An NPR-like Press – A Next-Key-Element in the Liberal Agenda

It was interesting to watch the recent dust-up between Ted Koppel, the 42-year veteran of ABC News and Keith Olbermann, the one-time Sportscaster and Current MSNBC Commentator. Probably like many Conservatives, I have to admit to some perverse pleasure derived from watching a couple of flaming Liberals trying to knock the soup out of each other. Unfortunately, that entertaining aspect of the story obscured an underlying theme where it seems many Liberals are in agreement – i.e. A State-run Press is the ideal (Utopian) solution to the continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism.


Although a State-run Press is the consistent solution offered up by Liberals, their views on the cause are often diametrically opposed. In Koppel’s case, corporate profits are seen as the villainous cause. Ironically, the other most common cause cited by other Liberals is the lack of corporate profits. This may be best detailed in a book entitled The Death and Life of American Journalism.

Koppel’s perspective on “villainous corporate profits”, as leading the way to the deterioration of the American Press, is summed up in his Washington Post article entitled The case against news we can choose, where he says:

“What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.

To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence.

Network executives were afraid that … the Federal Communications Commission (would) suspend or even revoke their licenses.

On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable. Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its ‘60 Minutes’ news magazine in 1968.

Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth … (for) relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.”

My reaction to this echoed Jack Shafer’s opening observation in Slate, in an article entitled Ted Koppel, Bad Reporter, where he said:

“I know of no more sorry a spectacle than the wizened newsman weeping with nostalgia for the golden age of journalism—which just happens to coincide with his own glory days.”

Shafer’s general assertion in his article is that Koppel is just “dead wrong” about certain claims he makes. However, he doesn’t address Koppel’s declaration about “the heart of good journalism being facts, along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.” I think he’s “dead wrong” there too. Just think about Harvest of Shame, the 1960 documentary hosted by Edward R. Murrow, the leading Saint of American Broadcast Journalism to Koppel and his peer-group. No doubt, Harvest of Shame is a great example of American Journalism shining the light of truth on the sordid conditions of American migrant agricultural workers of that day but to say that the related facts were presented “without fear or favor” isn’t even close to the truth. In fact, one might argue that the “fear” and “favor” aspects of that documentary were essential for the positive impact of that journalistic effort. Regardless of the good that I believe resulted from the work of Murrow and his colleagues, with Harvest of Shame, I think the “fear or favor” evident in that work should give us all pause, to consider the implications of Koppel’s comment that “Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth … (for) relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.”

The primary target of Shafer’s “dead wrong” assertion, however, is Koppel’s claim about those “villainous corporate profits.” To support his assertion, Shafer cites Michael J. Socolow’s paper, in Journalism, that details “The myth that network news didn’t make money (until Don Hewitt birthed 60 Minutes) owes its origin to artful bookkeeping.”

Before digging into how The Death and Life of American Journalism conflicts with Koppel, in terms of the cause of the present decline of the American Press and its congruence with Koppel’s views on the paramount solution for this predicament, it’s important for me to share a bit about my experience in reading this book. If you’re wondering why a vocally Conservative guy like me would be interested in reading a book which, as I stated earlier, addresses the most common cause cited by Liberals for the continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism, you’ll be puzzled further to learn that the answer is: Because another Conservative friend recommended it. In recommending the book, though, my friend said, “You may not agree with all of the ideas the book offers.” My response was, “So this is an instance where I should be prepared to chew the fruit and spit out the seeds?” My friend’s reply was, “That’s a good way of putting it.” It didn’t take long for me to understand why this book would have significant portions that, for me, would be “fruitless.” In the Preface, the co-Authors (McChesney and Nichols) set aside an entire page to acknowledge Contributors. These include folks such as Phil Donahue and Arianna Huffington; and the dedication in this section says: “… when we are asked to provide an example of the journalism we seek, we respond … with a single name, Bill Moyers.” With that backdrop, let me share with you what I saw as “fruit” and “seeds”, relative to the subject at hand.

First, when it comes to “the heart of good journalism being facts”, McChesney and Nichols seem to be in agreement with Koppel that this should result in “… relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.” In The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols frequently state “facts” about the GWB Administration that they, apparently, “believe the public need to know.” These “facts” include statements such as: “When the United States geared up to invade Iraq in 2002, commercial broadcast news media, with only a few brave exceptions, parroted Bush administration talking points for war that were easily identified as lies.” Since these “facts” are presented as just that, “facts”, without any reference at all for their basis in fact, these were the first “seeds” I spit out.

