Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

[vt]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

It's pure propaganda.............on both sides.

It is rare to find real journalism.

[Forrest]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

The people didn't fool themselves; they were fooled.

Access to quality news, information and editorial content was promised to them by publishers, editors and the whole of the profession. I always understood it as the "quid" exchanged for the "quo" of the First Amendment and a recognition of the importance of the free press in a democratic republic. But the elite of the profession reneged on the promise in exchange for access to big money. Wall Street and the bankers made it possible and the politicians and ideologues cheered it on. Together they broke down the wall between advertising and editorial not realizing (or caring) it bore the load for the whole edifice. And we wonder why we are left with rubble?


The relationship between the press and the state is either adversarial or supportive. When it ceases to be adversarial, it ceases to produce news and becomes an adjunct of government delivering public relations and perception management. That is what we have today.

+1

[don]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

When it ceases to be adversarial, it ceases to produce news and becomes an adjunct of government delivering public relations and perception management. That is what we have today.

To further refined that, what we have today is corporate ownership of the media, and corporate control of the government. I believe there's a name for that condition . . . .

[shiny!]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

The people didn't fool themselves; they were fooled.

...

The relationship between the press and the state is either adversarial or supportive. When it ceases to be adversarial, it ceases to produce news and becomes an adjunct of government delivering public relations and perception management. That is what we have today.

Thank you for such an eloquent, thoughtful post, Woodsman.

[Ghent12]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

The people didn't fool themselves; they were fooled.

Access to quality news, information and editorial content was promised to them by publishers, editors and the whole of the profession. I always understood it as the "quid" exchanged for the "quo" of the First Amendment and a recognition of the importance of the free press in a democratic republic. But the elite of the profession reneged on the promise in exchange for access to big money. Wall Street and the bankers made it possible and the politicians and ideologues cheered it on. Together they broke down the wall between advertising and editorial not realizing (or caring) it bore the load for the whole edifice. And we wonder why we are left with rubble?

Back in the days when "the printer" was an old ink stained dude who worked with plates and presses, no one had to tell this cub reporter there was a wall of separation between editorial and advertising. It was there and everyone respected it. The paper was run to deliver news and the advertising was there to support that work. The attitude at times was such that no one from advertising should ever darken the newsroom. And the idea of putting adverts on the front page above the fold was as welcome as a no-smoking sign in the newsroom.

Those days are gone, like the clatter of typewriter keys or the green glow of the Wang word processor. There was a time when the publisher respected the wall but understood it more as a picket fence delineating neighbors with common interests. The best editors and publishers took pains to maintain a balance between the demands of the business and the need for editorial independence. Recall that large, national news organizations only recently were expected to operate at a profit and subjected to the same demands of growth as any other widget company. Prior to that the big three and others would often run their news divisions at a loss, such was the sense of mission and civic responsibility to which was aspired.



Thos. Jefferson knew what he was talking about. And we've seen what happens to a country where there is government without [effective] newspapers. In our case, we devolved into an empire resembling a banana republic with nuclear weapons.

It's my opinion that EJ takes the wrong attitude when he says "a 'real' President of the free world does not submit to interrogation by a journalist." Respectfully, I can only wonder what is "real" or "free" about a president or a government that holds itself above the people by refusing to submit to journalistic interrogation? The only real thing in that arrangement is the free exercise of power by those in possession of it; everything else is illusion and sleight of hand as far as democracy and the consent of the governed is concerned. And the same goes for the notion that reporters must be "respectful" to presidents and politicians alike. Me, I think that's balloon juice, right up there with journalists counting themselves among the insiders whom they cover.

The relationship between the press and the state is either adversarial or supportive. When it ceases to be adversarial, it ceases to produce news and becomes an adjunct of government delivering public relations and perception management. That is what we have today.

You say a lot of truth, but your theme is wrong. The consumer gets what they want, and they no longer want hard-hitting "real" journalism to any great extent. The market for that is small and getting smaller. You can blame anything you want for that fact, but if the people don't want to know, then nobody can long suffer running at indefinite losses to force it upon the people. Civics class is removed from school, people are trained how to be victims, and information technology has scattered our focus in unlimited ways; how can you blame the public for not focusing on something as distant as the government?

