Posted on 11/14/2007 7:44:30 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
Is there any such animal as "conservative-based news?" IMHO there is not. At least, not that goes under the banner of "news."
In the Founding Era, newspapers were different from what we are used to today. Technologically, their inputs were more expensive and their output was very slow and meager. And they were all addressing small, local markets. They were mostly weeklies, and some had no deadline at all - the printer just went to press when he was good and ready. And they did not have telegraphed news.
IOW, the newspapers of the founding era were pretty much like the local freebie advertising weeklies we see today - which don't do national/international newswire stories because the presumption is that the customer has seen all that on TV, heard it on the radio, or seen it on the Internet just as quickly as the local printer saw it.
The linchpin of the difference between the modern journalist and the newspaper printer of the eighteenth century is that the modern journalist has the AP newswire - that is, his stock in trade is what he "magically" knows with amazing 200-year old technology which you do not know until he tells you. But of course the "amazing" newswire cannot hold a candle to the Internet, so the niche of the Associated Press newswire is by now an anachronism.
The AP, founded in 1848 as The New York Associated Press, aggressively monopolized the use of the telegraph to transmit news. And that raised the serious question of whether such a concentration of propaganda power was not dangerous to the republic. . . . now where have I heard that issue before? Oh yes, I remember - it came up when radio transmission was licensed by the FCC. And what was the answer then? Oh yeah - "Don't worry about a thing - we don't have any axe to grind, we are all objective journalists here." Well, it turns out that that argument, such as it is, was precisely what was used to justify the monopolistic Associated Press news service.
The claim of objectivity actually is an assault on the very premise that the public is competent to govern its own affairs and, via the "fairness doctrine" and more recently via "campaign finance reform," on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press of those not "in the know" by virtue of being privy to the newswire. The claim of objectivity is essentially indistinguishable, as far as I can see, from a claim of wisdom - and arguing from a claim of superior wisdom is the essence of sophistry ("soph" being Greek for "wisdom").
That being the case, we-the-people have the right and the duty to assign the burden of proof for anyone's claim of objectivity squarely on the shoulders of the claimant. That is, we should not be embarrassed by their begging the question but should demand that they prove their case. Even were their claim true, of course, that is an impossible case to prove - essentially an attempt to prove a negative - but that does not suffice as an argument to prove that it is true. It even leaves open the possibility that proof that it is untrue could exist.
Yet how can we know if a fresh report, hot off the wire, is or is not objective? We actually cannot - but there is no necessary reason why that should be the criterion which we choose for judging claimed objectivity. We can wait. We can judge the stories which once were "hot off the wire" in the light of history. We can apply the biblical standard for testing authority:
"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. Deuteronomy 18:22, New American Standard Bible (©1995)
By the standard of the light of history, whole books can be written on the fact that journalism is not objective. See, for example, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right by Ann Coulter. Also see, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case by Stuart Taylor , KC Johnson. Another classic case of journalism run amok is the fraudulent "Killian Memos" promoted by Dan Rather and CBS News and never outted as a blatant fraud by the rest of "objective" journalism, a mountain of damning evidence notwithstanding.
And that last point illustrates how Big Journalism - Associated Press journalism - manipulates the public discourse. The system is quite simple - if some fact is not congenial to the worldview of the journalist, Big Journalism systematically stonewalls that fact and/or raises the standard of proof for that fact to the unattainable level of metaphysical certainty. As long as Big Journalism is able to control the standard of proof, the fatuous conceit that Big Journalism is objective will be unassailable. The fact that it has no basis in fact is irrelevant.
The question is, "Is there any significant venue in which Big Journalism does not control the standard of proof?" There are two possible avenues. First, the Internet has been eroding the business model of the Associated Press. The logical conclusion of which is that Big Journalism no longer has any real niche of information unavailable to the rest of us. The Wizard of Oz is being exposed as a mere mortal behind a curtain. Besides FR and the rest of the Internet, there is Rush and the rest of Talk Radio. And ultimately, the composition of SCOTUS remaining unchanged or improving, there is hope of success in not merely turning back further impositions such as McCain-Feingold and the revival of the Fairness Doctrine but of overturning McCain itself.
In any court case touching on the objectivity of journalism, the issue of the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill hearing and the objectivity of Justice Thomas could be raised. But to raise that question against Justice Thomas would be to turn the issue on its head. The question is not, or certainly not so much, whether Thomas can be objective seeing that he does not read the newspapers as it is whether any of the other justices can be objective seeing that the do read the newspapers. If SCOTUS can hear the issue fairly, there is no question that the First Amendment not only does not assure that journalism generally and Big Journalism as we know it specifically is objective. The First Amendment forbids the government to require journalism to be objective.
