Mainline Endorsements
From the wars against disorder,
From the sirens night and day,
From the fires of the homeless,
From the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
--Democracy, Leonard Cohen
__________________
Why do newspapers endorse candidates? Ranger understands endorsements from unions, fraternal organizations and the like, but why general circulation newspapers? Our own Tallahassee Democrat proclaimed in Tuesday's Local Section: "Find Out Whom we Endorse."
Accurate and unbiased reporting of the news and newsmakers is expected, but making the news is different from reporting the news. Endorsements turn the news reporters into newsmakers, and impartiality is then out the window.
Does freedom of the press and religion allow the freedom to proselytize? In its absolute definition, yes. But at some point freedom crosses the line into coercion and libel. At that point, if someone has the power to counter the charge and the rule of law prevails, the person making the allegation may lose their rights.
Using common sense, God does not advocate for politicians in the temporal realm, and newspapers should deliver the facts. People are free to worship as they choose and read the news outlets of their choice. Constitutionally guaranteed freedom resides within and accrues to the individual, but the matter becomes sticky though individual affiliation with and directorship of various organizations.
News agencies are becoming partisan political commentariats posing as news. Newsmen are becoming celebrity, as much as Paris or the politicians. Rather than epitomizing freedom, coercive partisanship from erstwhile impartial outlets is a subversion of our individual freedoms, specifically, the freedom from state propagandizing. News agencies should factually report the news and religious sects should report the words of their God.
The People have become flabby in their dependence on the intravenous new feed from handsome people who tell them how to think.
Labels: freedom of press, freedom of speech and politicking, news endorsements of candidates
posted by rangeragainstwar at 9:12 AM
7 Comments:
Gotta strongly disagree with you here, Ranger. From the very get-go of our nation, newspapers were partisan. It is their very essence. You don't think the First Amendment is there to protect the right of high school history text book writers, do you? Ever read the Federalist Papers? Pretty damned biased stuff, all published to influence votes on that very Constitution. Sounds to me like you think Madison and Hamilton shouldn't have been permitted to publish those "biased" papers.
The way it's supposed to work is that we the public first spend some time with that newpaper that shows up every day, either building trust or disdain. Then we read the opinions and recommendations, using our own intelligence, the confidence (or lack thereof) we've developed in our newspaper (the source of information), other sources we've plumbed, and only then do we make a decision. The newspaper (or other sources) should be only one of a multitude of opinions we consult.
"Ranger Against War" is a form of media. If you think just sticking to the facts is so important, why don't you? Why do you try to influence me with your opinions? Oh, but you have the "right" to do so. Of course. But that right began with the newspapers.
I certainly value your opinion; however, as may be noted by this post, I don't always agree with you. In fact, I think you're way off base. You're in effect espousing control over the media (read: censorship), and that is something to which I will be eternally hostile. Although I agree with you more often than not, you're not infallible and you're also not my sole source, which means you're periodically going to come up with a loser in my view. This is one of them. And that makes you just like my newspaper. Or TV cable people.
"The problem, dear Caesar, is not in the stars; it is in ourselves." Meaning, in this context, that a partisan media is only a danger if you live in a nation of dumb shits who are influenced by just one opinion rendered by a pretty face. And, frankly, if you live in a nation of dumb shits, you've got a whole host of other, more pressing problems than the media.
Partisanship in the media isn't the problem. Stupidity and gullibility on the part of the populace is.
Publius,
Jim's not here now, but I appended this very comment to him personally.
I suspect Jim, being human (though he doesn't always like to 'fess up to this fact) has been adversely affected by some recent troll activity here, and perhaps feels that with the perfect IV drip from respected news outlets, gullible humans would then understand what is happening in their world.
The problem is, as it has ever been: who apprehends without any preconception? Surely we at RAW would never pretend to be unbiased; this is an opinionated site. When choosing editorialism, one can go with The Nation or The American Prospect, as one sees fit.
