[conservatism_IS_compassion]

America was also premised on the idea that the nation would fair well with an open, honest and unfettered Press.

The "honest" part is journalistic propaganda having no basis in the First Amendment. Nothing in the First Amendment gives any basis for the belief that journalism would be honest, and Jefferson and Hamilton sponsored newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles. That is the model for freedom of the press.

The problem is not tendentiousness in journalism; that was old in Jefferson's time. The problem is the naivete of the public which buys into the con that journalism is objective because journalism says it is objective. The other problem of journalism is government-licensed (obviously therefore unconstitutional) journalism. I have reference of course to broadcasting, which could not exist without censorship to enable licensees to be heard over long distances.

Journalism has been seized upon by broadcast licensees as an excuse for their existence as government-licensed, government-favored entities. The trouble was, of course, that objectivity is not readily defined (except in a retrospective view in the light of history). So what could broadcast journalism do but mimic unlicensed journalism? Hence we see broadcast journalism parroting The New York Times.

The conceit of journalistic "objectivity" is sustained not only by the need of broadcasting to propagandize about the "need" for "objectivity" which they provide (or at least make a pretense of providing while merely mimicking The Times) but by the willingness of journalists to go along and get along instead of competing for the respect of the public. If all go along, all get along and all are putatively "objective;" the alternative would be for persistent flame wars. Thus we see flame wars only between the institutions of "objective journalism" on the one hand and of "conservative talk radio" on the other.

Since objectivity is a virtue and it is arrogant to argue from the assumption that you have a virtue, frankly "conservative" commentators actually have the moral high ground in their positioning. For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and sophistry, that is . . .

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

ping

[CGVet58]

"...The problem is not tendentiousness in journalism; that was old in Jefferson's time. The problem is the naivete of the public which buys into the con that journalism is objective because journalism says it is objective..."

Bingo!

The Fathers were wise beyond what mere men could hope for - your elegant statement hits the mark perfectly, and begs the obvious conclusion: only a well-informed citizenry whom are mindful of their nation can be the best guarantor of Freedom.

And that, my friend - as you and we know all too painfully well - is where can be found our Achilles Heel.

[Tench_Coxe]

True. The press today in many respects is tame compared to the type of press in the early days of the U.S. . there is one difference, however (IMHO): there was a time when politics stopped at the water's edge. That line has been crossed, and Americans are now being killed or in danger of being killed because of the 'journalism' we're seeing today.
The unfortunate part is that this irresponsible activity will potentially invite the heavy hand of government. Perhaps, for the short term, a good thing. In the long term, no way.

[beyond the sea]

excellent....

[E.G.C.]

BTTT