Media, Politics, and the World’s Oldest Profession
By Mark Devlin
October 29, 2009 -- Mike’s recent blog article, and several comments about that article, compel more commentary.
Mike, you mentioned, for example...
Is this not a very, very dangerous precedent for America? Other nations, even our closest allies, don’t give journalists the same wide press freedoms that we enjoy in the U.S.
Where exactly have those wide press freedoms been, and why is the current administration taking hits on being socialist when, in factual reference after factual reference, the previous administration ran over Freedom of Press with a monster truck, and no one cared or noticed? Freedom of Press? A form of publishing freedom existed, arguably, in the 1960s—a time considered by some to be the end of civilization. Yes, in the same time that investigative journalism was born, we saw day after day on the nightly news the caskets of our Vietnam fallen returning home. When’s the last time we’ve seen that? We’ve not—since then. Freedom of press? When’s the last time anyone in the media—on either side—based arguments and contentions on fact—not opinion, not hearsay, not assumption or presumption, not what their audience wants to hear? That happens rarely today, and those on both sides of the argument are guilty of consistently parroting their party’s lines.
Freedom of Press has been Gone Fishin’ for a long time, Mike.
Even the vaunted Associated Press—going back to at least 2000—has been caught changing headlines depending upon who’s pressuring them. (Is the AP really a non-profit collective—and, on the surface, an unbiased ‘news’ organization—when it’s owned by very-for-profit publishers? Yes, profit is a very good thing.)
To imply that freedom of the press is alive and well—and threatened by the Obama administration—completely bypasses the press-related misdoings of the previous administration (For example, not permitting media to present protests at political events)—and even administrations before that. Way before. Like FDR’s White House requesting that media photograph him only from the waist-up. Why is it that, today, requests, opinion, or even public disagreement is considered to be a clear sign of socialist and/or communist takeover?
Has Obama opened media doors that George W. closed? No.
Bush wrong? Yes. Obama wrong? Yes.
All we can hope for is that some ‘journalist’, somewhere, attempts to present something real and verifiably factual, instead of dancing choreographed numbers before captive audience choirs with complete disregard for truth, justice and the American way—while serving only to raise their own earnings and their network’s ratings. That goes for the likes of both Olbermann and Limbaugh.
Perhaps even more important than a journalist presenting something based in fact is that someone, somewhere, should consider fact, logic, and reason.
Fact, logic, and reason, however, are pretty obscure concepts. Ask Aristotle. Fact to one is lunacy to another. Logic to one is incredulity to another. Reason to one is psychosis to another.
Much of today’s ‘news’ rants about how the Obama administration is effectively shredding the Constitution. Well, it’s been done before—and not long ago. In fact, it’s been done since the republic was formed. What were originally a relative few guiding documents—by really smart and brave individuals for a new world representing dissent from the oppressive British government—have today become libraries full of amendments, changes, caveats, clarifications, and boatloads of new laws. How much of the Founding Fathers' U.S. Constitution really exists today? Perhaps equally important a question: how much does a document from the 1700s really apply to the new millennium? Not so much. That’s precisely why libraries full of amendments, changes, caveats, clarifications, and boatloads of new laws exist.
Context is everything. Obama killing freedom of the press takes things way, way out of context and propoetion. People showing up heavily armed at political events have also escalated things way, way out of context and proportion. Clearly, proclaiming a right to bear arms had a much different meaning then than it does now. Any constitutional issue clearly requires more thought, insight, experience, and deep consideration than simply pointing to the U.S. Constitution and saying, “Look! It says so right there!” If it were that easy, we’d not have a country built around law, lawyers, and legal libraries—and the big business of law, lawyers and legal libraries.
News organizations proclaiming Obama as the antichrist have just as much right to say that as, for example, anyone proclaiming Dick Cheney is Satan incarnate. Isn’t that what freedom of speech—and the press—is all about? It doesn’t matter if you’re correct. Media on both sides of any issue prove that point every day. It matters that you—or anyone—has the ‘right’ to say what they believe. It matters that others have the right to challenge and debate. It really matters that those involved in or witnessing such debates can search their very beings—not political affiliations—to arrive at answers that make sense for them, and perhaps their families, and perhaps their businesses, and perhaps for the world around them.
Conceptually, most things debated as today’s issues have been debated since the beginning of humankind—politicians, sure—but also scientists and philosophers. We can look back through the ages and usually come up with an applicable thread or something that is ‘right’—and weave it into the fabric of today.
Is the U.S.—or the American press—under siege? No. There’s a lot of debate—heated and nasty debate. But nothing’s under siege. Looking at socialist and communist countries, it seems apparent—to me, anyway—that this administration is not headed down those paths. Not even close. BUT...some people with lots and lots of money have their own agendas which, today, they can hide and push through various forms of media faster and much more effectively than ever before in the history of the world. Some of those people are in media itself. Some of those people are in politics. Some of those people are in law. Some of those people are on Wall Street. Some of those people are in all of the above.
Before you believe I’m taking sides with and vilifying Obama, consider this opinion: Obama hasn’t changed a damned thing. The things he said he’d change—the things he said he’d right after years of wrong—are the very things that got him into office and about which he’s done nothing—or very, very little.
We the People was mentioned by at least one individual who commented about Mike’s article.
Yes, it is about We the People. It’s ALL about We the People.
We the People, however, is a double-edged sword. We the People elected Obama. We the People elected those who now control our government. We the People is now being ignored by liberal and conservative politicians alike. Even on Wall Street, it's business as usual. At the peril of whom? We the People.
Shouldn’t We the People—on both sides of all the special interest-driven and -manipulated debates—be telling our elected officials that We Do Not Approve of those special interests, those campaign contributions, those strings being pulled every which way—and politicians on both sides being bought and paid for?
Another individual commented to Mike’s article that we should stick to industry and manufacturing. Yes. We All should do that—and engineering, and technology.
Next week: Maybe something about the San Francisco Bay Bridge falling apart. Or the next moon endeavor about which we won’t have the technology to pursue until 2020.
(Your serve, Mike.)