Skip to comments.The Right to Know
Posted on 05/12/2008 5:31:32 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
click here to read article
Wow, very well done!
Good Work ... Kudos for a job well done
~~~ PING ~~~
Very Good, thank you.
Excellent analysis CIC.
This is why I say that the media-industrial complex is not the free press of the Founding Fathers. It literally is not, since the pretense of objectivity was unknown in those days. With the writers’ biases plain to all, readers had a fair chance to judge the truthfulness of their claims and positions. Today’s media, by pretending not to have a bias, deny the audience that chance and present their biased material as objective truth.
The pretense of objectivity is the key to the power of the media since their various activist campaigns and biases would be ineffective without it.
The media-industrial complex as we know it today is an unelected, unaccountable shadow government based on a falsehood; that is, the claim of objectivity and neutrality.
A very good read!
As important as anything I have EVER read.
c_I_c for President!
Excellent thesis, CIC .... only read about 3/4 of it (it IS a long read!), but with this post it becomes a 'bookmark' as it were (or in your effort to define "conservatism", a set of values to return to) ... will read the rest 1/4 later
Thanks to all for your kind responses!
I felt I had something, even tho it clearly is long - so much so that I actually did a save in the middle of it, like the good(?) old days - and it saved my bacon because it got so windy here yesterday that I had a power dropout!! I still had to reconstruct a paragraph or two . . .
And I recognized that the paragraphs are long, too. But I reached a limit internally, and just wanted to get it out. Thank you for your indulgence.
Excellent as always - and thank you for including me in your list of recipients. I learn something each time from your thoughts and words.
I believe another word which earmarks liberal thought - one which is consistently used by them when appealing to the people: “community”.
I have lost all sense of the real meaning of the concept of community now as it has been shredded and altered and frightenly so exclusionary I wonder why nobody says something.
Where would they? In the media? That’s a joke.
BUMP! BUMP! BUMP!
I am going to read this and the previous links in their entirety when I have more time. Thank you for pinging me, CIC.
This is pretty good stuff. I really liked it because you did not use a lot of big words (;D) and it actually made complete sense to me.
I’ll be saving this thread for a while.
The current breed otherwise known as Marxists.Her "chattering classes," as the British call them -- journalists, academics, writers, "talking heads" and "intellectuals"
And, yes, Marxists hate Israel.
. . . and it's hardly as if we lacked the same "class" (I see it not as plural but as singular, all one thing) here in our beloved republic. Not only hating Israel, of course - but hating her for her similarities to ourselves. IMHO if we could turn just one of those "classes," we would turn them all.
Our fundamental problem is that journalism as we know it - not "the press" as the Founders knew it but journalism as we know it - is monopolistic by design, and therefore is arrogant and self-righteous. "The press" as the Founders knew it was fractious and openly partisan - in every direction. I go so far as to suggest that the newspaper which Jefferson sponsored, the better to attack Hamilton and to respond to the attacks by the newspaper Hamilton sponsored for the reciprocal purpose, was the embryo of the original Democratic Party. But open partisanship is actually humility, compared to claiming objectivity. After all, objectivity implies wisdom - and arguing from a claim of your own wisdom is sophistry.sophist1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.philosopher4 Advances that Set News Back, from Steve Boriss at Washington University in St. Louis, suggests how "the press" changed from the fractious cacophony of independent voices of the founding era into the unitary propaganda monster which calls itself "objective journalism" today.O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .
In the blogsphere, look at how the pendulum is swinging back, c_I_C. Blogs share content almost along the same word-of-mouth model you described in your piece. Granted, most of the content is entertainment-driven, but that’s not to say that the content could never be news-driven as well.
Have you checked out 4 Advances that Set News Back? I highly recommend it.
Another read, another BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
What a thoughtful and intelligent post, I’m saving it, thank you.
Ah, but don’t forget the word “progressive”, which has come to mark (among other things) the most reactionary elements in the communities, the NIMBYs resisting progress and change.
Ah, but dont forget the word progressive, which has come to mark (among other things) the most reactionary elements in the communities, the NIMBYs resisting progress and change.
