Journalists, while they like to promote the image of themselves as fierce individualists, are in the end another species of corporate employees. They claim as their clients an amorphous public. They seek their moral justification in the service of this nameless, faceless mass and speak little about the vast influence of the power elite to shape and determine reporting. Does a public even exist in a society as fragmented and divided as ours? Or is the public, as Walter Lippmann wrote, now so deeply uninformed and divorced from the inner workings of power and diplomacy as to make it a clean slate on which our armies of skilled propagandists can, often through the press, leave a message?
The symbiotic relationship between the press and the power elite worked for nearly a century. It worked as long as our power elite, no matter how ruthless or insensitive, was competent. But once our power elite became incompetent and morally bankrupt, the press, along with the power elite, lost its final vestige of credibility. The press became, as seen in the Iraq war and the aftermath of the financial upheavals, a class of courtiers. The press, which has always written and spoken from presuppositions and principles that reflect the elite consensus, now peddles a consensus that is flagrantly artificial. Our elite oversaw the dismantling of the country’s manufacturing base and the betrayal of the working class with the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the press dutifully trumpeted this as a form of growth. Our elite deregulated the banking industry, leading to nationwide bank collapses, and the press extolled the value of the free market. Our elite corrupted the levers of power to advance the interests of corporations and the press naively conflated freedom with the free market. This reporting may have been “objective” and “impartial” but it defied common sense. The harsh reality of shuttered former steel-producing towns and growing human misery should have, in the hands of any good cop reporter, exposed the fantasies. But the press long ago stopped thinking and lost nearly all its moral autonomy.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Regarding a Press that Won't Dig for the Truth
Chris Hedges has some harsh words for modern journalism in an essay on Truthdig. As usual, there is a lot of sense in what he has to say. Here's a quote:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It seems the Mr. Hedges has some philosophical axes to grind; however, his disdain for "journalists" may have been earned. I have found much journalism in recent years to be superficial, sensationalistic, anti-intellectual, uninformed, lacking independence, and undisciplined. I think these observations are a small part of why the newspapers are in such trouble.
With the increase of education and access to the internet, more and more people are putting together their own news and deciding issues based upon their own investigation. At heart though, we still need those who are willing to "speak the truth" to power and to be vigilant in disseminating sound, complete information.
I do not have a high opinion of the press either and much of what Mr. Hedges maybe true. But much of what is wrong with the press may not necessarily be related to a conflict of interest.
First of all, everyone stands somewhere and thus has a point of view that influences what and how they report. The problem can arise when something influences them to go against their own perspective.
But more of the problem seems to me is that the press has learned to "communicate". And many times they simply "communicate" what someone else tells them. They are "reporting". Their training does not emphasize being thoughtful about what they report. Additionally, most of the time, reporters are not competent in the subject matter on which they are reporting. Due to my career and some of my personal interests, I have expertise in certain areas. It amuses me when the press reports or even gives an opinion on something that I have personal expertise. It seems that inevitably they "get it wrong". They report "facts" that are correct; but the context in which they report the facts and the perspective they bring to the facts are often "naive", "superficial", "ill-informed", and demonstrate a total lack of competency in the subject matter.
Because of these experiences of mine, I trust very little that I read or hear until I have taken the time to investigate for myself. Of course, much of it I really have no need to trust, because I take much journalism today as simply "entertainment"
With all due respect, I keep hearing the same thing being said over and over again."We also believe that every word of the Bible is true",and "I am a Christian who believes every word of the Bible is true." sorry to go off topic,but I don't understand something.I grew up baptist but the more and more I read the Bible in context,the more I was finding startling contradictions to what was being preached to me. The three main contradictions are age of accountability, Once saved always saved and deciding for Jesus.In context these beliefs are not biblical teachings, which eventually led me to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, not the EL CA. I hope to get some clarification from some of you on why you think children are immune from sin and God's judgment until they are old enough to make some kind of decision.If once saved always saved is true,then there should not be any examples of Christians falling from grace or falling away,yet the are many.How can we lay claim to God's Work, by saying our salvation is the result of our decision for Jesus,when the bible is crystal clear that we are His workmanship,that faith is imparted, a gift from God through His Word, So how can we say that our salvation was based on our decision? That would takes the glory From God and puts it in our hands and we would make an idol to ourselves and Christ would be no use to us. Please let me know what you think and why.
Sorry again to go of topic. My email address is mcotney@gmail.com
Thank you and God Bless
Dr. Prescott, I lstened to your interview with Razi Hashmi last November. I think you should read what I wrote about it so you have all the facts which I strongly encourage you to verifly.
http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2010/02/razi-hashmi-answers-his-critics.html
If you find I made a factual error let me know - include a proof source, though
BTW, you have a great speaking voice. It is very nice.
Have a great day!
Brandi
Post a Comment