COMMENTARY
THIS POST ROLLED UP
Who’s ‘Freedom of the Press’ is it?
Watching the MSM in general, the White House press corps in particular and, this time around, David Gregory specifically, as they obsess over the recent Vice President Cheney shooting incident I am obliged to weigh in on an aspect of their demeanor that has bothered me for some time. By their actions now and by their actions during any number of previous incidents, the media appear to believe that unique among our citizenry they, ‘as journalists’, have their very own right in ‘Freedom of the Press’. They do not. ‘Freedom of the Press’ does not belong to them anymore than ‘Freedom of Religion’ belongs to churches and clerics. Both belong to me as a citizen of this country. I am the one who has a right to a free press. What the media has is the consequential privilege and attendant responsibility to be the free press that I have a right to.
The significance of this may be too subtle or even, dare I say it, nuanced for the Liberal media to appreciate, despite their past claims to virtuosity in such matters, but let me see if I can explain it to them. It means that in addition to those directly involved, my fellow citizens and I are the important people in this and all other news stories. The least important, even inconsequential people as individuals are the media. Despite what the privileged too often presume, privilege does not impart importance nor warrant vanity. What it should impart is gratitude and what it should warrant is humility.
To complain that this story was released through an obscure local Texas newspaper and a ‘small time’ reporter is no more valid than it would be to complain that I seek my news from that newspaper rather than from them. As long as I get the news, they don’t matter. And they should not add pomposity to their sins by challenging the abilities of local reporters compared to that of ‘big time journalists’. Apart from the dubious merits of such a claim, this was not a story the appreciation of which depended on a vast world view of global politics. Local professionals are just as capable of handling it as they would be if the participants were unknown outside of Corpus Christi. That is so obvious it leads one to suspect that the real issue with the Media whiners is that they thereby missed an opportunity to spin this story toward their own world view and political bias in an attempt to maximize the damage to the Bush administration. So, they spin that lost opportunity toward their own world view and political bias in an attempt to maximize the damage to the Bush administration. Incorrigible.
What bias? The Left wing, Liberal political bias the MSM claims not to engage in, that’s what bias. Liberals have long wrung their hands trying to understand why a dufus like Rush Limbaugh could succeed so well in talk radio while their own handpicked intellectually superior competitors continually fail. It is a simple matter of market supply and demand. That, by itself, explains why the Left doesn’t get it. Here is how it works. There is no marginal propensity to consume Left wing political opinion. That market is adequately served by the MSM. Rush capitalizes on the marginal propensity to consume conservative political opinion. If the MSM had better served that segment of the market there would be less marginal propensity to consume conservative political opinion and Rush and other right wing talk radio hosts would not have succeeded as they did.
Like Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is usually the best. So throw away all of the complex theories on personalities, voice quality, entertainment value, getting ‘the right’ spokesperson’ for the Left and conspiracy theories. It is just plain and simple free market dynamics. Rush’s success is not only best explained this way but that success is then proof of the Liberal media bias they continue to deny.
The longer they continue to not understand this, the longer they continue to abdicate their responsibilities as a free press to provide we citizens with the unencumbered facts that we have a right to, and upon which we are perfectly capable of then forming our own opinions, the longer they persist in misusing their position in order to advance their own political bias, the smaller their market share will become and the less privilege they will enjoy. And despite their continual denial, they do misuse their position to advance their own political bias. The market is telling them that.
That is why they are loosing market share. They appeal only to those of a particular political view. They had the others in their audience for a long time while there was no alternative available to them. Now, with talk radio, cable news and the Internet, alternatives are available to these others and they are partaking of those opportunities. ‘Journalists’ may, in the manner of Sam Donaldson, delude themselves into believing that they are far too professional to ever allow their personal political opinions to influence their working conduct but if that were really the case then how come I, who have never met any of them, never had a conversation with any of them and know them only through their working conduct, know so many of them to be flaming Liberals? (And no, I do not ‘know’ it to be true because I listen to Rush, I listen to Rush because I know it to be true.) For that matter, why do they now insist on being called journalists instead of reporters?
I am giving them the best possible advice they could ever receive. I am confident that they will not take it. They will not take it because the goal that advice is intended to achieve, that of halting their declining market share, is not the goal they seek. This is all happening at a time when the old guard talking heads are leaving the scene and their ambitious successors who have paid their dues and done all the necessary things lo’ these many years are now, finally, getting their chance at the kind of power, influence and privilege their predecessors enjoyed. That is why they so coveted the position in the first place. They are not about to accept that it is no longer available. They are in denial as to the extent and certainly the reasons for this turn of events and are determined to carryon as though nothing had changed, as though they really are as important as their vanity would have them be, as though ‘Freedom of the Press’ belonged to them and guaranteed it.
By Anotmo, guest contributor.