Voting for socialist policies is never an intelligent, fully-informed decision. Journalists and official Democrats continually obfuscate the implications of their programs.
liberal In the original sense the word described those of the emerging middle classes in France and Great Britain who wanted to throw off the rules the dominant aristocracy had made to cement its own control. During the 1920s the meaning of the word changed to describe those who believed a certain amount of governmental action was necessary to protect the people's "real" freedoms as opposed to their purely legal - and not necessarily existent - freedoms. This philosophical about-face led former New York governor Thomas Dewey to say, after using the original definition, "Two hundred years later, the transmutation of the word, as the alchemist would say, has become one of the wonders of our time." In U.S. politics the word was used by George Washington to indicate a person of generosity or broad-mindedness, as he expressed distaste for those who would deprive Catholics and Jews of their rights. . . . In its present usage, the word acquired significance during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who defined it this way during the campaign for his first term: ". . . say that civilization is a tree which, as it grows, continually produces rot and dead wood. The radical says: 'Cut it down.' The conservative says: 'Don't touch it.' The liberal compromises: 'Let's prune, so that we lose neither the old trunk nor the new branches.'
currently, one who believes in more government action to meet individual needs; originally, one who resisted government encroachment on individual liberties. Safire's dating of the change to the 1920s is congenial to my thesis that the word change happened in a relatively short period of time - hence logically would have required the active support of the chattering classes - rather than a gradual social evolution. It also, as my thesis suggests, dates the change to well after the founding of the Associated Press, and late enough for socialists to have been disillusioned over the difficulty of getting Americans to accept socialism under its own name. But also before the inauguration of the FDR Administration, which my reading suggested would have to be the case since FDR himself used the word so unselfconsciously.
In the original sense the word described those of the emerging middle classes in France and Great Britain who wanted to throw off the rules the dominant aristocracy had made to cement its own control.
During the 1920s the meaning of the word changed to describe those who believed a certain amount of governmental action was necessary to protect the people's "real" freedoms as opposed to their purely legal - and not necessarily existent - freedoms.
This philosophical about-face led former New York governor Thomas Dewey to say, after using the original definition, "Two hundred years later, the transmutation of the word, as the alchemist would say, has become one of the wonders of our time."
In U.S. politics the word was used by George Washington to indicate a person of generosity or broad-mindedness, as he expressed distaste for those who would deprive Catholics and Jews of their rights.
. . .
In its present usage, the word acquired significance during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who defined it this way during the campaign for his first term: ". . . say that civilization is a tree which, as it grows, continually produces rot and dead wood. The radical says: 'Cut it down.' The conservative says: 'Don't touch it.' The liberal compromises: 'Let's prune, so that we lose neither the old trunk nor the new branches.'
I must however admit that http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberalism&searchmode=none suggests a much earlier date for the change:
. . . But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.Caveat lector.
Another great read cIc. Thank you. Bookmarked!
Excellent. Thank you for pinging me on this, I appreciate it.
(Also...great tagline there. I would vote for that man in a heartbeat, but I suspect he is much too pragmatic and sensible ever to consider it!)
Add to that "human rights" as opposed to "individual rights".
Seriously, though. The word has been hijacked. It's like something right out of Orwell. Control the language, Control the thought.
The left is really good at hijacking words. Another biggie that comes to mind is the word “marriage.” For several years, I've been thinking about compiling a dictionary of liberalspeak. I've never gotten around to doing it. I'll check out Safire’s dictionary.
Fortunately, the technological stranglehold the media had on information has been weakened by the Internet.
A real thought inspiring essay.
The public worldview is manipulated through the use of language, and in particular a series of deceptive labels.
Socialism is service to the self disguised as service to others. In this way it is an inverted form of a large part of Christian doctrine (though not the most important part).
I often wonder about the extent to which lies and corruption are intentionally perpetrated by leftists in the media or in government, or by sympathetic members of general society.
For example, does Nancy Pelosi secretly think to herself how great it will be when we are finally a Stalinist society, or does she merely follow leftist path because it best expands her own personal power while diminishing everyone elses? I have come to believe that most political leaders and media types dont fully realize that their actions will lead us to the hell of totalitarianism (although most are probably conscious that they dont care, which is almost as bad). I think the collective result of having many self-serving leaders is an inevitable fall into the horror of communism.
And self worship I believe is the primary motive for the individual who supports leftist politics. Every sociopolitical issue on the left has a narcissistic payoff. I believe our descent into the hell of totalitarianism is indeed precipitated on all levels by indulgence in that tricky and elusive sin, pride. Like you say, the conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.
Exactly. Ownership is simply credit for something. Ownership of money is nothing but pure information - the intrinsic value of a $10 bill is no different from that of a $1 bill. Socialism is simply the negation of the credit that people have which is reflected in their ownership of land, things, stocks, and money. Socialism negates the recognition of credit which individuals have earned or otherwise been given (as, by inheritance).Like you say, the conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.
Maxine Waters inadvertently blurted out the truth that the Democrats want to "socialize" the oil companies on the pretext that politicians will provide more gas and oil, and demand less credit for it, than the oil companies are willing to. Not than the oil companies can, of course - no sentient being could possibly be dumb enough to believe that - but than the oil companies, in their greed relative to the virtuous politicians, are willing to do.