Another question which naturally arises is, "What is the alternative to the status quo of journalism?" The status quo is, as I have pointed out, that journalism is:
- motivated by a common interest - the interest of promoting talk, and their position at the peak of the propaganda power pyramid. That means that journalism naturally tends to denigrate action and promote criticism. When Theodore Roosevelt noted that "it is not the critic who counts," he could have been looking straight at the press gallery.
- unified. It is Big Journalism; its members are linked via the Associated Press and by their common agenda noted above. Questions could rightly be raised about conspiracy in restraint of trade.
- Prone to sophistry. The question is not, "Why should they" engage in sophistry; the question is why anyone would assume that they would not engage in it.
There is a classical reaction to the position the Sophist. "You claim to be wise, and presume to denigrate anyone whose supposedly inferior wisdom you can ridicule. But you cannot prove your own wisdom, and your claim is therefore arrogant. I do not claim to be wise, but I admit that there is such a thing as wisdom and truth, and I am open to facts and logic because I love wisdom." The Greek word for someone who loves wisdom is philo (brotherly love) soph (wisdom, again) - "philosopher."
Who then is the sophist, and who the philosopher? Anyone who uses an advantage of power to control the debate and keep certain facts off the table (in the style of the "objective" journalist) is a sophist. Anyone who eschews ad hominem attacks and other propagandistic techniques, and who is open to the facts and logic pointed out from any quarter, is a philosopher. Your average FReeper, lacking any ability to control the debate, must perforce be a philosopher.
Of course the moderators of FR, and Jim Robinson, are in a position to be able to control the debate on FR, and actually they do. But their control extends only to FR in particular, and not the Internet generally - let alone to any of the so-called "mainstream media." And FR succeeds as a forum because in fact the moderators are not interested in manipulating the discussion but in appealing to what is in America conventionally called a "conservative" audience. Likewise Rush Limbaugh and the rest are in a position to be able to be what Rush calls "a benevolent dictator" of what is said on their shows. And likewise, those shows succeed or fail as they exercise that power in such a way as to appeal to a wide audience, or fail to.
Rush calls his format "the long form," by which he obviously means that the format does not depend on hit and run tactics. "The News" by contrast is a very stylized, stilted view. You are basically given the word, whether you like it or not. Nothing is on the table for discussion. Rush on the other hand takes calls, and debates with callers. His listeners would hear it if he were being manipulative with his callers, and he succeeds because his listeners do not hear that. A talk show host who allows a wide range of views to be expressed, and who focuses that discussion on current affairs, is addressing the "market for conservative-based news."
I see your point. But we do disagree. As presently structured, the DriveBy Media are almost all businesses that must make money to survive. They are for the most part publicly traded companies that must disclose financial data to shareholders in accordance with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). Unless they make money, they will go out of business.
True enough, they print and broadcast DNC talking points, but that monopoly is OVER. And, as you suggest, they may reconstitute themselves as organs of the political parties and funded by them as was prevalent in the 1800's. And who is to say that won't be a better system than what now exists.
Amen! (Although my somewhat dated data differs slightly.)
"I remember very vividly looking around the news room - big urban news room with about 200 editorial employees - and I was kind of pondering what it was that made me see the world so differently than all of my friends and colleagues in the newsroom and it clicked one day when - I was pretty sure, knowing all of these things as well as I did, that I was the only one who went to church on Sunday," said Farah.
My mistake—doing this from memory. I knew there was an “8” involved. It was a 1993 survey of who voted for Clinton vs. Bush (only 8% voted for Bush). 80% who never go to church is correct.
Ok, you say “to survive.” I know countless boutique shops that I know do not ever turn a profit, but stay open year after year because the woman’s rich husband writes them off as a tax loss. What is to keep a bigger corporation from writing off such a “news” outlet as a tax loss year after year? As long as the shareholders don’t care . . . .?
Dear abb,LS: Getting back to our thread I admit that in my zeal I overemphasize economics to the point of making it omnipotent as described in FALLACY 1.
A Brief Critique of the Communist Approach to World ProblemsFROM: The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen (1958), pp. 61-88
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1568493673/...
