![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouI've long been aware the concept of 'the liberal media' is a complete joke as concerns major newspapers or (especially) television. The concept of 'liberalism' is tied, in traditional media, to the admittedly noble concept of going after truth at any cost, with financial rewards secondary to uncovering injustice. Without that noble 'liberal' drive, we wouldn't have, for instance, laws against child labor, against monopolies, against mislabeled or misleading drug ingredients and packaging, to name a few.
When someone says, liberal media, that's what I think of: a media unafraid to speak truth to power, to the corporate monsters who'd freely poison our water, sell us rotten meat, abuse its employees, all for the purposes of making its stockholders (and its Board of Directors) more money, with no concern for those paying the price. I think of a media willing to speak truth to any government that would arrest its own citizens, torture and convict them, to silence them. I think of a media willing to stand up when a thousand people are saying it's time to sit down; I think of a media willing to dig deeper, go longer, look harder, when the entire world is coasting by on the surface with its eyes closed.
We do not have -- if we ever have, truly (other than a few remarkable instances) -- a liberal media in this nation, not per se. The media monsters in newspaper and television are as corporate as any other major company, no different from their pharmeceutical, manufacturing, retail, or service kin; their purpose is to make money for shareholders and directors. They prefer their journalists, photographers, and photo-journalists to keep a lid on it; they'd hardly want those employees turning around and focusing that frightening gaze on the media corporation itself, let alone those sharing its bed.
The few 'liberal' journalists, the real questioners, stand out: Nellie Bly investigating insane asylums for women, Samuel Hopkins Adams exposing the dangers of unregulated pharmaceuticals, Ida Tarbell taking on John D Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company, Jacob Riis covering the slums of New York City, Ethel Payne tirelessly following the civil rights movement (and also the first black woman employed in a national media), Seymour Hersh exposing the My Lai Massacre, Lewis Hine shedding light on factory-worker children, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward who need no explanation (I hope), Upton Sinclair investigating the meat-packing industry, Paul Brodeur bringing attention to asbestos as a major health risk, David Burnham digging into police corruption in New York City, and of course Edward R. Murrow who for twenty-five years brought news to people's living rooms from the Blitz to the Red Scare to migrant workers.
But I think it's also backwards, to say we have a liberal media, or don't have a liberal media, or a conservative one, or not. A few weeks ago, I reread a piece by Andrew Sullivan (a leading conservative political essayist) about the idea that the 'green' movement, of any possible political mindset, should logically be not a liberal ideology but a conservative one. He argues: conservation of our natural resources, of our parks and wild places, of our civil liberties, of anything is an act that should be considered unquestionably, intrinsically, conservative. President Theodore Roosevelt may have been a progressive but he won on the Republican ticket; he was also the founder of our National Park system and a leading conservationist.
Why wouldn't this be the same for those investigative journalists? It hardly seems to me that the founding gentlemen of our country sat around and said, "and these rights will go mostly to massive conglomerate corporations..." To hold onto the originating ideals of those Rights -- and their design for the protection and the liberty and the safety and the happiness of we the People -- we are conserving, we are being conservative, we are saying: these Rights should not be set aside because it is convenient for someone's passing purpose. We are truly conservative when we say: there is never a time when these defining Rights can be set aside. We are holding on. We conserve.
As an aside: now, perhaps, my flist understands why I am sometimes baffled that the ACLU is considered a liberal organization. Oh, no, they are most definitely a conservative one by this measure, with a mission to defend and uphold the Bill of Rights: "to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:your First Amendment rights... your right to equal protection under the law... your right to due process... your right to privacy..." I have trouble seeing how you could possibly get any more conservative than that, than to announce that you won't let some johnny-come-lately political power or social shift or wartime crisis allow anyone to set aside the past.
Our national ideals are stated most clearly in the Declaration, which I've always considered a sort of preface to our country's design. It was among the first expressions of what would later be refined in the Constitution:
The word 'liberty' has its origins in the Latin liber, which means "free" or "not a slave", hence its association with freedom in general, be that of thought, word, or deed. The Constitution -- and the Bill of Rights -- were so truly revolutionary (in an ideological sense) in great part because of the concept of a Government that governs only with the consent of the governed: we are free, we have the liberty to call out our Government, that in fact we are not only free to do so, we are in fact obligated to do so if we feel it has failed us. Even as we consent to being governed and accept the never-perfect results of our combined consent to those in power, our Government must never forget that it, in turn, exists because we chose it, and that we do again upon every single election cycle.
