The Collapsing of the American Skull (Mark Steyn)

One of the most ingenious and effective strategies of the Left on any number of topics is to frame the debate and co-opt the language so effectively that it becomes all but impossible even to discuss the subject honestly
. . . and then to accuse everyone else of using code words. They themselves will not allow - have the ability, from the commanding propaganda heights, to prevent - use from using the language with traditional meanings of traditional words.
“Starting” - the phenomenon undoubtedly is even older - with their inversion of the meaning of the word “liberal” in the 1920s. They call themselves “progressives” and us “conservatives” - whereas in fact it is we who favor progress of, by, and for the American people, and people generally, and they who can be relied upon to attack the engines of that progress as evil and monopolistic.
The reality is that American business, free to fail and thus free to succeed and responsible to succeed - has doubled the standard of living repeatedly in our history. To such an extent that an American secretary today arguably has a better standard of living than Queen Victoria had in the Nineteenth Century. And the reality is that the left dominates the propaganda heights because of the homogenizing effect of the telegraph and the Associated Press on journalism. Journalism is only talk, and

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)
The Associated Press reconstitutes a continual virtual “meeting” of all newspapers, and over the past century and a half it has reduced the independence of newspapers to window dressing. Journalism is the biggest monopoly going in America.

If you counter “it” you are acknowledging “it”. If you acknowledge “it” you are letting “it” know that “it” is a threat. If you simply “ignore” it and don’t debate “it”, “it” has no power over your life.

In a nation of rational people, that is an accurate statement.
In a country full of truly stupid people, including in congress, that statement is nonsensical and irrelevant.
Both domestic born "citizens," and virtually all illegal aliens are profoundly ignorant, politically stupid, instant gratification nincompoops who are increasingly invited to participate in the matter of maintaining a healthy dynamic society.

All the while bleeding working taxpayers dry with welfare fraud simultaneously with off the books income, and assuring a growing bureaucracy which exists for the sole purpose of doling out the national wealth.

The monopolistic characteristic of the AP is what unified journalism around the claim of “journalistic objectivity.” The propaganda power of the AP raised alarms early in its existence, and the AP used the fact that its members were then notorious for not agreeing about much of anything as a facade of impartiality. Of course we have seen that the resulting propaganda campaign to the effect that all journalists are objective quickly homogenized journalism - and that should put paid to any argument based on the diversity of opinion in journalism!

The further irony of the claim of journalistic objectivity is that no one can actually know - certainly not in real time - that he, or anyone who agrees with himself, is actually objective. There is no philosophical objection to claiming that you are trying to be objective - if in fact you are making a good-faith effort - but claiming actually to be objective is objectionable on the firm ground that it is sophistry. After all, I doubt that any journalist would like to parse the difference between a claim of objectivity and a claim of wisdom - and the very word “sophistry” derives directly from ancient Greeks who directly claimed to be wise. Those who opposed them adopted the name “philosophers” for themselves, claiming only to love wisdom and not actually to be wise.

That is awesome. Where did you get that or is it yours?

The idea that
The propaganda power of the AP raised alarms early in its existence, and the AP used the fact that its members were then notorious for not agreeing about much of anything as a facade of impartiality
is to be found in

News Over the Wires:
The Telegraph and the Flow of Public Information in America, 1844-1897
by Menahem Blondheim
I recommend the book highly, for a critical look at the AP. But I claim authorship of everything I said to you other than the self-quote above.
If you are interested in the development of my theory of the history of journalism, the late replies of my vanity
Journalism and Objectivity
would be where to look.
The Right to Know,
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate, and
The Market for Conservative-Based News
will give you some idea of how long some of this has been gestating. By now you’re probably sorry you asked!

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.