In an ideal world, there would be a source for unmediated news stories, like an uber-wire service. As it is, we're left with scanning Reuters, AP and UPI, and choosing a paper of two that suits our inclination, maybe the London Times or IHT. Usually, the NYT or Post since we're rather ethnocentric, and then making the best of it, drawing our own pastiche. That is freedom at work.
This piece was a flight of idealism from Ranger who is getting in the hippy-dippy mood because his 40th college reunion is approaching, and they're all stroking themselves on how progressive they were/are.
Sorry to be the one to tell them, but they didn't fix things out here, just like they didn't cure themselves. Ahem.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
-Buddha (attributed)
PUBLIUS, when both you and Lisa blast me i must be flapping in the breeze.OK i'm tired and i overloaded my mouth but on the bright side now you and Lisa are agreeing on something:-)
You are correct and my focus should be adjusted.Maybe i'll even censor myself and scrub this entry.
I'll have to check out those there federalist papers. jim
publius. coming back at you- after thinking about this exchange.Which i find less than enjoyable i must further comment..
-yes newspapers from the gitgo have been partisan. Does this make it right that they are so? what makes this a good thing?
-the fed papers were not newspapers, they were propaganda/opinion swaying pieces that led us to nationhood.Of course this is biased, BUT IT WASN'T NEWS REPORTING. News is objective , when it becomes biased or partisan then it's subjective.
You indicate that i'm espousing control and censorship BUT YET you accept this very same fact in your ARMY TIMES which is censored when they cannot endorse candidates. The Army Times is privately owned and operated so if they don't endorse than by your formula they're censored. I simply wrote an opinion that i believe is a valid construct. You may disagree but that doesn't invalidate my position.
RAW may be a form of media but i do not claim to be reporting- i am raising questions and making observations BUT I NEVER SPEAK AS AN ORACLE.Anyone can flush at any point and i'm not losing any sleep.My right to speak did not come from a crummy newspaper- my Constitution says it inalienably came from God.God is not a newspaper.
By God publius, i know i'm not infallable and that you read other sources- that's what makes this America- everybody has the right to be wrong.
I deeply resent the position that i'm another pretty face since i've worked very hard to overcome this handicap.Possibly you are referring to Lisa in which case i agree.
Since you mention cable as a form of media /news then why don't you get your shorts in a wad over the gross and blatant censorship of the airways.Or is only your printed form inviolable?
Now let me move on to McCain/Obama/ageism and all associated.This fucking Ranger thinks they are both substandard as potential leaders of America AND IT's my official policy not to grace either with my comments.My comments are not Lisa"s comments. I do not care about either of those pukes.
To you aned lISA BOTH - I STAND BEHIND MY STATED OPINION. aND THAT'S ALL IT IS -AN OPINION.
iN CLOSING- FRANKLY I DON'T CARE WHAT mADISON AND hAMILTON DID OR DIDN'T DO- I CARE ABOUT TODAY.
jim
Wow! I'll explain where I'm coming from, Ranger, right after I deal with this: "I deeply resent the position that i'm another pretty face since i've worked very hard to overcome this handicap." No danger of that happening, IMO.
In your massive counterstrike, you bring up some good points. But, going back to your original post, what irked you was your local newspaper providing endorsements. You don't like that.
I don't have a problem with it because I understand the nature of the newspaper business (or any reporting business, for that matter). Any halfway decent media organization, in trying to serve its community, is broken into several component parts, e.g., national/local news, sports, business, weather, and all of the rest. With the exception of sports and business, where you'll find columnists, readers should always expect to find strict, fact-based reporting, with absolutely no bias.
But then the newspaper has this other section, the one that's clearly labeled "opinion" or something similar. This section includes the op-ed page(s), where depending on space and budget, clearly opiniated commenters running the gamut from local politicians to national guys such as George Will are found. "Opinion" is where you're going to find the endorsement for local dogcatcher, NOT in the news section.
