Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh’s Associated Press Frustration
Posted on 03/22/2012 6:26:45 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
"I'm going to have to find another way to do this - the AP's been getting away with this
There is a better way, Rush, and here it is.
1 - During the Founding era, and up to the founding of the AP in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, NOBODY THOUGHT JOURNALISM WAS OBJECTIVE. Newspapers were about the opinions of their printers, just lile the EIB Network is about the opinion of Rush Limbaugh. Jefferson famously asserted that advertisements were the only truths to be relied on in newspapers.
2. The telegraph line between Washington and Baltimore was first used by Morse in 1844, and the Associated Press was founded a few years later.
3. People questioned the concentration of PR power in the AP, but the AP pointed out that the member newspapers of the Associated Press famously didn't agree about ANYTHING, so the Association itself was "objective.
4. The AP set up guidelines for news articles that it would carry, and that set the tone for journalism ever after. EFFECTIVELY, the AP is the boss of every journalist, because every journalist wants the good opinion of his peers, and to have their writing published from coast to coast just like you want your program to be heard "across the fruited plain." So whatever merit might have seemed to be in the argument that "the AP is objective because it consists of a fractiously independent membership" was quickly mooted. THE AP BECAME A "BORG."
5. People become journalists "to make a difference," and to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." IOW, THEY LUST FOR POWER.
6. Journalists who lust for power NATURALLY want to control the government, and think they can do it. They think they can control public opinion, and thereby control the government, and thereby control the people. As you yourself have pointed out, journalists favor "Campaign Finance Reform" for the obvious reason that it puts journalists in even more of a monopoly position in the public discourse.
7. Power-hungry journalists assert the identity of their interest with the public interest. The interest of the journalist is in looking good and seeming important, and they approach that objective by criticizing anyone "who makes the country work." Anyone who works to a bottom line is inherently vulnerable to the second guess. But of course if there is one thing that a journalist protects himself and his Borg from, it is criticism. WHENEVER A STORY WHICH WAS "TOO GOOD TO CHECK" PROVES FALSE, JOURNALISM CHANGES THE SUBJECT.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO have such an agenda, and act on it so aggressively, and BE CORRECT WHEN YOU CLAIM TO BE "OBJECTIVE.
8. Journalists apply any positive label to any politician or unionist or any other fellow traveler of journalism. "Liberal" meant the opposite in 1919, and any time before, to what it meant by 1930 (source, Wm Safire, "Safire's New Political Dictionary." And of course "Progressive" was the positive label applied to socialists before that. "Socialism" failed as a label in America because WE ALREADY HAD A GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS CONTROLLED BY SOCIETY, and "socialism" was not it.
9. The only positive label journalism (read, "wire service journalism) withholds from its fellow travelers is the one it reserves for itself - "objective." But of course, the only difference between George Stephanopolis, Clinton operative, and George Stephanopolis, "objective" journalist, is the hat he is wearing.
10. As M. Stanton Evans pointed out, The Theme (of AMERICAN "conservatism") Is Freedom. Freedom (to do things differently, and to do different things) is a funny kind of "conservatism." Anyone who doesn't realize that "conservatism" is meant as a negative label in America should confront the fact that any salesman wants to be able to say that his product is "NEW!" American "conservatives" are progressive - the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to promote progress by establishing a patent office.
11. The AP claims to be objective, and I question whether they can show any difference in intent when they use the word to what you or I mean when we speak of WISDOM. And yet, arguing from a claim of your own wisdom is the very etymological meaning of the term "sophistry." IOW, claiming your own objectivity when you actually have an interest in self-promotion proves your own SUBjectivity. You cannot even ATTEMPT objectivity while claiming your own subjectivity. How is the "conservative" commentator to distinguish himself from the sophistry of the "objective" journalist? The same way that the ancient Greeks did. The perpetrators of sophistry called themselves wise, and their opponents carefully avoided claiming wisdom for themselves. But they claimed to LOVE WISDOM! The upshot of being a "lover of widsom" (Greek word, "PHILOSOPHER") is that you conduct "a relentless pursuit of the truth." You eschew emotional arguments, and you stick to the facts and to logic.
