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.
I like to think that, after almost six years, the replies on [this thread] are closing in on some reasonably satisfactory answers.I will try to get to the replies but I did read your article and I have to say it didn’t jibe with my instincts. The journalism as entertainment angle. Right off, I asked myself after reading it, if I were to rate print, tv and talk radio in order of entertainment value, print media is the least entertaining yet the most liberal. How would you answer that?
I instantly grant that I do not find journalism to be nearly as entertaining now as I once did. My daughter was stunned to learn that I used to listen to News Radio -"You give us 22 minutes, we'll give you the world!"But of course, that is not what you actually get. My daughter was stunned to learn that I used to listen to that drivel because for almost all her life I she has seen me treat "The News" like an ad for a product I wouldn't buy on a bet.But more directly on point, consider the "News" dictum, "'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man.'" The journalist (and the "liberal," who by journalistic convention is merely someone who, having no higher principle, reliably goes along and gets along with journalists) will tell you that journalists "objectively" apply that rule in deciding what stories they will emphasize. But what is that rule about? Will it inform the journalist that there is a rabid dog biting people, and the public must be warned? Au contraire! What it does is tell the journalist that dogs do bite people fairly regularly - and a headline announcing just one more case of a common occurrence will not succeed in attracting the reader's attention.
Now, as noted above, it's possible that the public interest requires that the public be warned about the dog - but the public interest may not be what interests the public. Indeed I would go so far as to assert that that is the normal state of affairs - that, for example, stories about Anna Nicole Smith (may she rest in peace) actually convey next to nothing relevant to the public interest.
I will make my case even stronger. The interest of journalism is to interest and impress the public. But journalism doesn't do things, it only talks. Therefore journalism exists to promote talk above action. And the easiest way to do that is to second guess the people who do do things. That would include businessmen, and a proclivity to second guess businessmen certainly matches up with the "liberal" mindset. Indeed, socialism is simply the setting up of authorities over businessmen whose credential is that they are good at criticizing businessmen and that they have no experience in actually doing business. But the military and the police also do things, and guess what - the fact that the military and the police are sine qua non essentials to the government that "liberals" supposedly love does not protect them from merciless second guessing by journalists, and by "liberal" fellow travelers thereof.
Again, consider the journalism rule that "you always make your deadline." Deadline pressure ineluctably causes reporters and editors to put out stories which actually deserve further investigation, or which actually do not deserve the attention which the journalists give them. Deadline pressure is a tendency of journalism toward superficiality. And the deadline is nothing more or less than the show business dictum, "The show must go on." Entertainment.