Puncture the ridiculous pretensions of "liberal" politicians to superior virtue, and there is nothing else to liberalism. That is however impossible while the people accept the conceit of journalistic objectivity. It seems to me that there is a solution to that conundrum - legal action against the Associated Press. SCOTUS held back in 1945 that the Associated Press is a monopoly. They did not apply an adequate remedy for the evils which I attribute to the AP, but that does not mean that another suit could never do so.
The first thing to go must be McCain-Feingold, which is probably to blame for the pathetic field of Republican candidate which culminated in the victory of John McCain in the primaries.
Yes - and since you cite that sentence back to me, it does sound somewhat like a tagline, doesn't it!
Words fail my desire to thank you for your contribution to the needed discourse of these troubled times.
I would note, in passing, that no one, to my knowledge, has proven that the Swift Boat Veterans wrote anything that was not true. Yet, as you have correctly noted, the unthinking public is convinced that they lied, an example of the much abused power of the press.
no one, to my knowledge, has proven that the Swift Boat Veterans wrote anything that was not true. Yet, as you have correctly noted, the unthinking public is convinced that they lied, an example of the much abused power of the press.
Yes . . . and if you were able to challenge them over it, their response would, likely as not, be to conduct a poll showing that a majority of people think the SBVT had been unfair to Kerry. What such a poll would prove, however, is simply and exclusively how much invidious influence AP journalism has managed to exert.
I have the St. Pete Times down here whose motto is simple----Merely to tell the truth-------Sadly they do, HALF of it that suits them,all the time....
A group of satraps in their sinecures with a tax exempt foundation ownership that sponsors LIBERAL teaching thru their own special school----The Poynter Institute
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
Thank you. Ping to this one, which you might also like.
Also a good read. “http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2015027/posts"
“Yes - and since you cite that sentence back to me, it does sound somewhat like a tagline, doesn’t it!”
Quite a good one at that. And this sounds like the beginnings of another:
“Socialism is simply the negation of the credit...”
Excellent. Very insightful and well written.
this sounds like the beginnings of another [potential tagline]: Socialism is simply the negation of the credit...
Yes, there does seem to be the potentiality there. I do want to refine that point so that I could state it in a tagline. The negation of credit is simply a forgetting, an amnesty of sorts. It is obviously the opposite of conservatism. God's amnesty is for our good, lest the virtue of God make it impossible for God to relate to imperfect man. The socialist's amnesty is intended for the good of the socialist himself, and has nothing to do with promoting the welfare of others.
VDH is certainly correct about perspective. It is heartening to consider the difference in treatment between modern historians and the contemporary press hysteria (a very good deal of which is still perfectly accessible) during the U.S. Civil War. One difficulty these days is precisely the same as then - far too many reporters have attempted to craft a narrative on the spot instead of simply stating observed facts. This gives them a vested interest that hinders successive facts that do not fit the narrative. For all the derision that modern journalism tends to direct at "objective" journalism, the latter does at least free the reporter from looking like a complete fool after the shooting stops (and the Pulitzers have been awarded).
Thinking yourself to be objective is arguably the best possible definition of the word "subjectivity." And the Associated Press, and all of those "independent-thinking" papers which make up the AP, are selling something. They are all selling the same thing - news, before you could get it from any other source. So the AP and every one of its members has the identical incentive to sell the idea that journalism - all journalism - is objective. How else to vouch for the news which is the pervasive, dominant theme of your newspaper, quite dwarfing the editorial opinions which give the various newspapers reputations for independence from each other? - That news did not originate with your newspaper's own reporters but with those of a nominal competitor in a distant city. So with the AP, newspapers have the opportunity to claim objectivity without fear of powerful ridicule as long as they do not compete with any other AP newspaper on the basis of objectivity claims. And the more opportunity they have had to make that claim, the less compunction they have felt was necessary about taking care to vindicate the claim by actually being objective.
So what is the actual effect of the claim by all of journalism that all of journalism is objective? The actual effect of the claim of objectivity, running as it has for a century and a half, is to establish in custom the idea that journalists are a breed apart from we-the-people. An enormous propaganda campaign has convinced the general public that journalists are more virtuous, more knowledgeable, and more civic-minded - and thus entitled not only to be listened to with respect by people who pay for the privilege. And that journalists are entitled to special privileges such as "shield" laws granting reporters the right to withhold the names of sources from courts of law which any citizen would be under legal compunction to yield up. And that journalists are entitled to special rights to speak out about candidates for public office - rights to be denied, under McCain-Feingold, to we-the-people.
But in principle, if that assumption be accepted, there is no real virtue in having our government officers selected by vote of the whole people on a date certain - it would be far more manageable to simply read in the newspapers what the newspapers say is in the public interest. Or, for that matter, what the newspapers say the public thinks, based on "public opinion polls." From the POV of the journalist - or anyone who thinks that journalists are more objective and hence wiser and more virtuous than the public at large - public votes are unnecessary and irrelevant. What could be more patent than that the conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle?
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.