12. The AP is vulnerable now, for two reasons. First, the mission of the AP - to conserve data transmission bandwidth in the transmission of the news - is obsolete. In the era of laser, microwave, fiber optic, and satellite communication, the cost of bandwidth is de minimus. Second, the AP was found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945.
13. In 1945 it was easy to consider the AP to be "too big to fail." Now, the AP is obsolete, and its business model is corrupt. AND we have a SCOTUS majority which could sanction the AP if given the right case. I put it to you that Justice Clarence ("high tech lynching") Thomas might be easy to persuade. Of course the AP would claim that the fact that Justice Thomas does not read newspapers disqualifies him from sitting on such a case - but given that they would in the process be claiming that no one not subject to the flattery and derision of the AP could judge them, I somehow doubt that Justice Thomas would find it necessary to agree.
14. In a court of law, where facts and logic are supposed to prevail and the AP would not have the power to change the subject, the AP should be extremely vulnerable. As you have said, if you miss the ABC News, catch NBC News. If you miss the New York Times, catch the Washington Post. THE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS OUTLETS OF WIRE SERVICE JOURNALISM IS STRICTLY LIMITED - they all work to the same template. The Defendant in the suit must be not only the Associated Press but also each member of the AP individually. But what is the tort, and who is the plaintiff? Their name is legion.
15. Every Republican was damaged on election day in 2000 when the TV networks called Florida for Gore while some of the polls were still open and while Bush was still in the lead in the state. If it had been possible for the Republican Party to make an appeal for funds and have time to fundraise, HOW MUCH would Republicans have been willing to contribute to buy off wire service journalism to prevent them from making that PREMATURE, ERRONEOUS, call for Gore? As much, I suggest, as they had already spent in the entire campaign!! That was a tort.
16. There is always one or more "too good to check" story in play in wire service journalism. The Duke Lacrosse "Rape" hoax was essentially obvious within a week, yet wire service journalism continued to promote the Nifong/Mangum hoax for what seemed like a year before the young men were declared actually innocent despite journalism's worst. The "Swift Boating" of John Kerry was another hoax; there was never any substantive reason to doubt the SBVT. Same for "Anthopogenic Global Warming;" the computer programs that got dumped have comments which clearly indicate that the programmer probably had a PhD but nevertheless was functioning not as a scientist but as a flunky for Michael Mann. Sarah Palin has been subjected to malicious libel. And if anyone has a case for libel against wire service journalism, it would be the man who tried to buy a stake in the St. Louis Rams, and was rejected as a buyer on the basis of a malicious campaign of libel of "racism.
17. The monopolistic nature of the AP has enabled journalists to promote special privileges for themselves. They style themselves "the press" as if book publishers and magazine publishers - and anyone else who uses any technical medium at all for publishing opinion - were not entitled the First Amendment consideration. In reality, the Framers did in fact anticipate the telegraph, the radio, television, and the Internet. Not specifically, but in principle. They did so by explicitly authorizing the Congress to grant patents "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," and by providing for amendments to the Constitution when necessary. If there is any reason to censor radio, TV, or the Internet more than the newspapers, it is time to propose a constitutional amendment authorizing that. Clearly we do need laws under which libel can be punished, but no more so in broadcast than in print form.
18. The Constitution explicitly rejects "titles of nobility" being granted either by the Federal Government or by the states. And by outlawing any federal "establishment of religion," the First Amendment rejects any national priesthood. And yet the government treats journalists as having privileges not granted to those of us who do not own a newspaper - or a wire service - YET. Not only "shield laws," but the censorship of any but members of the Associated Press (that's not the way McCain-Feingold puts it, but . . .) in discussing politics during election campaigns.
I don't know that you could go before SCOTUS and argue that SCOTUS - as well as the president who signed McCain-Feingold and the Congress which enacted it - behaved corruptly in ratifying McCain-Feingold, and that the whole bunch of them were members of a RICO conspiracy. But that is the reality of the situation, and none of the 5 members of SCOTUS who you could hope to convince of the culpability of the AP agreed with the 5-4 Rhenquist Court decision in favor of it.
It is nonsense to claim that the Framers did not anticipate communication technological advances; they explicitly gave Congress the power to promote technological progress via the patent office.
And if it is necessary to bring different communications technologies under a different constitutional dispensation, Article V makes provision for Amendments to handle that . . .