And thus, in a sense, if we are active participants in our Union, we are all equally liberals, we are free, we protect those freedoms, we exercise them, we cherish them, even if this means against our own government. When John F. Kennedy accepted the Liberal Party Nomination, he said:
So: liberal media? Yes, this would be good. Conservative media? Yes, equally so.
Do we have either?
I don't think so. I don't know what to call it, but it's neither seeking to look farther, to welcome new ideas, nor is it trying to protect what we've long held sacred. It's mostly a series of corporate goons, ranging from one end of the political spectrum to the other (a spectrum independent, clearly, from the ideological sense of either conservative or liberal with small-letters), and most of them seem to exist only to call 'the other side' names, to increase ratings, to make money, and not in that order.
We lack a media -- except in very small parts and single voices -- that not only exclaims but actually acts on the ideals of either liberty or conservatism. Instead, we've got a media nodding cheerfully at advertiser demands, at political payoffs. Our major newspaper and television media don't even bother to keel under to big business pressures; they've already rolled over with a smile to get their tummies scratched. That cripples we the People in any attempts to be better-informed about any "service provider" impacting our world/lives, from private industry to the biggest of all, our Government.
This is why, effectively, I trust neither the right, nor the left, nor the middle, of any newspaper or television, because all of them are in it for money. I have come to believe it is only by looking at what each refuses to show, and comparing that across the board, that I might have some small hope of getting a better idea of what's really going on in terms of what big business -- and big government -- don't want us to know, the questions they'd rather we not ask, the fine print they'd rather we miss when we grant our consent.
It would be easier if I could trust at least a few media outlets; probably even easier than that would be to rescind both my awareness and my freedoms and let a single source spoon-feed me as it pleases with no question from me. There are a lot of people in this country who get so caught up in the labels of 'Conservative' media channels versus 'Liberal' media channels -- oh, the Washington Times and Fox News, they're just Conservative pap -- oh, the Washington Post and the Gray Lady, they're just Liberal pap -- and I find it all quite...
...tiring.
We need new words, something to hand to the folks who want Liberal to mean Democrat (it doesn't, not in an ideological sense), and something to give the folks who want Conservative to mean Republican (no ideological match there, either). We need to give them nice, new, shiny labels for what they'll call the other end of the political spectrum, so that those of us willing to take the time and effort to set aside the frothing mouthpieces may find the quiet, steady, conservative liberty of journalistic voices that must still exist out there, somewhere, in small-distribution papers and on-the-scene reports and podcasts from the front, whatever that front may be.
I want to seek out those voices that fight to conserve our liberty in the face of multi-million dollar industry with all the jobs and money on its side, in the face of nuclear-powered governments with all the armies and laws on its side, when both are working day and night to undermine our ideals and destroy our freedoms. I want to recover and return to those steady, small voices the words, cleaned off and polished back to original shine, conservatism and liberty, conservative and liberal, so that they may be reminded -- and help to remind us all -- that to be American, we need to be both.
So, in closing, the sobering three minutes mentioned in the subject heading. What does it say to you when a major media corporation won't show -- or even mention -- a reporting segment done by its own foreign correspondants? The days are long gone of being unable to edit on-the-fly for unsuitable family material, so I see that as little excuse (and the piece is clearly edited after the fact, with a large number of shots and locations). Its non-inclusion gives me pause, almost as much as its content.
Battle for Haifa Street
And if you've any ideas on new words or how to take back the old, do speak up.
When someone says, liberal media, that's what I think of: a media unafraid to speak truth to power, to the corporate monsters who'd freely poison our water, sell us rotten meat, abuse its employees, all for the purposes of making its stockholders (and its Board of Directors) more money, with no concern for those paying the price. I think of a media willing to speak truth to any government that would arrest its own citizens, torture and convict them, to silence them. I think of a media willing to stand up when a thousand people are saying it's time to sit down; I think of a media willing to dig deeper, go longer, look harder, when the entire world is coasting by on the surface with its eyes closed.
We do not have -- if we ever have, truly (other than a few remarkable instances) -- a liberal media in this nation, not per se. The media monsters in newspaper and television are as corporate as any other major company, no different from their pharmeceutical, manufacturing, retail, or service kin; their purpose is to make money for shareholders and directors. They prefer their journalists, photographers, and photo-journalists to keep a lid on it; they'd hardly want those employees turning around and focusing that frightening gaze on the media corporation itself, let alone those sharing its bed.