The area where McChesney and Nichols are in complete disagreement with Koppel is the cause for the ongoing decline of “traditional” American Journalism. Koppel says it’s corporate profits. McChesney and Nichols say it’s just the opposite … the lack of profits. I’m in agreement with McChesney and Nichols on this. The one area where I’m in agreement with Koppel, as well as with McChesney and Nichols, is that the entire “traditional” American news-media system is disintegrating. When it comes to the State-run Press that these Liberals have in mind as the solution for this dilemma, as you might expect, my position diverges dramatically from theirs.

In The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols attempt to build the case for a State-run Press by stating that doing so is in alignment with the “Founding Principles” of our nation. The first “seed” to spit out here is in noting that McChesney and Nichols first speak of a “Free Press”, then they equate that with their definition of a “Functional Press” and from there forward, they use the terms interchangeably.

Next, McChesney and Nichols state that, “… government in fact created the free/(functional) press … with aggressive and often enlightened policies and subsidies.” They, then, go on to “… argue that Americans need to embrace this tradition as they respond to the present crisis.” A typical line of reasoning the Authors use here is the one about the U.S. Constitution giving the government the responsibility “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” According to McChesney and Nichols, when Post Roads were first built there were tolls for their use but publishers were allowed free access. For McChesney and Nichols, that adds up to the government subsidizing the press. When you stop and think about it, giving publishers free access to Post Roads isn’t much different from publishers (along with everyone else) having free access to the Internet today. However, in both the case of the providers of Post Roads, as well as the case of the providers of the Internet, allowing free access to the channel of communication doesn’t mean the provider should be given influence over the communication itself. As you read more about the plan these Liberals have in mind, you’ll see that their idea for a State-run Press is much more far-reaching than just giving the government authority over the Press’ channels of communication.

To more fully understand the Utopian solution our Liberals friends have in mind here, let me give you a synopsis of the four-part proposal presented in The Death and Life of American Journalism:

1) Immediate measures to sustain journalism, each of which transitions to a permanent subsidy if successful;

If nothing else, one has to be concerned for: Whose definition of “journalism” and “successful” would be used here?

One of the specific subsidies proposed would include a “News AmeriCorps”, a New Deal style organization for producing “the great investigative reporters, editors …” The obvious question of concern here is: By whose standards?

The proposal that troubles me the most here is one for “a dramatic expansion of funding high-school newspapers and radio stations.” Is it just me or does this sound like something you’ve read about before under the heading of a Goebbels-led program for Hitler Youth?

2) A plan to convert the collapsing corporate newspaper into what we term a “post-corporate” digital newspaper, with print versions at the very least until there is ubiquitous broadband;

Actually, I see this as “fruit” but it’s already happening as the result of the forces at work in the American economy. In other words, the Laissez-faire approach is working fine and nothing State-run is needed.

3) Converting public and community broadcasting into genuinely world-class civic and democratic media;

Much as with point 1), one has to be concerned for: By who’s standards?

and 4) Spawning a vibrant, well-funded, competitive and innovative news-media sector on the Internet.

Here too, it seems to me that the forces at work in the American economy should take priority. And, what should we do about the time after/beyond the time of the Internet? At the turn of the last century the Laissez-faire approach seemed to work fine in addressing the challenges presented by the decline of the once-thriving Buggy Whip Industry. I’m betting we can count on it to be just as effective in dealing with the transition to whatever we develop beyond the Internet.

Although I firmly believe that the forces at work in the American economy should take priority, McChesney and Nichols do offer one proposal here that I saw as having “fruitful” potential. It’s a proposal for an L3C Model – a Low-profit Limited Liability Corporation – to attract significant investment in projects that seek to serve charitable or community interests. Of course, even with this, one should be concerned for whose definition of “charitable” and “community interests” would be used. However, I’m aware of business owners who are interested in developing “digital newspapers”, as alternatives to declining “traditional” newspapers and this L3C Model could be a worthwhile catalyst for sort of turbo-charging those interests.

At the end of The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols sum up their proposal by stating that the need is to move from Public Broadcasting to Public Media and they pose the rhetorical question, “Why the state?’ Their answer is, “It is the American way.”

