Recent events make it quite clear, if it wasn’t already, that a high percentage of American media people–print, television, and Internet–have been involved in a multilevel betrayal:
–They have betrayed their supposed professional responsibilities to the truth, which they frequently assert to claim credibility and moral superiority.
–They have betrayed the American people through their frequently misleading and often outright false reporting. They saw Biden’s mental state on a regular basis, and either convinced themselves that they weren’t seeing what they were actually seeing, or flat-out lied.
–Given the importance of the United States in world affairs, they have betrayed not just Americans, but the people of the world. Issues of war and peace, prosperity or want, well-being or starvation for billions of people are affected by US policies and leadership. The US possess the world’s most powerful military and its most devastating nuclear arsenal. Thanks in large part to media irresponsibility, this is now under the control of a man who is in severe cognitive decline. There are probably times in the typical Biden week when he could be convinced that the nuclear Gold Codes are things that he needs to provide to get a special discount deal on his favorite ice cream.
–This point is of lesser importance than the others, but given the most of these media people work for publicly-traded corporations, they have betrayed the shareholders who own the enterprises which employ them. These traditional media have not been doing exactly brilliantly in readership/viewership and financial terms. It seems likely that with a little more balance and a little less ideology, they could be doing significantly better. But the journalists chose to put their personal political beliefs ahead of this responsibility as well as their other responsibilities.
I have previously quoted something said to me once by a wise executive:
When you’re running a large organization, you aren’t seeing reality. It’s like you’re watching a movie where you get to see maybe one out of a thousand frames, and from that you have to figure out what is going on.
If this is true about running large organizations–and it largely is–it is even more true for the citizen and voter in a large and complex country. The individual can directly observe only a small amount of the relevant information, for the rest–from the events on the border to international and military affairs–he is generally dependent on others. And that gives those others–those who choose the frames and the sequence in which they are presented in the movie analogy–a tremendous amount of power.
The rise of the Internet has provided an alternative to the information dominance of the traditional media, but social media has tended to reestablish centralized control points. It is extremely fortunate–may indeed be lifesaving–that Elon Musk acquired Twitter (now X) and has established a relatively uncensored policy on that platform. Substack, too, appears so far to be a truly open platform. AM/FM broadcast radio has also played a relatively independent role, but this appears to be under threat by acquisition of large numbers of stations by Soros interests…and, potentially, given that radio has long been government-regulated, by legislation and FCC regulation under any free-speech-unfriendly administration and Congress.
A big part of the problem is the ‘professionalization’ of media. Journalists once tended to be blue-collar people making their way up in the world; now, they tend more toward being Ivy League graduates, fully inculcated into all the correct ‘progressive’ attitudes. And, ever since Watergate, people entering the media field tend to see themselves not so much as observers and analysts, but as participants in government–even as kingmakers.
The 1954 novel Year of Consent, which I reviewed here, posits a future United States which–while still nominally a democracy–is really controlled by those who control the communications and specialize in influence of public attitudes. It seems disturbingly prescient.
You’re not wrong.
It was understood in the not-so-distant past that journalism was a partisan operation, various newspapers reflected the viewpoints of various parties and causes. It has only been in the last 60 years or so that we have the strange concept of a neutral media objectively depicting reality, “And That’s Way It Is”
Of course media in a best case scenario always had a bias issue in terms of cognition, not only in how a story is reported but in what is viewed as newsworthy.
If the first big change was the shift from openly partisan outlets to the pursuit of objectivity, then the second is as David puts it the professionalization and credentialization of journalists as part of a professional enterprise that elevates people out of their ignorance; ignorance being defined as traditional American values. The third change is identified in
Beyond Objectivity which is a survey of various journalistic professionals including news division presidents, professors, publishers, and editors.
I found the following quote typical of the piece:
However, Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press, said she has not used the word objectivity since the early 1970s because she believes it reflects the world view of the male white establishment. “It’s objective by whose standards? And that standard seems to be white, educated, fairly wealthy guys…”
You have the establishment of cultural Marxism, where truth and values are linked to power relations in society, rather than to a separate existence. Note Ms. Carroll is of the “old school”, the new generation which has taken over newsrooms has been steeped in this throughout their education.
Of course from that point it is the rapidly accelerating slide to Hell. There are values and positions which are deemed to be acceptable (on race, abortion, LGBT, etc.) outside of which the media feels no duty to platform alternative views. Implied in the piece is you wouldn’t provide space for a Nazi’s point of view right so the existence of that boundary allows today’s media to exclude other views they find unacceptable (MAGA, Trump, Christian) All done for everyone’s good and a better world. After all if you believe in cultural Marxism, then society is not all of us striving for a place where we can give the world a Coke but who does what to whom and the media is up to it to their eyeballs.