FALLACY 1 -- The first fallacy of Communism is its attempt to over-simplify history. Marx and Engels attempted to change history from a fluid stream, fed by human activities from millions of tributaries, into a fixed, undeviating, pre-determined course of progress which could be charted in the past and predicted for the future on the basis of a single, simple criterion -- economics. Obviously economics have played a vital and powerful role in human history but so have climate, topography, access to oceans and inland waterways, mechanical inventions, scientific discoveries, national and racial affinities, filial affection, religion, desire for explanatory adventure, sentiments of loyalty, patriotism and a multitude of other factors.
OTOH an oligarchy of about a dozen companies (families) did indeed use economics of scale to ruthlessly drive out competitors and thereby secure a virtual monopoly for themselves in providing information. They will suffer truly unimaginable losses (to them) as the Inet thoroughly decimates their virtual monopoly.
Works for me, but let's not get into tinfoil land.
It's theoretically possible, but unlikely shareholders of a publicly traded company will allow unending losses. A privately owned company 'could' subsidize a losing media company for a time, but no one has unlimited capital to waste. Not even governments.
The only answer I can see to the propaganda issue is to logically point out that "news" is inherently a superficial category. I look forward to reading that article you recommended from The Historian (turns out that the article in question was a little later than you remembered, apparently - my son said it was from 1975, I think it was). But the point, certainly, is that restricting your attention to the recent and the sensational is a bias.Make that point in court, and not only the FCC licensed broadcast journalists but even all the print journalists who participate in the monopoly known as the Associated Press suddenly would be on extremely tenuous legal footing.
Still, it's a classic article, and almost never cited---because people would have to deal with it, then.
My son is a hobby musician, played sax and then bass guitar in ska a band in H.S. - and has been taking drumming lessons and is making an insulated studio in his basement to use his drums in.Still, it's a classic article, and almost never cited---because people would have to deal with it, then.
I can only imagine how hard it would be to get publicity for a thesis like that. Reporters falling all over themselves </sarcasm> to give you publicity for the thesis that their jobs are overrated and actually worthless! Well, IMHO it is the job of FreeRepublic to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Who else is gonna do it, if not an anonymous FReeper?
Yes!
bump! bump! bump!
And the FIRST Prez I voted for was Nixon in 1972!
It is my personal opinion that there is a bias in the media . . . against Fred Thompson's candidacy for President.
I dislike the formulation, "the media" to describe Big Journalism becauseThe claim of lack of bias is an unprovable negative, even if it were true. And although it may not be possible to prove that a report is biased at the time it is reported, it is possible to analyze reporting in a historical context and clearly see that it is heavily biased. The bias of journalism is that the things that the AP knows that you don't - the latest news - is important. Occasionally it is, but that is usually not the case.
- although movies and TV shows are in fact liberal, they are fictional - and cannot be made "unbiased" without censorship, which would be a bias all its own.
- "media" is a plural noun - and Big Journalism is a single entity, albeit one with many faces. At root, Big Journalism is the Associated Press, a monopoly on the delivery of news over the telegraph wire. To defend itself against the charge that it is a monopoly of propaganda power, the AP started claiming to be objective over 150 years ago. And all the faces of Big Journalism - The New York Times, ABC News, Time, etc - are united in claiming that journalism - including that of their nominal competitors - is objective.
Bias in favor of the novel is bias against the status quo, against conservatism. Fred Thompson is the most clearly conservative potentially successful contender for nomination to the presidency in the Republican Party, and of course there is no conservative contender for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Consequently, bias against Thompson is strictly a dog-bites-man story.
Huckabee and McCain are conservative in their own way - but then, Al Gore is "conservative" from the POV of wanting to prevent change to the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. The American "status quo" against which "liberals" rant is one in which freedom and equality of opportunity (albeit imperfect) reward incentive, diligence and perseverance - and it very unconservatively promotes progress and therefore promotes change. The alternative to American "conservatism" of that sort is American "liberalism" - which pays lip service to liberty but attacks the very notion of the possibility of virtue apart from that which lies in mere criticism of the successful.
The Market for Conservative-Based News
I feel like C-SPAN is every bit as biased as the others.
Look at how much coverage they give to the usual suspects.
I watch Washington Journal everyday and I just couldn’t go there today.
I don’t know where they find all of these lifelong Republicans who’ve suddenly switched to Obama or Hillary for the good of our country.
They found a bunch of them at The Red Arrow Diner in NH, and the many of the people who call in, who would seem to be a little more up on things are the same type of boneheads.