Here are some sobering statistics: It is completely obvious that the current President is a liar--he's a Chicago politician! It was completely obvious in 2008 and 2012 when he got elected that he was a lying politician focused primarily on his own power and ideology. Yet 23.5% of the people and later 21.0% of the people voted him in office.

There's a simple way to change this but it is in the interest of no legislator to implement it: allow people to vote for whoever they want to vote for in every election at every level. If they want to vote for Obama and Clinton and Biden and Romney for president, then let them vote for all of them. If they want to vote for every candidate, let them vote for every candidate. See who actually gets the most support from the people.

[shiny!]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

You say a lot of truth, but your theme is wrong. The consumer gets what they want, and they no longer want hard-hitting "real" journalism to any great extent. The market for that is small and getting smaller. You can blame anything you want for that fact, but if the people don't want to know, then nobody can long suffer running at indefinite losses to force it upon the people. Civics class is removed from school, people are trained how to be victims, and information technology has scattered our focus in unlimited ways; how can you blame the public for not focusing on something as distant as the government?

I agree with you that consumers get what they want (for now, anyway), but this is not what citizens want. I'm a citizen, not a pig at a bloody feeding trough! I don't want infotainment news but that's all there is on the major news outlets. I think the paucity of real, investigative journalism has been a big factor in people losing interest in public affairs and checking out. Not the only factor, but a large one.

I don't have cable and rarely watch live TV. The other night I decided to take a moment to watch the local 10 PM news. The anchors were having a long, leisurely chat about how their weatherman won a survey of the most attractive news "personalities" in town. In pain and disgust, I turned it off and plugged in a DVD.

IMO the deterioration in public education began when President Carter formed the Department of Education. I graduated from High School in 1975. What passes for "social studies" now is weak tea compared to the curriculum back then. We actually watched the Watergate hearings in class and discussed it. Now, teachers must teach to standardized tests- no unplanned, unapproved learning is allowed.

The shift of Americans from citizens to consumers is one of my pet peeves. Wild turkeys are smart. Factory farmed turkeys are unbelievably stupid. Citizens are smart and wary of government. Consumers are passive and stupid. Consumers passively consume the advertising and sanitized propaganda pellets fed to them by corporate-owned media. Factory farmed livestock don't know what liberty feels like and wouldn't be able to handle the responsibility it if they had it.

Do people actually want this? I think people have been so dumbed down for so long, they don't know what they're missing. As a society we have lost our vigilance and become addicted to material comfort and endless entertainment. Those needling feelings of discontent and depression that tell consumers their lives are empty are numbed with beer, fancier smart phones and home entertainment systems. When distractions aren't enough, there's Prozac and Zoloft.

Are old-school citizens an endangered species?

[lektrode]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

.....is helping them sell the product.

Incredible whether you agree with the product or not.

and whether one likes or dislikes O'reilly - at least HE is EFFECTIVE (vs the other O guy, who has been affective only to the level of divisiveness, which exceeds only that of the prev occupant...)

The people didn't fool themselves; they were fooled.....
...

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

Thos. Jefferson knew what he was talking about.

esp on this one, even IF its 'just a rumor'

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

And we've seen what happens to a country where there is government without [effective] newspapers. In our case, we devolved into an empire resembling a banana republic with nuclear weapons.

...... wrong attitude when he says "a 'real' President of the free world does not submit to interrogation by a journalist." Respectfully, I can only wonder what is "real" or "free" about a president or a government that holds itself above the people by refusing to submit to journalistic interrogation? ....
.....
The relationship between the press and the state is either adversarial or supportive. When it ceases to be adversarial, it ceases to produce news and becomes an adjunct of government delivering public relations and perception management. That is what we have today.

EXACTLY!!!

+1
Well stated old chap!