Who’s ‘Freedom of the Press’ is it?
Watching the MSM in general, the White House press corps in particular and, this time around, David Gregory specifically, as they obsess over the recent Vice President Cheney shooting incident I am obliged to weigh in on an aspect of their demeanor that has bothered me for some time. By their actions now and by their actions during any number of previous incidents, the media appear to believe that unique among our citizenry they, ‘as journalists’, have their very own right in ‘Freedom of the Press’. They do not. ‘Freedom of the Press’ does not belong to them anymore than ‘Freedom of Religion’ belongs to churches and clerics. Both belong to me as a citizen of this country. I am the one who has a right to a free press. What the media has is the consequential privilege and attendant responsibility to be the free press that I have a right to.
The significance of this may be too subtle or even, dare I say it, nuanced for the Liberal media to appreciate, despite their past claims to virtuosity in such matters, but let me see if I can explain it to them. It means that in addition to those directly involved, my fellow citizens and I are the important people in this and all other news stories. The least important, even inconsequential people as individuals are the media. Despite what the privileged too often presume, privilege does not impart importance nor warrant vanity. What it should impart is gratitude and what it should warrant is humility.
To complain that this story was released through an obscure local Texas newspaper and a ‘small time’ reporter is no more valid than it would be to complain that I seek my news from that newspaper rather than from them. As long as I get the news, they don’t matter. And they should not add pomposity to their sins by challenging the abilities of local reporters compared to that of ‘big time journalists’. Apart from the dubious merits of such a claim, this was not a story the appreciation of which depended on a vast world view of global politics. Local professionals are just as capable of handling it as they would be if the participants were unknown outside of Corpus Christi. That is so obvious it leads one to suspect that the real issue with the Media whiners is that they thereby missed an opportunity to spin this story toward their own world view and political bias in an attempt to maximize the damage to the Bush administration. So, they spin that lost opportunity toward their own world view and political bias in an attempt to maximize the damage to the Bush administration. Incorrigible.
What bias? The Left wing, Liberal political bias the MSM claims not to engage in, that’s what bias. Liberals have long wrung their hands trying to understand why a dufus like Rush Limbaugh could succeed so well in talk radio while their own handpicked intellectually superior competitors continually fail. It is a simple matter of market supply and demand. That, by itself, explains why the Left doesn’t get it. Here is how it works. There is no marginal propensity to consume Left wing political opinion. That market is adequately served by the MSM. Rush capitalizes on the marginal propensity to consume conservative political opinion. If the MSM had better served that segment of the market there would be less marginal propensity to consume conservative political opinion and Rush and other right wing talk radio hosts would not have succeeded as they did.
Like Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is usually the best. So throw away all of the complex theories on personalities, voice quality, entertainment value, getting ‘the right’ spokesperson’ for the Left and conspiracy theories. It is just plain and simple free market dynamics. Rush’s success is not only best explained this way but that success is then proof of the Liberal media bias they continue to deny.
The longer they continue to not understand this, the longer they continue to abdicate their responsibilities as a free press to provide we citizens with the unencumbered facts that we have a right to, and upon which we are perfectly capable of then forming our own opinions, the longer they persist in misusing their position in order to advance their own political bias, the smaller their market share will become and the less privilege they will enjoy. And despite their continual denial, they do misuse their position to advance their own political bias. The market is telling them that.
That is why they are loosing market share. They appeal only to those of a particular political view. They had the others in their audience for a long time while there was no alternative available to them. Now, with talk radio, cable news and the Internet, alternatives are available to these others and they are partaking of those opportunities. ‘Journalists’ may, in the manner of Sam Donaldson, delude themselves into believing that they are far too professional to ever allow their personal political opinions to influence their working conduct but if that were really the case then how come I, who have never met any of them, never had a conversation with any of them and know them only through their working conduct, know so many of them to be flaming Liberals? (And no, I do not ‘know’ it to be true because I listen to Rush, I listen to Rush because I know it to be true.) For that matter, why do they now insist on being called journalists instead of reporters?
I am giving them the best possible advice they could ever receive. I am confident that they will not take it. They will not take it because the goal that advice is intended to achieve, that of halting their declining market share, is not the goal they seek. This is all happening at a time when the old guard talking heads are leaving the scene and their ambitious successors who have paid their dues and done all the necessary things lo’ these many years are now, finally, getting their chance at the kind of power, influence and privilege their predecessors enjoyed. That is why they so coveted the position in the first place. They are not about to accept that it is no longer available. They are in denial as to the extent and certainly the reasons for this turn of events and are determined to carryon as though nothing had changed, as though they really are as important as their vanity would have them be, as though ‘Freedom of the Press’ belonged to them and guaranteed it.
By Anotmo, guest contributor.
posted by HeavyHanded at
11:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home