I also find "Orwellian" the MSM morphing "swiftboating" into a term meaning exactly the opposite of what the Swiftees actually did. The Swiftees were the truth tellers, God Bless 'em!
Absolutely. In fact, Newspeak abounds in our political discourse for the simple reason that we have a monopolistic Big Journalism establishment controlling the way terms are used and coined.The bias of journalism is that journalism is all-important. To be all-important, journalism must be objective. Therefore (in Newspeak logic), journalism is objective. "Objective journalism" is one (Newspeak) word. In Newspeak there are several words for "good." "Objective" is one, but "objective" as I noted is part of the Newspeak word "objective journalism" and is not to be used to describe anyone (no matter how much they agree with journalism's perspective) not actually employed as a journalist. Indeed, if a journalist does not project the perspective of Big Journalism - well, strike that sentence because in Newspeak it is as illogical as speaking of dry water. Whoever does not project the perspective of Big Journalism is "not a journalist, not objective."
Other Newspeak words meaning "good" in Newspeak include, "liberal," "progressive," and "moderate." A person perfectly in accord with the perspective of Big Journalism but not employed as a journalist is accorded any Newspeak word for "good" which suits him - anything except "objective," that is. But let that same person - George Stephaopolis, for example - be hired as a journalist, and Shazam! Boom! Instant objectivity.
Just as the Newspeak word for "good" is not "good," the Newspeak word for bad is not "bad" - nor even, as Orwell had it, "ungood." Newspeak words for "bad" are "conservative" and "right wing." Or, for that matter, "Swift Boating."
Conservatives as FR knows and loves them are a strange breed of "conservative." They want to conserve - keep going - a revolution. In contrast to the French or Russian revolutions, the American revolution enshrined a plan for a continuous revolution. The American Revolution was about freedom - and freedom makes change inevitable. The conservative element in the American Revolution is the Constitution, and its definition of the ground rules which are to regulate change and, in a very real sense, maximize progress.
What it pleases Big Journalism to call "progressive" is in fact reactionary against the change which the American Revolution, operating through its rules enshrined in the Constitution, has unleashed. Environmentalism and its extreme form, regulation of the generation of a gas we all exhale, is patently a reaction against the development and the human expansion unleashed by American "conservatism."
The real difference between liberals and conservatives is in which specific things they want to change, and in what way.
Milton Friedman was the leading conservative thinker of his time but he wanted to radically change the Federal Reserve, the school system, and the tax system, among other things.
Everybody is for change. They differ on the specifics. Uniting people behind the thoughtless mantra of "change" means asking for a blank check in exchange for rhetoric.
The real difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" (note my scare quotes) is in which specific things they want to change, and in what way.Journalism is simply self-promotion via the ownership of propaganda organs and monopolization of the newswire. Journalism, that is, exists to promote its cheap talk over concrete action, which can always be second guessed. Journalists award positive branding to their fellow demagogues, and negative branding to those who reject demagoguery. The founding fathers were liberals (without scare quotes), and outside the US the word "liberal" still is understood to refer to their (and FreeRepublic's) perspective. So when journalists were handing out positive labels to their friends they awarded the term "liberal" to them. And when journalists were handing out negative labels to their opponents they imposed the term "conservative" (which is the last thing that the British would have thought to call the founding fathers) on us.
Dangerous Demagoguery (Thomas Sowell)
Townhall.com ^ | January 22, 2008 | Thomas Sowell
“We need an internet-based medium that goes out and finds the news.”
Try CNSnews.com
As always - my gratitude for your writing on this forum.
I am late to the discussion but have enjoy the past hour or more reading the contributions.
Thank you again for including me in your list to receive your wonderful authorship and thoughts.
Trouble
Thanks for linking to this from “Wall Street to Daily Papers: ‘Drop Dead’”, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960427/posts
The Failure of Normality: The unhappy lessons of the Thompson campaign.
The sermon today was from John 11 - the raising of Lazarus - and the emphasis was on the fact that Christ tarried two days after receiving the message that his friend was sick.The point of the sermon was that we are bombarded by the "critical" and tempted by it to be distracted from the important. And that is the same sermon that Fred Thompson preached in his behavior during this campaign.
I agree that we are only too likely to look back in rue on the fact that Senator Thompson's normality was too good for the process which selected our candidate.
But then, the candidates allow journalists to set the terms of that process. And journalism is dedicated to the task of telling you something - anything, be it never so irrelevant or superficial - which you don't yet know.
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.