+2
and The Real Problem is the vast majority of the LAMESTREAM MEDIA is presenting PROPAGANDA designed to make THEIR TEAM look better than the 'alternative' - not that i disagree with em, but still - the hypocrisy is/was breathtaking - esp when in the runup to the elections of 2008, IT WAS ALL BAD (financial) NEWS ALL THE TIME -
and everything that was less than flattering about their preferred candidate was IGNORED, while anything that made him look better than the 'alternative' was highlighted/harped-on endlessly - and it continues daily, one distraction after another - as IF nothing else is 'more important' than this particular issue

meanwhile they refuse to connect any of the dots that lead to ANYTHING THAT MAKES THEIR TEAM LOOK BAD (if not flat-out GUILTY of criminal activity)

and THAT is what makes me wanna PUKE every time eye watch/read 'the news' - never mind the rest of what passes for 'entertainment' these daze - altho it can and DOES get worse...

I agree with you that consumers get what they want (for now, anyway), but this is not what citizens want. I'm a citizen, not a pig at a bloody feeding trough! I don't want infotainment news but that's all there is on the major news outlets.....
....
As a society we have lost our vigilance and become addicted to material comfort and endless entertainment. ...

Are old-school citizens an endangered species?

these daze? (and +100 on everything else, ms shiny!)

anybody NOT signed-up on faceboob or twitsville - has apparently - to use one of the social 'scientists' fave terms -
been marginalized - to the extent that most of the lamerstream media seems to find newsworthy (??) whatevah BS they happened to notice there that day - that, and if it doesnt appear in the nytimes?

it didnt happen.... since it would appear that the nyt is The Source of all 'legitimate' news of interest - at least to the op/ed depts of practically every other news source eye happen to look at now and then

and we keep hearing about how the 'vast rightwing conspiracy, funded by the koch mob etc' has been dumbing us down?

IMHO - its THEM in the other outlets who copy/paste all/most of their material from the nyt that is most guilty of that charge

[Raz]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

IRS: Shame and Loathing on the Media Trail


Posted By Roger L Simon On June 25, 2014 @ 11:05 pm



A number of smart people, among them Peter Wehner ^[1], Mark Halperin ^[2] and John Hinderaker ^[3], have been pointing out the unfortunately predictable silence of the mainstream media regarding the IRS scandal — not to mention the myriad other Obama scandals that we will soon be counting on three, or is it four, hands.


The front page of Tuesday’s New York Times made no mention of the congressional hearings on the missing Lois Lerner emails and putative computer crash; the networks were a virtual silence of the not-so-lambs. (Remember how they obsessed on the Christie/GW Bridge contretemps as if it were the beginning of nuclear war?)


On his Wednesday Talking Points Memo, Bill O’Reilly went so far as to say the media silence, censorship, whatever you want to call it was subverting democracy. ^[4] That’s an understatement. It was trampling on it.



The conventional explanation for this willful blindness cited by the above mentioned gentlemen is that the media is in the tank for the Democratic Party and, by extension, for Obama. Well, sure. But it is far more than that. Political parties and politicians come and go. The media doesn’t. They may be in the tank for Obama, but much more than that they are in the tank for themselves — a whole lifestyle and world view that has been going on for decades, moral narcissism ^[5] distilled to its purest essence.


It is that world view and lifestyle that is under threat in the debacle that is the Obama administration. This world view, promulgating supposedly altruistic values, but actually stemming from a profound need to be thought of as good for their beliefs irrespective of results of those beliefs, is in a precarious position as never before. The disintegration of a politician or a political party is bad enough. Far worse is the disintegration of a personality, the disintegration of the self. That is intolerable.


The real reason these media folks cannot face reality is that to do so would mean to see their very persons, everything they have ever stood for, or thought they stood for, or pretended to themselves they stood for, dissolving in a puddle like the Wicked Witch of the West.


Obama is beside the point. They don’t even like Obama anymore. Nothing could be more obvious. Almost nobody does. But they won’t say so in public because that would mean that they would be revealed as fools who believed the most banal tripe imaginable. It would also mean admitting Barack Obama never really existed, that they invented him. He was their projection. Barack Obama is the creation of the New York Times, et al. Without them he would never have happened and they know it.


So the media are left in an untenable position. If you say Barack Obama is a mistake, then you yourself are a mistake. Who wants that?


No wonder they won’t investigate the scandals. No wonder they won’t report any of this. They are too ashamed of themselves to speak.