My answer is, “No, it isn’t!” McChesney and Nichols claim that the answer is “the State” and that “It is the American way” is another of their claims that has no basis in fact. Liberals, simply, believe that “the State” is the answer for everything. The continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism has painful aspects to it for us all. It’s always going to be that way with a truly Free Press. This is well-exemplified in Voltaire’s quote about Free Speech … “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Living that out often requires what can be some pretty painful patience. But, it has consistently proven to be worth the price. I think it’s more realistic to view American Journalism as being in a state of metamorphosis, rather than a state of decline that equates to its death throes. I’m in full agreement with McChesney and Nichols that a Free Press is essential to the survival of our Republic but I say, “No more NPRs, thank you!” Generally, my suggestion for the current metamorphosis of American Journalism is the same as what has proven to be best with the metamorphosis of a caterpillar … when it goes into its cocoon, leave it alone (Laissez-faire)! If you don’t, you’ll really screw up the beautiful butterfly that would emerge, otherwise.

Comments

LinkedIn Comment


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2010-11-30 05:26.

0

+-This Comment, left on LinkedIn:



Susan Bender Phelps We' ve always had news supported by advertising. We've always had yellow journalism. Except for a few courageous publishers, editors, and reporters, the news has generally been skewed either by what wasn't told or what was. I'm not interested in government-owned media outlets. If journalism is truly to be the Fourth Estate, it cannot be gov't owned, it can be gov't sponsored. I don't object to the owners of newpapers, radio and television stations etc., making a profit. I object to corporate monopolies that have resulted in fewer organizations generating the news and the monopolization of our airwaves 24/7 with sensationalized news. When everything is sensational - nothing is sensational.

Free Press


Submitted by Susan Bender Phelps (not verified) on Wed, 2010-12-01 13:20.

0

+-We' ve always had news supported by advertising. We've always had yellow journalism. Except for a few courageous publishers, editors, and reporters, the news has generally been skewed either by what wasn't told or what was. I'm not interested in government-owned media outlets. If journalism is truly to be the Fourth Estate, it cannot be gov't owned, but it can be gov't sponsored. I don't object to the owners of newspapers, radio and television stations etc., making a profit. I object to corporate monopolies that have resulted in fewer organizations generating the news and the monopolization of our airwaves 24/7 with sensationalized news. When everything is sensational - nothing is sensational.

Is Our Choice Bush-McCain or Obama/Biden-Reid/Pelosi?

“Bush-McCain!” … the Democrat’s one consistent mantra, since John McCain became the Republican’s apparent nominee for the 2008 presidential race. Although McCain is obviously his own man and his presidency would be significantly different from that of President Bush, you can understand why they want McCain to be saddled with Bush’s unpopularity … currently ranging from 25% to 33%.

Since, according to the National Journal, Barack Obama (D) has the Senate’s most liberal voting record and Joe Biden (D) has the Senate’s 3rd most liberal voting record, isn’t it more appropriate to link Obama/Biden with the current liberal (D) congressional leadership … Reid/Pelosi? In 2006, the Democrats became the majority party in both houses of Congress, establishing the Reid/Pelosi administration. The Democrat’s winning campaign strategy was summed up, at that time, by the new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, when he said, “The days of the do-nothing Congress are over,” adding that Americans spoke “clearly and decisively in favor of Democrats leading this country in a new direction.” Considering that the current unpopularity of Congress ranges from 14% to 18%, it appears that the “new direction” Reid/Pelosi had in mind was a level of “do-nothing” where no man has gone before. Now, aside from “Bush-McCain!”, the central Obama/Biden theme has been “Change!” It boggles the mind to consider the depths of “New Direction”/“Change” an Obama/Biden-Reid/Pelosi term will mean.

MoveOnBostonLegal.org

“Legal Dramedy”, is how Wikipedia defines the format of the TV series Boston Legal. Living TV describes the show as a “… critically acclaimed and Emmy Award-winning quirky legal drama …” That is a good summary of why I first became enamored with this brilliantly entertaining program. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly common to hear the production characterized as “shamelessly liberal”. With that, Boston Legal’s brilliance and entertainment value has continued to decline and its charm is rapidly fading for me.

Ironically, in a recent episode, entitled “Tabloid Nation”, Boston Legal, itself, addresses my very concern. In that episode, during one of his much ballyhooed “arguments”, James Spader, as Attorney Alan Shore says, “… today you can switch back and forth between the right-wing news and the left-wing news. Whatever happened to Huntley? Brinkley? John Chancellor? To news that was just the news? Now we have partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” I want to ask something very similar … Whatever happened to Seinfeld? Frasier? Tony Soprano? To brilliant entertainment that was just brilliant entertainment?

