Posted on 11/18/2004 12:28:31 PM PST by neverdem
|
|
www.washingtontimes.com
Pioneer media critic Reed Irvine dies at 82By Jennifer HarperTHE WASHINGTON TIMES Published November 18, 2004 Journalist and media critic Reed Irvine, who relentlessly exposed the foibles of a biased press for more than three decades, died Tuesday from complications of a stroke he suffered late last year. He was 82.
|
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
RIP...that Bradley story speaks volumes.
He was one of the real conservative heroes on our side.
RIP. Irvine did some great work.
Thank you so much for posting this. Too often as great young conservatives leaders emerge, we tend to forget about the giants upon whose shoulders we stand. Reed was such a giant. In the words of Churchill re: the Battle of Britain, he "stood alone until those who were half-blind were half-ready." Good man. Great loss.
I most sincerely hope that Mr. Irvine enjoyed Rather's September, 2004 melt-down. It proved everything he ever said.
Thanks for the link.
I had one personnal interaction with Mr. Irvine. I was calling a local talk show about an item that appeared in an AIM report. I couldn't find the report so I called AIM's office to get the official numbers. The first person I got was not familiar with the information. The next thing I knew I was transferred and was talking directly with Mr. Irvine. He was very gracious and answered all my questions. I was really impressed that he would take the time to talk to a "nobody."
A true hero.
The fact of the tendency of journalism to promote socialism is something I learned from Reed Irvine's AIM Report.If you follow this link to my favorite thread you will see that the political topic which most interests me is the reasons for the tendency of journalism to promote socialism.
Basically the free press naturally promotes itself above its level of competence - it is the institutional embodiment of the Peter Principle. Journalism promotes its own "objectivity" - which is really a synonym for wisdom - but nothing requires journalism actually to be wise. The upshot is that journalists are a herd of people who are desperate to avoid the revelation that they don't know what they are talking about - a herd whose main fear and main target is the little boy who credibly tells the obvious truth.
Journalism promotes fabulous tales of the superior competence of hacks who in fact have no real expertise in the topics on which they espound, or else they would be conservatives rather than liberals. It is remarkably easy to appear intelligent if you have no expertise on the topic du jour; just follow the obvious cues of the journalist and say whatever sounds good. The journalist wants your support for the liberal position, and wants you to look good while giving it. All you need do is echo the liberal line and the journalist will reliably give you the cover of never asking the dreaded "second question."
If you want to get along, just be a sport and go along. It's OK if you stumble and start out backing the wrong horse, as long as you recover and avoid being courageous and opposing the journalist. It is only if you manifest actual courage that you risk being publicly humiliated with whatever the wit of journalism in general can find to throw at you.
The fact of the tendency of journalism to promote socialism is something I learned from Reed Irvine's AIM Report.If you follow this link to my favorite thread you will see that the political topic which most interests me is the reasons for the tendency of journalism to promote socialism.
Basically the free press naturally promotes itself above its level of competence - it is the institutional embodiment of the Peter Principle. Journalism promotes its own "objectivity" - which is really a synonym for wisdom - but nothing requires journalism actually to be wise. The upshot is that journalists are a herd of people who are desperate to avoid the revelation that they don't know what they are talking about - a herd whose main fear and main target is the little boy who credibly tells the obvious truth.
Journalism promotes fabulous tales of the superior competence of hacks who in fact have no real expertise in the topics on which they espound, or else they would be conservatives rather than liberals. It is remarkably easy to appear intelligent if you have no expertise on the topic du jour; just follow the obvious cues of the journalist and say whatever sounds good. The journalist wants your support for the liberal position, and wants you to look good while giving it. All you need do is echo the liberal line and the journalist will reliably give you the cover of never asking the dreaded "second question."
If you want to get along, just be a sport and go along. It's OK if you stumble and start out backing the wrong horse, as long as you recover and avoid being courageous and opposing the journalist. It is only if you manifest actual courage that you risk being publicly humiliated with whatever the wit of journalism in general can find to throw at you.
My #14 was intended for another thread; my fat finger. If the mods would delete #14 and this reply itself, the thread would be improved.
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.