The few 'liberal' journalists, the real questioners, stand out: Nellie Bly investigating insane asylums for women, Samuel Hopkins Adams exposing the dangers of unregulated pharmaceuticals, Ida Tarbell taking on John D Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company, Jacob Riis covering the slums of New York City, Ethel Payne tirelessly following the civil rights movement (and also the first black woman employed in a national media), Seymour Hersh exposing the My Lai Massacre, Lewis Hine shedding light on factory-worker children, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward who need no explanation (I hope), Upton Sinclair investigating the meat-packing industry, Paul Brodeur bringing attention to asbestos as a major health risk, David Burnham digging into police corruption in New York City, and of course Edward R. Murrow who for twenty-five years brought news to people's living rooms from the Blitz to the Red Scare to migrant workers.
But I think it's also backwards, to say we have a liberal media, or don't have a liberal media, or a conservative one, or not. A few weeks ago, I reread a piece by Andrew Sullivan (a leading conservative political essayist) about the idea that the 'green' movement, of any possible political mindset, should logically be not a liberal ideology but a conservative one. He argues: conservation of our natural resources, of our parks and wild places, of our civil liberties, of anything is an act that should be considered unquestionably, intrinsically, conservative. President Theodore Roosevelt may have been a progressive but he won on the Republican ticket; he was also the founder of our National Park system and a leading conservationist.
Why wouldn't this be the same for those investigative journalists? It hardly seems to me that the founding gentlemen of our country sat around and said, "and these rights will go mostly to massive conglomerate corporations..." To hold onto the originating ideals of those Rights -- and their design for the protection and the liberty and the safety and the happiness of we the People -- we are conserving, we are being conservative, we are saying: these Rights should not be set aside because it is convenient for someone's passing purpose. We are truly conservative when we say: there is never a time when these defining Rights can be set aside. We are holding on. We conserve.
As an aside: now, perhaps, my flist understands why I am sometimes baffled that the ACLU is considered a liberal organization. Oh, no, they are most definitely a conservative one by this measure, with a mission to defend and uphold the Bill of Rights: "to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:your First Amendment rights... your right to equal protection under the law... your right to due process... your right to privacy..." I have trouble seeing how you could possibly get any more conservative than that, than to announce that you won't let some johnny-come-lately political power or social shift or wartime crisis allow anyone to set aside the past.
Our national ideals are stated most clearly in the Declaration, which I've always considered a sort of preface to our country's design. It was among the first expressions of what would later be refined in the Constitution:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Our Bill of Rights was written to protect our liberties, thus a conservative NGO can be named the American Civil Liberties Union, and there is no contradiction.
The word 'liberty' has its origins in the Latin liber, which means "free" or "not a slave", hence its association with freedom in general, be that of thought, word, or deed. The Constitution -- and the Bill of Rights -- were so truly revolutionary (in an ideological sense) in great part because of the concept of a Government that governs only with the consent of the governed: we are free, we have the liberty to call out our Government, that in fact we are not only free to do so, we are in fact obligated to do so if we feel it has failed us. Even as we consent to being governed and accept the never-perfect results of our combined consent to those in power, our Government must never forget that it, in turn, exists because we chose it, and that we do again upon every single election cycle.
And thus, in a sense, if we are active participants in our Union, we are all equally liberals, we are free, we protect those freedoms, we exercise them, we cherish them, even if this means against our own government. When John F. Kennedy accepted the Liberal Party Nomination, he said:
...if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."Liberal, and its notion of being broad-minded, open to new possibilities, new solutions, invention, innovation: as opposed to the limited view of a slave's world.
So: liberal media? Yes, this would be good. Conservative media? Yes, equally so.
Do we have either?
I don't think so. I don't know what to call it, but it's neither seeking to look farther, to welcome new ideas, nor is it trying to protect what we've long held sacred. It's mostly a series of corporate goons, ranging from one end of the political spectrum to the other (a spectrum independent, clearly, from the ideological sense of either conservative or liberal with small-letters), and most of them seem to exist only to call 'the other side' names, to increase ratings, to make money, and not in that order.
We lack a media -- except in very small parts and single voices -- that not only exclaims but actually acts on the ideals of either liberty or conservatism. Instead, we've got a media nodding cheerfully at advertiser demands, at political payoffs. Our major newspaper and television media don't even bother to keel under to big business pressures; they've already rolled over with a smile to get their tummies scratched. That cripples we the People in any attempts to be better-informed about any "service provider" impacting our world/lives, from private industry to the biggest of all, our Government.
This is why, effectively, I trust neither the right, nor the left, nor the middle, of any newspaper or television, because all of them are in it for money. I have come to believe it is only by looking at what each refuses to show, and comparing that across the board, that I might have some small hope of getting a better idea of what's really going on in terms of what big business -- and big government -- don't want us to know, the questions they'd rather we not ask, the fine print they'd rather we miss when we grant our consent.