Now, it’s Boston Legal that gives us one-sided “… partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” Worse yet, its cloaked in the pretense that it’s still really just entertainment. There’s a Biblical caution about this … In what is known as The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:15), Jesus says, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” And, there’s a Biblical caution about the results too … in Revelation 3:16, the Lord says, "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” If Boston Legal wants to be brilliantly entertaining, I believe it still can. If it wants to be a “shamelessly liberal” public policy advocacy group, it can probably do that too. By trying to be one while pretending to be the other, it squanders the significant value it once had and that makes me want to vomit … or, at least, tune out.

Although the waste of what Boston Legal once was is a shame, what it has become is aggravating a wound that our nation desperately needs healed. In a more recent Boston Legal episode, entitled “The Court Supreme”, more one-sided “… partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” is featured in another Spader/Shore “argument”. This has received much acclaim from those to whom this sort of thing appeals. For me, it was another glaring example of the continuing political decline of our nation – i.e. the politics of fully pitting ourselves against those who don’t agree with our views, based on any difference we can find. As I said in an earlier posting, entitled Rediscovering America's Strength, our nation needs urgent care for this wound, through “… rediscovering the strength that made America great in the first place ... the synergy of the best of our differing ideas.” With that in mind, reluctantly, I plan to start tuning out of Boston Legal, as well as other programs that choose a similar route.

Waving the Redstate Flag in the Bluestate's Face

Last week, Figgins and I decided to try a social-political experiment. We wrote an article on "... the passion-evoking, yet vacant, rhetoric of Barack Obama." Then we posted the same content on both a very conservative blog site and a very liberal blog site. Some of the results were pretty dramatic and some were to be expected but, in this process, we saw one aspect in a new light that was quite revealing and educational for us.

As you might expect. there was a difference in the volume of responses from the respective sides. Since the theme was obviously more inflammatory to liberal readers, we expected more of a reaction from that side. However, we were a bit surprised with how dramatic the difference was. The posting on the conservative site has elicited one (1) comment from last weekend to this weekend. On the other hand, I posted the article on the liberal site just as I left for church last Sunday morning and there were 97 comments by the time I got home from church. Of course, there are many possible reasons for this disparity, including my writing talent or lack thereof. The possibility that concerns me most, as a conservative, is that liberals are just more "on fire" about this election than are conservatives. Regardless of my writing ability, Obama's rhetoric is a topic that should rouse significant conservative interest. If conservatives are, generally, as disinterested as this experiment seems to indicate, we should just start adjusting to the thought of seeing liberal Democrats in the White House for at least the next four years.

And, you might expect that we received some just plain rude comments. We're encouraged to say that those were surprisingly few. There were at least as many thoughtful comments that led to some healthy dialog. However, there was one particular quality we were looking for from the responses that was glaringly missing ... Obama's much-trumpeted change.

Although I see little, if any, substance to Obama's oratory, I accept that many are believing, as one Commenter put it, "(His) message of unity to solve America's problems." Obama's campaign often positions him as a "post-partisan politician" in this regard. If that's the case, based on the comments I received from Obama supporters, that doesn't seem to be bearing fruit, or even taking root, in them. There I was, boldly "crossing the aisle" to express my views and I wasn't generally finding Obama supporters who were looking for common ground where we could connect. So, while it may be appropriate for Senator Hillary Clinton to be asking, "Where's the beef?", relative to the substance of Obama's message, I think it's even more appropriate and certainly more poignant for all of us to be asking, "Where's the change?"

With that said, I want to, again, go on the record in saying that I'm very much a fan of change along these lines. That was the focus of my earlier posting, entitled "Rediscovering America's Strength." In fact, at that time, I was hoping that the candidate I was supporting (Governor Mike Huckabee) would pick it up, as a main theme to his campaign. In spite of the fact that Governor Huckabee accomplished far more in the current campaign than was generally expected, its obvious that this "isn't going to be his day." So, I'm rooting for this theme to be picked up by the candidate who will be the Republican nominee ... Senator John McCain. Of course, I think this remains a great theme but I think its a particularly good theme for Senator McCain. He could put the much needed substance to this and do something for our nation that is truly heroic. How fitting that it be done by a man who is, in fact, a genuine hero of our nation?!

"Real Conservatives" position "Real Liberals" for 16-Year White House Stay

Since Figgins knows that I consider myself to be a "Real Conservative", he seemed pretty stunned when he heard me say that I think what many "Real Conservatives" are currently doing will result in "Real Liberals" occupying the White House for at least the next 16 years. I can understand his reaction. It took something pretty stunning to get me to that point.

