Posted on 08/04/2008 9:06:17 PM PDT by jazusamo
We have forgotten so much about the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that many people may not remember the deadly anthrax spores that were mailed to various prominent people in politics and in the media during that time.
None of the intended victims was killed by the anthrax but five other people were, including two postal workers, who apparently became victims because they handled the mail containing anthrax spores.
In the instant search for someone to blame, biologist Steven J. Hatfill was publicly named as "a person of interest" in the case by government officials. He became, in the media presentation, the villain du jour.
The government was eventually forced to issue a retraction and agreed to pay a settlement of more than $5 million. But retractions never catch up with the original charges, which will blight this man's life the longest day he lives.
More recently, a federal investigation has focused on someone else who worked in the same scientific laboratory as Hatfill. This time the new suspect was about to be indicted, as distinguished from being tried in the media-- and he committed suicide.
This may mark the end of the anthrax story but the reckless destruction of people's reputations and the disrupting and blighting of their lives in the media is continuing on.
There is much to be said for the British practice of limiting what can be reported in the media about someone on trial until after that trial is over.
Once a charge has been made and publicized from coast to coast-- if not internationally-- later exoneration will never get the same publicity, so the damage cannot be undone. You cannot unring the bell.
A major part of what is reported in the media-- especially the tabloid media, whether in print or broadcasts-- consists of leaks, speculation and innuendo, all repeated around the clock, day in and day out, whether or not anything is ever proved.
What someone thinks is going to happen is not news. After it happens it is news.
The 24-hour news cycle may require that somebody be saying something on the air all the time. But that is the media's problem-- and it should not be solved at the expense of ruining other people's lives.
The loss is not solely that of the particular individuals singled out for accusation or innuendo.
If an informed citizenry is the foundation of democratic government, then a misinformed citizenry is a danger.
Individuals who have never been smeared can also be affected. Highly qualified people, whose knowledge and judgment are much needed in high places, may turn down judicial nominations, for example, or decline other high-profile positions in government, if that means risking having outstanding reputations for integrity that they have built up over a lifetime be dragged through the mud in televised confirmation hearings conducted like Roman circuses.
Such top-level people can always be replaced by warm bodies, as Judge Robert Bork was replaced by Judge Anthony Kennedy, after the smearing of Judge Bork by the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated his nomination.
But the whole country continues to this day to pay dearly for having Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, making intellectually foppish decisions.
One of the perennial crusades of the media has been to have more government business televised. Their self-interest in this is obvious. But the benefits of televising government proceedings-- if there are any benefits-- must be weighed against the enormous harm that this can do not only to individuals but to the country.
Television conveys false information as readily as it conveys the truth. Congressional hearings are not glimpses of truth. They are staged events to perpetuate some political spin.
Televising these political shows only impedes Congress' ability to get serious work done in private instead of spending time playing to the peanut gallery.
Both individuals and the country deserve more protection from publicity abuse than they usually get.
I thought of Mr. Jewell as I read the article also. Prayers for him and may he find peace and his heavenly reward. His name may have been dragged through the mud here on earth but may his name forever be written in the book of life eternal. Amen.
Thanks for the ping.
Your discussion of the newspapers at the time the First Amendment was being written and ratified, are spot on.
It is also my understanding that the Associated Press was successfully sued by a Chicago newspaper on antitrust grounds.It seems to me that the Fairness Doctrine presupposes journalistic objectivity - and that not is only journalistic objectivity a fact not in evidence, "journalistic objectivity" is a conceit which is promoted by an organization which exists in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Which conceit is central to the business model of that monopoly, and of its member newspapers.
Which leaves me wondering how any resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine withstands challenge of the foundational premise that there is an objective standard of contemporaneous speech - when the core reality underlying the First Amendment is that the government must not define what speech is objective. Considering that the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment protect the unverifiable claims of religious doctrine from adjudication by Congress, how does Congress have the right to judge which speech is "conservative," or Republican, or Democratic, or "objective?"
And without such a determination, of course, a requirement for balancing is absurd on its face. What is "balanced" in such case?
The raw power reality is, of course, that SCOTUS would have to stand up the Associated Press journalism in order to rule sensibly on such a case - and that would mean each justice having to read in the papers what a meanie he is, for the rest of his days. The only justice not subject to the flattery and derision of the papers being Justice Thomas, who gave up on journalism upon his confirmation. He is actually, therefore, the only justice who should not recuse himself from such a case.
Thank you both for your informative posts.
I noted that also and have thought a lot about it because the Canadians enforce it and it seems to me it practically eliminates the sensationalism in these type case.
I find myself disagreeing with that last statement of yours. Always right? This time, at least, I think not. He wants us not to televise Congress's deliberations, so they can get on with the business of the nation in private conferences. Why in the world would we want our congress critters to do their wheeling and dealing in private?
I would much rather they stop preening for the cameras and do their work. The congressional record records their activities.
The USA functioned just fine before television.
The classic of guilt built up in the media was Ollie North .. and his appearance that shot that all to hell was the best televised Congressional hearings ever!
The USA functioned just fine before television.”