The heroes of Watergate are no more, if they ever were. (That was always basically a chimera.) The myth of the crusading investigative reporter is not only dead, it’s decomposed. In the disintegration of the Obama administration, the end of the mainstream media is not collateral damage, it is the core damage.

That is already evident in the response to the IRS scandal. It is metastasizing rapidly despite the near blackout by the MSM.

In one recent poll 63 percent of Democrats ^[6]think the IRS intentionally destroyed the emails. Democrats! How’d they find that out? Not from the New York Times.


Get ready for endless tantrums of many sorts. When moral narcissism of the level we have been experiencing breaks down, anything can happen. The media will do almost anything to preserve their fragile selves. Evasion, distraction and outright lies will be continuous and may reach unprecedented levels.



The mainstream media has been in trouble for years, but their silence about the ills of the Obama administration has finished them off as never before. They will stumble on, but from here on in they will be, as was said of the U.S. during the Vietnam era, a “pitiful, helpless giant.”

---

Article printed from Roger L. Simon: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/...e-media-trail/
URLs in this post:
[1] Peter Wehner: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...nd-media-bias/
[2] Mark Halperin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...obsession.html
[3] John Hinderaker: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...a-scandals.php
[4] subverting democracy.: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html
[5] moral narcissism: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/...al-narcissism/
[6] 63 percent of Democrats : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ely-destroyed/

Copyright © 2008 Roger L. Simon. All rights reserved.

[Polish_Silver]

Visiting the Banana republics

Those days are gone, like the clatter of typewriter keys or the green glow of the Wang word processor. There was a time when the publisher respected the wall but understood it more as a picket fence delineating neighbors with common interests.

Thos. Jefferson knew what he was talking about. And we've seen what happens to a country where there is government without [effective] newspapers. In our case, we devolved into an empire resembling a banana republic with nuclear weapons.

It's my opinion that EJ takes the wrong attitude when he says "a 'real' President of the free world does not submit to interrogation by a journalist." Respectfully, I can only wonder what is "real" or "free" about a president or a government that holds itself above the people by refusing to submit to journalistic interrogation?

How many banana republics have you visited?

The US is far from a BR, as judged by public health and safety, widespread literacy, degree of economic development, the size of it's middle class, freedom to criticize the status quo, etc. BR's do not have millions of people clamoring to get into them. The US does.

The electoral system is highly dysfunctional, especially at the federal level. That does not make the country a BR.

Journalism has always had quality people and profiteers. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove the situation is worse now.
Network TV may be worse, but that is largely because PBS and the internet "stole" the market for quality reporting.

Instead of blaming people, we need to address the technological landscape, and figure out ways that quality reporting can thrive when we the cost of reproducing and transmitting information is zero, and when we have a polyphany of voices.

As for Obama's interrogation, the problem is the nature of the interview. O'Reilly did not give Obama a chance to make a quality answer, and Obama didn't make any effort to make one. Saying it was a misunderstanding due to overly complex rules is just dodging the issue. Overly complex laws are a perfect means to apply selective enforcement. The Tax code is overly complex, even for an individual return. If you ever work in two different states, it is a NIGHTMARE.

[Woodsman]

Re: Visiting the Banana republics

How many banana republics have you visited?

Does Mississippi and every country in Central America count?

The US is far from a BR, as judged by public health and safety, widespread literacy, degree of economic development, the size of it's middle class, freedom to criticize the status quo, etc. BR's do not have millions of people clamoring to get into them. The US does.

The U.S. ranks at 26th in life expectancy out of 34 OECD countries
U.S. adults lag behind in literacy skills compared to other countries
US slips further down global ranking of world's competitive economies
US middle class sinks to 19th place, below Japan, Canada, Australia and much of Western Europe
US in 46th place out of 180 countries in survey of press freedom
DHS estimates immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 % of inmates; foreign-born 15.4% of adult population

The electoral system is highly dysfunctional, especially at the federal level. That does not make the country a BR.

A Banana republic is a political science term for a politically unstable country, whose economy is largely dependent on exporting a limited-resource product [e.g. FIRE and war?]. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites. This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions to exploit the country's economy.