What got me to that point was hearing Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson state that, if John McCain is this year's Republican nominee and if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are this year's Democrat nominee, for the first time in his voting-life he won't cast a vote for President. Up to this point, the related "McCain is not a real conservative" noise had been troubling me but none of the noise makers had stopped me in my tracks, as Dobson had done.

I know Ann Coulter caused quite a stir when she said that, if McCain is the Republican nominee, she'll campaign for Hillary Clinton. That's certainly not something you'd expect from someone whose current book is entitled, "If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans". I think Ann's oversight here is that it takes more than brains to be a Republican and/or a "Real Conservative". In addition to brains, it also takes common sense ... another key ingredient lacking in many Democrats and/or "Real Liberals". Though Ann's intellect is obvious, this anti-McCain statement makes her lack of common sense just as obvious. So, I think she'll fit in just fine across the aisle and I say, "Good riddance!"

"Conservative Talk Radio" has been making the most noise on this and as usual, the noisiest has been Rush Limbaugh. Now, much like Ann Coulter's, Rush's views generally line up with mine. And, also like Ann Coulter, Rush typically expresses his views in an intelligent and interesting way. However, the guy is a windbag and mostly enamored with himself and I wouldn't let someone like that set my course for me.

Dr. Dobson, however, is quite another matter. I haven't done the accounting but I don't think it would take the fingers on one hand to count up the people in this world who I admire more than Dr. Dobson. What he has done and strives to do through Focus on the Family is priceless in my view. So, when he sets an example, I take it most seriously. In this instance, though, I believe he is mistaken. After all, admire him as I do, he isn't perfect. The flaw in this, as I see it is that he is choosing to not participate as his way of being against. This, I believe, will be very destructive. What makes it worse is that he had and I believe he still has, the opportunity to take a position for something and to be quite constructive.

Initially, there were many more Republican Presidential Candidates than the three major candidates (Please don't expect me to include Ron Paul) remaining. Surely, there was a "Real Conservative" from that field whose views would have lined up reasonably with Dr. Dobson's. I don't understand why Dr. Dobson didn't take the constructive path of endorsing one of these.

Although the opportunity to choose from the initial field of candidates has passed, three candidates remain. Isn't there a more positive tack that Dr, Dobson could take than just being anti-McCain and anti-Clinton/Obama? If so, I think its necessary to look at the three and see if there's something that Dr. Dobson and the others may have missed in determining if any of these are "Real Conservatives".

What about Romney? Instead of just taking an anti-McCain stance, Dr. Dobson could have endorsed Romney but he didn't. Why not? The "Conservative Talk Radio" crowd are certainly behind that. They say Romney maps to all three segments of the Reagan coalition. But, I think they've missed some parts. The Reagan coalition had many more than three parts. Some of the parts that seem to not to be getting mentioned lately are things like having more substance than a glossy veneer and being trustworthy. You may want to reference what I detailed on this topic in my post entitled Honest Politician but I suspect Dr. Dobson sees this and thus, no endorsement for Romney.

And, what about Huckabee? Frankly, he's my guy but I understand concerns about his foreign policy skills and his "electability". But what is such a mismatch between their views that would keep Dr. Dobson's from taking the constructive path of endorsing Governor Huckabee? I'd really like to hear from this man, who I so admire, on this topic.

And, finally, what about McCain? Or, more appropriately, why set an example of not providing support that McCain will need to keep "Real Liberals" from securing, at least, the next 16 years in the White House? Being anti-McCain is always an option but, in determining who is a "Real Conservative", isn't one for-sure quality that they aren't a "Real Liberal"? McCain, at least, passes that test. Clinton and Obama don't! OBAMA IS THE MOST LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE SENATE, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!! Doesn't it make more sense for Dr. Dobson and the others to first see if they can settle their differences with McCain? Why not sit down with this unarguably genuine national hero, tell him your concerns, see if you can find common ground where you can meet and support him in order to avoid letting the "Real Liberals" take this country into another cycle of decay? I have to say, I'm sort of disappointed in Dr. Dobson with this. I know for sure that one thing we share is our faith in Christ. Central to that faith is that we have been forgiven through God's gracious gift, in Christ. The Scriptures teach us that forgiven people should be forgiving people so why shouldn't that apply to any missteps "Real Conservatives" see in McCain's past?