Of course the problem with this approach is that sooner or later God’s gonna cut you down, reality intrudes. Inflation occurs, kids cannot read and write, and we find the world is full of predators We saw that last night when somebody tried to assassinate the next Republican nominee, a man the media considers the
future leader of the Fourth Reich Coincidence right?
Related: A Tough Age for Truth
https://x.com/RonColeman/status/1811465252640268320
Mike….”Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor of the Associated Press, said she has not used the word objectivity since the early 1970s because she believes it reflects the world view of the male white establishment.”
I want to learn more about the history of AP. I have read that, going back to its founding, it had an exclusive or at least a strongly preferential deal with Western Union for the telegraphic transmission of news.
The other thing is one most people miss.
People in the media profession really don’t care what many people, and I’m assuming most readers of this blog, think. They don’t really care if Trump-supporters (or even many others) believe them or not because MAGA-land isn’t there to be educated and convinced, but rather serve a purpose which is to define the boundary of what is socially acceptable, beyond which are the barbarian hordes which all right thinking people must be eternally be on guard for. Instead of Vandals and Goths on horses think Baptists driving F-150s
I think David Burge caught the drift 20 years ago when he did his parody of von Drehle’s journey to Red America in the form of Heart of Darkness.
I remember when I read the Spike in the early 80s, then the Better Angels, by McCarry and some of Allen Drury’s follow up to Advice and Consent, I though this was too cynical, well we’re way past this point,
the AP as well as Gannett Tribune, infects most of news print in this country, I guess thats why they’ve made Musk, Public enemy no 1 or 2,
For American journalists to have betrayed their ideals would require that they have ever had ideals to betray. As Perry Mason would say, an assertion of facts not in evidence. With hardly any effort, I can recall a century of mendacity. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
What we’re seeing isn’t a change in journalism, it’s that now it’s not necessary to buy ink by the barrel to have a wide reach. We all remember how Mat Drudge got his big break.
In the absence of the ability to have faith in the honesty and integrity of the institutions of a society, and incidentally an absence of the ability to have faith in the honesty and integrity of the institution that interprets those other institutions to the mass of the people; the Social Contract of that society collapses. As does the society.
Subotai Bahadur
I’ve long since concluded that “journalist” was a shorthand way to say “professional paid liar” so I expect nothing from them except yet more reasons to hate them.
Shrug. I recall during the 90s various laws put in place by FDR about the ownership of media enterprises- TV stations, newspapers, etc- were eliminated. Hence today we get almost every single media outlet owned by a few corporations. If you’re a reporter and you don’t report what you’re told, you don’t have a job.
Or alternately, you do what Kari Lake has done and launch a political career, or you start a substack like Bari Weiss, etc.
When I heard about the assassination attempt on Trump I went to “X” to find out what was happening. It didn’t even occur to me to turn on the TV or check out CNN. Or Fox.
That’s a problem, if you’re one of the people who imagine you control the communications and specialize in the influence of public attitudes.
You don’t. I’m old enough to remember Walter Cronkite and how many people tuned in nightly to hear about the way it was.
Today, we have Cronkite’s putative successors lecturing us about Orange Man Bad- and it flat out failed. Even the headlines about convicted felon didn’t work.
It’s game over for these folks whether they notice or not.
Xennady…failing organizations can do a lot of damage on the way down, though.
Some of these publications really do still have a lot of influence.
For reference and maybe to bookmark, here’s someone who has collected initial reactions to the assassination attempt from a number of media organizations.
https://x.com/babybeginner/status/1812351785069334577
Washington Post today: “Musk, other pro-Trump billionaires, have helped shooting narrative”
“Narrative”–the main thing. Not truth, reality, facts.
Here’s David Sacks, one of those named as shapers of the narrative:
“I’m not sure what “narratives” they’re referring to, but I know what I saw, and I know what the crowd in Butler witnessed live.
At it turns out, my father-in-law lives in Pennsylvania and he was at the rally on Saturday. When the shots rang out and Trump went down, he said pandemonium broke out around him. Everyone feared the worst.
But then Trump rose. Covered in his own blood, resisting the secret service’s efforts to whisk him away to safety, Trump raised his fist defiantly, and the crowd could see him say: “Fight. Fight. Fight.”
Immediately the fear of the crowd dissipated, the chaotic uncertainty lifted, and it was replaced with steely resolve. The crowd responded back as one: “USA, USA, USA!”