How Word Preferences in the AP Styleguide Reveal Bias
In an odd and interesting twist, Pravda is now making fun of the American media for being so biased and they mean it the same way we mean it.
It is often suggested that the First Amendment means that journalism is, or should be, objective. That is a fatuous conceit, because the language of the First Amendment cannot do anything but make it harder to hold journalists accountable for subjective bias. It is also absurd because although you can try to be objective by openly examining your own motives and interests and how they relate to the subject you are discussing, you can never know that you have discounted them completely. And that means that believing that you do know that is itself an extreme manifestation of subjectivity.
Thus, if you accept a requirement that there be no subjectivity in what you print, and if you then proceed to print something anyway, you have implicitly made a claim which proves you are extremely subjective.
The problem is IMHO identical to that of the original philosophers of ancient Greece. They were faced with slippery arguments from people (the Sophists) who argued from the assumption of their own wisdom. How do you debate such people? If you claim to be wise yourself in response, the best you can hope for is a draw, and a very unedifying and ill-tempered discussion (and, presumably, one in which you need a convincing win instead of a draw, because your opponent must have some edge on you to be able to make that sort of claim in the first place. Which is a situation we are all too familiar with, in trying to contend with the objective journalists). The philosophers responded to the problem by refusing to claim wisdom for themselves, but instead claiming only that they loved wisdom. Thereby they drew the discussion away from emotionalism and back to the facts and logic of the topic under discussion.
More information, from whatever sources, is ALWAYS better. Trouble always results when gatekeepers “edit” too heavily.
I’m very proud to say that the newsblog that I started nearly three years ago has a free-wheeling comment policy. I can count on one hand the number of comments that I’ve pulled.
We are so through Alice’s looking glass.
When Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, tradition says their band played “The world Turned Upside Down”.
For a person who was born in the 40s and remembers what it was like, it surely is a world I would never have believed.
It's mind blowing, for somebody who remembers how humbled Nixon etc were, AG Mitchell to prison, a dozen others with jail time...
And now, Murdergate doesn't even mention a weekly minute on ABCNNBCBS aka GGTV aka Gangster Govt Television.
Now Senator Durbin thinks it’s important to investigate the bounty program at the Saints. No investigation needed into Fast and Furious, but the NFL needs an investigation. How pathetic.
We are through the looking glass.
I posted this on another forum but thought it would fit here too.
I grew up in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. It was not just a different world, it was not even in the same galaxy as we are in now.
When I was in grammar school, I trusted everyone. I trusted my parents, teachers and the government. I remember the korean war. We would sometimes discuss it among the boys. We knew the U.S. had never lost a war and the thought of losing one never even occurred to us.
The first time I saw a crack in the wall of trust was when Eisenhower lied about the U2. My best friend said Eisenhower was lying but I did not believe it. When the facts came out, it really affected me.
The next thing was the media which I also trusted completely. I can remember wanting to take my little .22 and go join Castro in Cuba. He was the good guy.
There was a civil rights demonstration in my home town. The Blacks decided to swim in the lake which had been White only. There wasnt even a place for them to swim.
Although I sort of felt for the Blacks, when I saw a news story about the demonstration, I realized the media was simply lying. What they said happened did not even remotely resemble what actually happened.
What actually happened was their Mothers came down and grabbed the boys and dragged them back home. I didnt see any police involvement at all except they were there. The media had them blocking the demonstrators, embarrassing them, threatening them with beatings etc.
That was the first time I realized the media were liars.
By the time of the Viet Nam Was it was clear to me that not only were the media pro communist, the American government was so infiltrated with fifth columnists that we could not wage a real war, just a messing around war in which our soldiers were killed for nothing.
From that time to now the radical marxists, radical social leaders, haters of religion and even religion itself had turned into probably what Satan wanted it to be.
Fortunately there are still a lot of good people who see things the way they are but so many have been indoctrinated or brainwashed by the constant media manipulation that we are way in the minority.
I really think the country is finished. Electing Obama proved it.
Even tho I think all is lost I think eventually we will fight back, probably in a losing effort but it is the only thing we will be able to do as they have seized control of nearly all means of information and are consolidating their power daily.
The America of the past is dead and gone. It is now under the control of its worst enemies.