, here.
It's the Leftist-Socialist's motive which is beneath contempt, worthy of condemnation, & needing to be emphasized at every opportunity.
These are the most vile type of Socialists we're speaking about, here; they're young, dumb, & have heads freshly filled with an awful lot of plain, ol' bullshit ALL courtesy of OUR TAXPAYER FUNDED institutions of, "Higher Education."
We all know the type, too; "America Bad. America Racist. Utopia Good. Follow US to Utopia."
...modus operandi hasn't changed since Lennin dreamt-up this nightmare ideology.
Anyone insightful enough to realize that, must have bookmarked some fascinating reading. I'll just go see.I'm reminded of the Military History class in which Captain Herter started out by apologizing for the quality of a hand-drawn map on the overhead projector. A toady replied, "This is obviously a Rembrandt!" That toady was me.
and broadcast journalism is no part of the press at allOf course it isn't. At that time Franklin hadn't harnessed lightning and Tesla hadn't invented radio.
I'm not sure you understand my position. I say that broadcast journalism is not part of "the press" because broadcasting is licensed by the government in a way no ink-and-paper, literal press ever has been.But broadcast journalism is great entertainment.Wireless communication was indeed developed long after the First Amendment was ratified, but that is not the right criterion to use; if it were then the high speed press--which has completely superceded the technology of the founding era--might logically be subject to license requirements like broadcasting is (not that I like the thought of giving anyone ideas!). No, the point is that wireless communication is a technology which enables broadcasting but did not create broadcasting. Broadcasting is, rather, wireless communication in clear channels created by government censorship of we-the-people.
There is a perfect example of a medium which is not created by government censorship, and which logically falls under First Amendment protection--you're reading it right now. It wasn't the government's fault that the Internet didn't exist in 1950, but now that it exists as an enabling technology for we-the-people to publish our political (and other) opinions the government has no right to censor the expression of our political opinions on this venue.
That is indeed its function, entertainment.
It's our strength. If they ever crack down they would have to dump the Bill of Rights and that would be the end of it.
In temporal economic terms, the big picture is our free competitive economy gradually doubling our standard of living every couple of generations. But that fact doesn't change from day to day, and so is ignored by journalism. Journalism focuses instead on short-term ups and downs which are superimposed on that long-term secular trend. Not only does this miss the main thing which happens to the economy over an individual's lifetime, but--a remarkable result of modern Chaos Theory--on relatively short time scales the largest changes will be drops rather than rises in stock prices even while the long-term secular trend is upward.
I repeat:
In a perfectly dispassionate day-to-day account of the biggest changes in the stock market, declines would predominate even while the long-term secular trend is upward.It follows that short deadlines are, in and of themselves, skewed towards the reporting of bad news. And that an attraction to the reporting of news on short deadline is an attraction to the reporting of bad news. This has political implications.
The question of the definition of the political spectrum is much discussed among conservatives and especially libertarians. IMHO the American conservative viewpoint is best extracted from the preamble to the Constitution:
. . . to . . . promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .Journalism tends to erase the long term conservative trend in favor of incessant alarums about immediate negative changes. The tendency of self-selection is, therefore, that journalists are anticonservative. Anticonservative people are eager to report bad news on short deadline because it makes the institutions and people upon whom we-the-people depend look bad. This explains why anticonservative political figures such as George Stephanopolis fit so easily into the mold of journalist, whereas conservative political figures are never positioned by any journalist as being "objective." De facto, "objective" is, a code-word for "anticonservative."
If such be the case, as it obviously is (see Ann Coulter's Slander for supporting anecdoatal, but abundant, evidence) is the First Amendment wrong to establish freedom of the press? Not at all, because journalism is not the whole of the press nor is all of journalism (as we know it) part of the press at all. Books are unambiguously part of "the press," for example. And although the government was never to be faulted for the fact that the Internet didn't exist as a major public forum 20 years ago, the fact that the Internet does now exist as "the poor man's soapbox" with national and even global reach establishes it as part of the press today.
But all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, broadcast journalism is not protected by the First Amendment. Broadcasting (radio transmissions which you have a right to receive but no right to transmit) is based on government censorship of we-the-people to provide clear channels for government-favored licensees. If something is a constitutional right, how can the government punish you for doing it without the government's permission?
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.