Journalism has always had quality people and profiteers. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove the situation is worse now. Network TV may be worse, but that is largely because PBS and the internet "stole" the market for quality reporting. Instead of blaming people, we need to address the technological landscape, and figure out ways that quality reporting can thrive when we the cost of reproducing and transmitting information is zero, and when we have a polyphany of voices.

Audiences abandon news outlets as quality of coverage declines

As for Obama's interrogation, the problem is the nature of the interview. O'Reilly did not give Obama a chance to make a quality answer, and Obama didn't make any effort to make one. Saying it was a misunderstanding due to overly complex rules is just dodging the issue. Overly complex laws are a perfect means to apply selective enforcement. The Tax code is overly complex, even for an individual return. If you ever work in two different states, it is a NIGHTMARE.

No argument here.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

As a retired actuary, don't look too closely at the life expectancy numbers. Many countries count births differently. If a child takes one breath in the US it is considered a live birth. There are countries where if a baby dies within the first week it is not considered s live birth. This makes a huge difference in life expectancy. There are other differences also. We are nowhere near that bad as your number indicates.

[Woodsman]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

As a retired actuary, don't look too closely at the life expectancy numbers. Many countries count births differently. If a child takes one breath in the US it is considered a live birth. There are countries where if a baby dies within the first week it is not considered s live birth. This makes a huge difference in life expectancy. There are other differences also. We are nowhere near that bad as your number indicates.

Thanks for the clarification. The assertion was made from the standpoint of public health practice (at least that is how I understood it) in terms of the relative effectiveness of interventions to prevent and manage diseases, injuries and the promotion of healthy behaviors and environments generally. I expect this is necessarily different than the actuarial perspective. But point taken.

[shiny!]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

Like life expectancy and live birth reporting, there's a similar apples-to-oranges situation with the way educational accomplishments are reported between countries.

In the USA, learning disordered and mentally retarded children are required to attend school and take the same tests as regular ed students at their age/grade level.

If a 14 year-old with Down's Syndrome can perform at a 2nd grade level but not at his age group's 8th grade level, he is not allowed to demonstrate his skills by taking the 2nd grade standardized test. He must take (and fail) the 8th grade test. His poor score is factored into the school's average, bringing it down.

There are many public schools where up to 25% of the student population is Special Ed (why that is is a whole 'nuther conversation). In addition to the deep shame and humiliation that standardized tests cause special needs students, their low scores skew the national performance scores downwards. The hard work and real progress these students make is not measured in standardized testing. There is no point to it.

This situation doesn't exist in other countries where these children seldom even receive schooling, much less get tested as if they were regular students. It also doesn't exist in private schools which don't admit Special Ed students. This is one reason why private schools appear to be doing a better job than public schools- they get to pick the cream of the crop.

[lektrode]

Re: Visiting the Banana republics

Originally Posted by Polish_Silver How many banana republics have you visited?

Does Mississippi and every country in Central America count?

ha... i can come up with at least one more 'domestic' that fits in that group, but i'll leave it to your imagination

....

A Banana republic is a political science term for a politically unstable country, whose economy is largely dependent on exporting a limited-resource product [e.g. FIRE and war?]. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites. This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions to exploit the country's economy.

yep - describes PURRRRFECTLY the place(s) i'm alluding to (and oh so intimately familiar with) above...

As for Obama's interrogation, the problem is the nature of the interview. O'Reilly did not give Obama a chance to make a quality answer, and Obama didn't make any effort to make one.

Audiences abandon news outlets as quality of coverage declines

No argument here.

you cant just watch that few seconds of video clip and honestly state the opinion that The Bloviater-in-chief didnt give the waffler-in-chief 'a chance' to answer - as THE O'man demands simple answers to SIMPLE QUESTIONS and doesnt put up with their BS when they try to weasle out of DIRECTLY answering the question asked.

which is WHY THE O'man = Rated Number ONE (like him or hate him and DESPITE the best efforts of the lamerstream media to discredit him and 'the non-news' network)

[Master Shake]

Re: Rule of Law? Or the Rule of Men.

Great series of posts, Raz.