I agree that they should stop preening and get with their work. The Congressional Record only records what they do when in session, not in those private conferences, however, so I disagree with you there. As for how well the USA functioned before television, I believe it depended on how interdependent the congress critters were. Sometimes it did, and sometimes it didn't. When they got as seriously partisan as we see now, it did not work well at all. See the "caning" incident in pre-Civil War history, for an example.
Well said! Col. North is a true hero in spite of the enemedia.
The power of the government to convict without a trial is fearsome. The ability of the feebs to smear someone is jaw dropping. The evidence against Ivins seems thin, e.g. it was rumored that he had developed a vaccination against anthrax and was expected to hit the lottery on the patent. Only trouble is, the vaccine became available after the release and government employees are limited on the amount of royalties received for patents they develop.
You and me both, actually! ;)
However, the caning incident I'm speaking of resulted in the senator who committed the caning receiving over a hundred replacement canes from supporters. He was a Dem, btw. (assuming I remember the numbers correctly.)
I find myself disagreeing with that last statement of yours. Always right? This time, at least, I think not. He wants us not to televise Congress's deliberations, so they can get on with the business of the nation in private conferences. Why in the world would we want our congress critters to do their wheeling and dealing in private?Dr. Sowell. Always brilliant. Always right.
It is a chimera to propose that our congresscritters are ever going to restrict their discussions to televised hearings and floor debates. They don't want to, and they absolutely cannot be forced to. Period.And the upshot of that is that televised Congressional hearings/debates are for show, because the participants in them know that they are on TV.
“And the upshot of that is that televised Congressional hearings/debates are for show, because the participants in them know that they are on TV.”
So, do you mean we shouldn’t TRY to make them discuss things where we can see the discussion? Or do you just mean it’s hopeless, so why bother?
I mean that we should know better than to take things at face value. My cynicism about journalism and the Democratic Party is essentially total.
I'm going to take that as a “why bother” then. How do you feel about the Republican party?
I'll give you a hint on how I feel: No better or worse than the Dems (as a party). Some individuals in both parties are what I want in a congress critter, but not very freaking many. That would be why I want them to get the idea that we are watching them. Like hawks!
I'm going to take that as a “why bother” then. How do you feel about the Republican party?“I mean that we should know better than to take things at face value. My cynicism about journalism and the Democratic Party is essentially total.”
I'll give you a hint on how I feel: No better or worse than the Dems (as a party). Some individuals in both parties are what I want in a congress critter, but not very freaking many. That would be why I want them to get the idea that we are watching them. Like hawks!
What good does it do to watch them do exactly what you already know, and they already know that you know, that they are gonna do?That sounds like a counsel of utter cynicism and disengagement in politics - exactly what the pols want. But that is not my meaning. My point is that journalism has succeeded in wildly overhyping its own importance. Journalism styles itself "the press" - of which it is I admit a component, tho not the only component - but that omits some important points:
In this article, Thomas Sowell is merely arguing that one of the defining characteristics of journalism - its rush to judgement - is not in the public interest. No matter how useful journalists find it for the purpose of interesting the public.
- Journalism self-defines itself as being objective and - see for example "The National Press Club" - self-defines itself as constituting "the press" of the First Amendment. But the First Amendment plainly restricts the government from requiring "the press" to be objective - and if the government certifies that journalism is objective, and constitutes "the press," the government is thereby violating the First Amendment.
- Journalism as we and our grandparents have always known it - tracing back a century and a half, to the middle of the Nineteenth Century - is a creature of the telegraph and the Associated Press. It was only with the advent of the AP that "newspapers" actually began to rely on publishing news which the general public could not know until the newspaper printed it. We take such a steady stream news from distant locales as being the central, defining characteristic of the newspaper, the very heart of its business model - but news in that sense scarcely even existed at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment. The printer didn't have sources to which the general public could not be privy, and consequently there was no point to operating on a short deadline to try to put out the word to the public before they learned the news from other sources. Most newspapers were not dailies but weeklies - and some had no deadline at all, and just went to press when the printer thought he was good and ready.
- The business model of pre-Associated Press newspapers was not that of the AP newspapers but was much more like that of The Nation or National Review - they depended for their audience not on their news gathering/dissemination but on their interpretation of events - the perspective of the printer. They made no pretense to objectivity; they couldn't do so with a straight face, and their competitors were not about to accept any such imposture without engaging in the heaviest ridicule of which they were capable. They were not independent of the political parties; indeed I would argue that the paper which Jefferson sponsored to attack the politics of Alexander Hamilton - and to respond to the attacks by the paper Hamilton himself sponsored for reciprocal purposes - was possibly the embryo of the Democratic Party.
- The rules which journalism proposes as constituting their objectivity do not reflect the public interest but rather what interests the public - and that is quite a different matter. "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" is a counsel of superficiality, "'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man'" is a counsel of unrepresentativeness, and "If it bleeds, it leads" is a counsel of negativity. IOW, there is always news, and the news is always bad, and the news is always important even if it doesn't really signify anything enduringly true . In that sense, what defines newspapers is not the public interest, it is actually radicalism. Consequently there is no reason for so-called "objective journalism" to be independent of the Democratic Party, nor vice versa. In fact there is a powerful symbiosis between the two, which explains why there is a revolving door between journalism and Democratic, but not Republican, political operatives.
Ping.
BTTT
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.