Replies

The reporting on the arrest of the "motorist" as much as anything else alerted most to what kind of "news" media we had

We make a profound error when we allow ourselves to suppose that "the press" is protected because it is objective, or even is supposed to be objective.
The First Amendment assures that the government has no authority to enforce any standard of "objectivity" or "fairness" on the press or on speech. The meaning of the First Amendment is not related to "codes of ethics" for journalists. To the contrary, the First Amendment announces to anyone who will listen that believing the press is strictly a caveat emptor proposition.
The implication of that, of course, is that there is no standard of objectivity to which broadcast journalists can adhere and thereby avoid accusations of tendentiousness. Which means that licensed (broadcast) journalism is illegitimate.

This thread
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3ba20deb5ac5.htm
documents my ongoing effort to analyze the relation between journalism and liberalism. It includes a comment on the fact that journalists acted exactly like they wanted the RK riot.

The fact is that extreme liberalism and moderate anti-Americanism is an optimal choice for a television reporter. The average American will be induced to watch regularly, because of the mild shocks administered and (quite possibly) the hunger-for-seeing-notoreity factor, which will raise news ratings higher than they otherwise would have been.
The fact is that liberalism of the New Dork type in television journalism seems to be as conducive to a successful corporation as don't-offend-anyone Republicanism is in the regular kind of big corporation.

"What's bad for America is good for the media - and Vice Versa!"

101 posted on 07/07/2002 10:24 PM EDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: danielmryan

Thank you for pointing that out. Indeed I believe exactly what you say, and I'm surprised to see that I nowhere earlier in this thread discussed that point. My favorite way to illustrate that point is to discuss the Rodney King riot.
The home video of the arrest of Rodney King made sensational news. But the entire tape, as commentated on by defense lawyers, shows behavior on the part of Mr. King which--the first Sgt. Stacy Koon jury held--explained the behavior of the police sufficently to make the police not criminally liable for what Mr. King endured. But the interesting fact is that the videotape made even more sensational news after editing than it did initially--for the very understandable reason that all portions of the tape having any bearing on the reason for the police behavior were edited out.
Endlessly rebroadcasting the remainder of that tape is exactly what I would have done if I had wanted to see a riot in Los Angeles. That is exactly what broadcast journalism did after the initial Stacy Koon verdict of "Not Guilty" came down. Not only so, but reporters broadcast interviews of the "No justice, No peace" activists. And to top it off broadcasters reported, in real time, where looting without police interference was ocurring.
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. And were I a business owner who had been burned out in that riot, I would have wanted to sue the broadcasters for their very underwear.