This is not a “narrative.” It is the truth. Trump stood defiant in the face of an assassin’s bullet. There is no way to fake courage like that.”
https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/1812681510438486422
I saw that headline in the WP regarding Ackman and narratives. Maybe the best framework to understanding the media is that it operates as a form of a communication outfit found in corporate America, but in this case working for the Left as opposed to a defective bottle of aspirin. Communications people understand spin, that is facts never speak for themselves but rather can be placed into different contexts. The other is that stories are not discrete events but rather have certain lifespans; they start, can be kept a lot over time or can be sidelined until the cycle ends and another story replaces it.
Remember 9/11 and the heroic figure Bush posed? Nobody disputed it, but the media waited until the story exhausted itself and then when Bush was vulnerable it struck.
The goal of the media is not to convince, but to speak back to the Left to maintain morale and cohesion and either keep a story alive or run it into a ditch.
Keeping that in mind you can spin what seems to be the unspinnable. Take the Audrey Hale shootings last year. A trans -identifying woman rampages through a Christian school and slaughters 5 people, including 3 children, National story regarding the stability of trans people? Not so fast… the Left quickly stages protests even disrupting the Tennessee Capitol changing the narrative to gun control and then when the legislators who led the disruption were expelled it became a racial issue. The story of Audrey Hale and her manifesto was buried with her body, nobody disputed the facts but the story was starved, context changed, and the media cycle let it wither away. The truth will come eventually out, but only
Nobody (well unless you’re Reid Hoffman) disputes the facts of last Saturday. Somebody came within an inch of killing the Republican nominee, a bystander was killed, and there was produced an iconic picture of a heroic Trump. Context? What does it mean? That’s already in play. The “Musk and Other pro-Trump billionaires…” narrative is about changing the focus of the shootings from a toxic pro-assassination atmosphere created over the past 3 years by the media to one of a crazed, lone gunman. The other line of advance was evident not by investigating the event but by quoting the FBI “FBI searches for motive behind shooting” or stories such as NYTimes “An Assassination Attempt That Seems Likely to Tear America Further Apart” Got it? The story is going to be that if you point out how the Left created the environment for the assassination you’re tearing the country apart.
Btw… if you want an example of how a story that seemed so clear-cut can radically change its narrative in a short period of time look at the Biden-replacement story.
A few weeks ago the media en-masse came out calling for his replacement, there was a ground swell of below-the-radar talk in DC of getting him out. When after huddling with his family, Biden came out sand said only the “Almighty” can make him quit the ticket, we all thought he was in denial of the inevitable and laughed at him and his grifting family. There was even talk Friday of the Democrat “Superfriends” making the visit to Biden telling him he had to go. Slam dunk story.
Now? Good chance he stays. Why?
The Biden family based on their strategy on two factors. The first was that time for the Democrats to act was short, the Convention was only weeks away and Biden held the high ground. The Democrats had only a short period of time to remove him, Biden won if he simply did not lose. He was in victory formation running out the clock.
The second reminds me of the story of Nasrudin and the singing horse. Nasrudin escaped execution by convincing the king that he could teach his Majesty’s horse to sing within a year. When a friend asked him how he hoped to pull off the impossible Nasrudin replied to the effect that anything could happen in a year: the king might die, Nasrudin might die from other causes, the horse might sing.
In short things happen, opportunities emerge if you play for time. Also that master grifter Hunter Biden knows the ultimate secrets which is never ever negotiate with yourself. So now little over 2 weeks later with the Convention clock still running not only is Biden’s candidacy still alive but anyone who replaces him now faces the daunting task of taking on that heroic man in the picture from last Saturday, bleeding from the head, raising his fist in defiance. Good luck with that
…failing organizations can do a lot of damage on the way down, though.
Some of these publications really do still have a lot of influence.
Completely true. Yet they have much less influence then they did twenty years ago- and less than they did before another “lone gunman” took a shot at Trump.
They’re well on the way to irrelevance.
I note 1) The first headlines from the usual suspects wouldn’t even admit that there was an assassination attempt. 2) That was quickly superseded by live video from X describing exactly what happened, making the pathetic attempt by the regime’s pets to explain everything away pathetic. 3) Today they pulled the Morning Joe show from the air, quite logically concluding that the typical frothing-at-the-mouth Trump hatred wouldn’t be politically advantageous.
This is not what success looks like.
Claire missed one thing on assassination attempts – “Squeaky” Fromme’s attempt to kill President Ford in our own Capitol Park. IIRC amother tried to kill him in nearby SF on the same trip?
Years ago I knew a woman who was a nurse down at out County jail – and she said that Fromme was nuttier than a fruitcake.
I think there is truth in what she said though.
I think too Trump has been amazing – taking the worst adversarial things – like Lawfare – and – like judo – turning it to his advantage. That alone with the psychological costs and legal costs – would break most people.
I think this attempt on his life will bring in voters.