It would be easier if I could trust at least a few media outlets; probably even easier than that would be to rescind both my awareness and my freedoms and let a single source spoon-feed me as it pleases with no question from me. There are a lot of people in this country who get so caught up in the labels of 'Conservative' media channels versus 'Liberal' media channels -- oh, the Washington Times and Fox News, they're just Conservative pap -- oh, the Washington Post and the Gray Lady, they're just Liberal pap -- and I find it all quite...
...tiring.
We need new words, something to hand to the folks who want Liberal to mean Democrat (it doesn't, not in an ideological sense), and something to give the folks who want Conservative to mean Republican (no ideological match there, either). We need to give them nice, new, shiny labels for what they'll call the other end of the political spectrum, so that those of us willing to take the time and effort to set aside the frothing mouthpieces may find the quiet, steady, conservative liberty of journalistic voices that must still exist out there, somewhere, in small-distribution papers and on-the-scene reports and podcasts from the front, whatever that front may be.
I want to seek out those voices that fight to conserve our liberty in the face of multi-million dollar industry with all the jobs and money on its side, in the face of nuclear-powered governments with all the armies and laws on its side, when both are working day and night to undermine our ideals and destroy our freedoms. I want to recover and return to those steady, small voices the words, cleaned off and polished back to original shine, conservatism and liberty, conservative and liberal, so that they may be reminded -- and help to remind us all -- that to be American, we need to be both.
So, in closing, the sobering three minutes mentioned in the subject heading. What does it say to you when a major media corporation won't show -- or even mention -- a reporting segment done by its own foreign correspondants? The days are long gone of being unable to edit on-the-fly for unsuitable family material, so I see that as little excuse (and the piece is clearly edited after the fact, with a large number of shots and locations). Its non-inclusion gives me pause, almost as much as its content.
Battle for Haifa Street
And if you've any ideas on new words or how to take back the old, do speak up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 27 Jan 2007 06:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 4 Feb 2007 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 27 Jan 2007 11:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 4 Feb 2007 04:42 am (UTC)New York Times (middle)
Washington Post (leaning left depending on author)
Washington Times (definitely right)
LA Times (leaning left)
Austin Statesman (leaning left)
BBC (non-American!)
NPR (left except for a few authors)
Fox (definitely right)
CNN (leaning left)
Depending on whether I'm satisfied, I'll also search Wikipedia and any other encyclopedia-type sites to get a sense of the historical context. From there, depending on my impression (basically, interested vs not), I'll keep going into political commentators who give me a broad, balanced overview (some of whom are linked from here):
Andrew Sullivan (traditional conservative/Thatcherite)
Pandagon (far left, feminist, but very funny)
Crooked Timber (trad. conservative, some libertarian)
Positive Liberty (academic, strong libertarian)
Lawyers Guns & Money (academic, legal, mild conservative)
Digby's Hullabaloo (leaning left)
Matthew Yglesias (leaning left but economically conservative)
Think Progress (definite left)
Then I mull it all over and put it together and try to come up with what I, personally, think about it. Since I am the child of an economist, I'll admit freely that I probably match best -- on an economic, fiscal, and diplomatic level -- with Andrew Sullivan, but in the social sense I'm right there with Pandagon. The problem of that mix is that there won't be one outlet that I'll ever read with which I'll agree perfectly.
And I'm more likely to keep reading observers/pundits willing to criticize their own 'side': Andrew Sullivan and Matthew Yglesias are best examples.
But I'm not sure I'd say there's anyone I read regularly, since some news outlets just ignore some issues, which means more digging. I just read as much as I can from every possible point on the spectrum, especially if it's an issue of which I'm not very aware.
no subject
Date: 27 Jan 2007 03:37 pm (UTC)I ran a quick check, BBC news had a report on Haifa Street back in September. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3656222.stm. There's also a broadcast segment on that page, but I need Real Player to open it and I'm too lazy to do that this morning. Still, now I'm curious to know if this report made it out onto the air, or just stayed online. Knowing the way BBC tackles some issues, including those that put the prime minister of their country into boiling hot water, I'd say they would have, but maybe I'm an optimist.
Of course, that doesn't sort out the problem of the North American liberal media...
no subject
Date: 4 Feb 2007 04:45 am (UTC)Even pundits/political-scientists that I've found to be accurate the last nine times out of ten will still get double-checked, just because if I can't make a truly 'informed' decision, at least I can make sure I'm not making a baldly ignorant one.