Posted on 12/08/2008 4:40:00 AM PST by PJ-Comix
“Why even call it a “Federal Writers Project?” More accurate to all it “Liberal Propaganda Project.”
About 50% of Americans, those of us, who can read and understand what they read, would know that FWP =’s LPP.
I wouldn’t trust these liars to let the Salvation Army keep what their kettles collect.
This year in the cities where my wife and I donate to the Kettles, we are seeing locked kettles.
Does anyone remember any of the reams of crap that these featherbedders and goldbrickers produced under government subsidies back in the 30’s? Thought not. Some time earning their bread by the sweat of their brows would do all lotus-eating writers a power of good, and result in better literature.
There is still a need for people who can investigate a story, track down sources, get people to tell things they might not otherwise do and then write an informative article about it whether it is printed on paper or distributed electronically. Unfortunately, most "journalism" has turned into reformatting AP stories around the few remaining advertisements, uncritically reproducing press releases, using Wikipedia for some cursory fact checking and blaming Bush.
Buckhead was far more of a journalist on the Dan Rather forgery than 99.9% of those who pass themselves off as paid journalists.
FWP-this is a very good idea and then all the unemployed libs could write all about Dear Leader with words of praise,adoration and adulation.They could come up with multiple story board styles ...Dear Leader Trying To Quit Smoking,Dear Leader Exercising or Playing Basketball,Dear Leader Sitting at His Desk,there is room for opportunity here,isn’t there?
Such as? I checked the Wikipedia article, and there were a few famous writers involved with the FWP. But it's not clear that any of the work they actually did for the FWP, as opposed to what they went on to do later, has any great interest--perhaps apart from the slave narratives, interviews that were set down at the time and have been of some use to scholars in that field--though I doubt that they are as useful as earlier surviving narratives.
For instance, John Cheever was one of the writers who joined the FWP, but only because he needed to eat. Here's what Wikipedia says about that:
In 1935, Katharine White of The New Yorker bought Cheever's story, "Buffalo," for $45--the first of many that Cheever would publish in the magazine. In 1938, he began work for the Federal Writers' Project in Washington, D. C., which he considered an embarrassing boondoggle. As an editor for the WPA Guide to New York City, Cheever was charged with (as he put it) "twisting into order the sentences written by some incredibly lazy bastards."[4] He quit after less than a year.
"Fairness" Doctrine stuff. But, PBS and NPR are nothing other than this very thing.It is in my experience a great mistake to try to prove that journalism is not objective - for the simple reason that that is a political opinion. You would do just as well to expect to be able, in an hour's conversation, to convert a Democrat to a Republican. Not gonna happen.
The point to make is not the mere fact that you or I can cite examples of tendentiousness in journalism until the cows come home. And the point to make is not simply that no one has actually proved that journalism is objective, and nobody ever will - because lack of bias is an unprovable negative.
No, the point is that you have a right to listen to Rush Limbaugh, provided only that he makes his program available to you on terms that you are able and willing to meet, without reference to what anyone else thinks - or what everyone else thinks - of Rush Limbaugh's opinions. Just as surely as anyone else has a right to listen to Katie Couric. Whether Rush or Katie is "objective" is entirely beside the point. A government which distinguishes between the speech of Rush Limbaugh and the speech of Katie Couric is not operating under the Constitution.
And spare me any distinction between speech, press, broadcasting, Internet communication, etc. All of the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights are implied in the basic Constitution without amendments; the First Amendment is a floor on our rights to communicate, not a ceiling. The particular technologies which post date the framing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are of course not explicitly mentioned therein, that is a given. But the Constitution does explicitly mention "the progress of science and useful arts" and provides for the promotion thereof - and does not exempt communication from the possibility of progress to be pursued.
The government is not authorized to grant privileges to some people and deny the same privileges to other people. What else would that be but a "title of nobility," the grant of which by the federal government is expressly forbidden by Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution? There might be technologies which would enable communication but which would damage public health - for example, microwaves of sufficient power density to damage tissue of innocent passers-by - but if anyone is allowed to use a technology to communicate, then everyone has a right to use that technology to communicate. "Freedom of the press" is actually the right of the people to spend their own money to use technology in an effort to promote their own own opinions.
Yeah, it’s not like we don’t get enough left wing propaganda now...
Snicker
Well that was dumb, I thought it said Pinksy! D’oh!
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.