Since the beginning, newspapers have worked to make themselves respected members of their communities. Back before corporate media, the local publisher was often a well respected member of the community. His opinions carried weight. An endorsement could make or break a political career, and a whole lot of bad guys were driven from or denied office as a result. Good guys, too, which is why I say before one just accepts whatever the local rag says, one should check other sources.
So what's wrong with the model of the newspaper or local TV station providing its opinion on the issues of the day, provided it's clearly labeled as just that: an opinion?
As I said, we have a first amendment largely to protect the right of newspapers to print FACTS that may put the lie to what powerful people say, as well as OPINIONS that, when viewed in the light of available FACTS, may carry a great deal of weight.
I was in Washington, D.C. during those fateful years of 1972-74. I read the Washington Post every day and also used other sources. Watergate really happened, it really was a lot more than a two-bit burglary, which is how the Republican Party first tried to pass it off, and Nixon was truly a criminal. And, yes, the Washington Post drove Nixon out of town on a rail with its FACTUAL reporting and its influential OPINION.
Would you rather have had Nixon stay in office? With Agnew perhaps succeeding him? Do you think that perhaps the fact that much of the media had had enough and forcefully expressed its negative OPINION had something to do with finally exposing the truth about Vietnam? Do you think maybe Iraq might have turned out a little differently had the NY Times' vaunted liberal editorialists perhaps warned against swallowing the neo-con horseshit being peddled by their reporter Judy Miller, who was serving as a stenographer for Cheney?
Vietnam was finally exposed through a mixture of objective reporting and changes in heavyweight opinion. Watergate the same. The whole Iraq fiasco was greatly facilitated by subjective and dishonest reporting coupled with conscious withholding of opinions. I know which model I prefer.
ISTM your wrath would be better directed against dishonest and subjective reporting that's labeled as objective, rather than against opinion that's clearly labeled as such. Like Fox News, for example, which would be a laughing stock were it not for the fact that it's been so destructively influential. But inasmuch as, no, I do not support censorship, there is little I can do about Fox News other than to avoid it and to advise everyone I know to do the same.
Army Times? I rarely read it. But I do know that the censorship in refraining from endorsements is self-censorship. And I think that's a responsible thing to do, given the Times' unique status in the military community. I also know that the Times was right there along with the WaPo and NYT in blasting the Army for Walter Reed. Speaking of which, was it inappropriate for these newspapers to express their OPINION that the Bush Administration and the Army just didn't seem to care about these wounded soldiers?
I'm opposed to all forms of censorship, to include denying newspapers the right to express an opinion. Let 'em flannel mouth all they want, I say. Just so long as they clearly identify opinion as being opinion. Where I draw the line is when the opinions are not labeled as such, but are instead presented as objective news.
Looks as if we're just going to disagree on this one, Ranger. And, actually, we're doing it the way it's supposed to be done, using a opinions buttressed by fact in an attempt to influence the other person. This is exactly what newspapers do on the editorial pages. That's what your blog is: an editorial page. And I'm the guy writing the letter to the editor.
Publius,
Re;Army Times.Self imposed censorship is still censorship.
I'm concerned with this particular endorsement b/c it was on the front page which is normally strictly news reporting.I have no real problem when it's identified as opinion and endorsement when/if clearly articulated.OK i'm splitting hairs b/c you've got me pinned down and i cannot hide behind my pretty face any longer.
Pls note that my ire does not reach to the standard of WRATH as you observe- if i ever get to that stage then a Ranger/SF tab will be handy items.
Yes indeed we can disagree but i think it's largely just words but our substance is overlapping.The young lions at socnet could learn a lot about dialogue by emulating both Lisa and yourself- there is a school approved way to do these things and you've helped writing the textbook.
Have a nice trip, sorry we can't meet. jim
Post a Comment
<< Home