This posting to the Election Law list contains some good material. -------- Original Message --------
On 2/8/09, Kenneth R. Mayer <[email protected]> wrote: > Newspapers cannot be a necessary condition for democracy, in the empirical > sense that during much of American history, "modern" newspapers didn't > exist. During the formative years of the Republic, newspapers were party > organs, with no pretense of neutral or fair coverage (insert New York Times > and Fox News jokes here). That didn't really start until the middle of the > 19th century; the contemporary ethic of journalism is really a 20th century > development. [snip] This "objectivity" is not, per se, needed, but diversity and access to media by diverse points of view IS needed. Note Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and others (below) on the primacy of newspapers (the "media" of that time): Thomas Jefferson's letter to Edward Carrington, dated January 16, 1787, states in part: "The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and 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 choose the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers, and be capable of reading them." Thus, a good media prevails over the government itself, in Thomas Jefferson's view. Consistent with above, the Founders including Jefferson regularly spoke of the "diffusion of education." Jefferson, presuming a sort of Hobson's choice between the media and the government of his day, chose the media without hesitation over the government (I surmise) because in the absence of delegated governmental powers, those powers would return to or never leave the people. This would leave the people with an even greater need to be informed, who would now be governing even more directly than in a republican or representative system. Conversely, the government without a good media is rendered a phantom or a kind of forgery. Indeed, the US Supreme Court in Richmond Newspapers with its discussion of the need for transparent courtroom proceedings in the absence of any express constitutional provision commanding this, stated:, "Without publicity, all other checks are insufficient: in comparison [to] publicity, all other checks are of small account." Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 569 (1980) (Brennan, J.) (discussing openness as a check and balance, as a means for citizens to maintain control over government, and other reasons.) Moreover, "press" is extremely broad: Bloggers, pamphleteers, book authors, dramatists, etc., are every bit as much part of the First Amendment as print newspapers like the New York Times (a distinction often ignored by officials insisting on "credentialed" press only): "Freedom of the press is a `fundamental personal right' which `is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.' . . . The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press . . . is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow [435 U.S. 765, 802] of information to the public . . . ." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 -705 (1972), quoting Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 450, 452. Ben Franklin (printer/Founder) says a key function of "press" (whether bloggers or newspapers) is the repetition of key truths in order to allow "speaking to nations." It's doubtful that this function is fully duplicated with blogs: "Now by press we can speak to nations. And good books and well-written pamphlets have great and general influence. The facility with which the same truths may be repeatedly enforced by placing them daily in different lights in newspapers--which are everywhere read--gives a great chance of establishing them. And we now find that it is not only right to strike while the iron is hot but that it may be very practical to heat it by continuous striking." --Benjamin Franklin Of course there can be a fine line between this kind of repetition and something that could be fairly classified as "propaganda." Still, when it comes to the general principles of liberty, constitutional rights, federalism, elections and other concepts upon which our republic rests, the following is no doubt true, and it is ironic that we'd need to be reminded of it by a citizen of the country from which we won our Independence: "People need to be reminded more often than they need to be informed." Adding to the somewhat complex mix: "Free speech has been preserved, but its effective existence is disastrously curtailed if the more important means of publicity are only open to opinions that have the sanction of orthodoxy." ? Bertrand Russell "We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests." ?Henry Miller Thomas Jefferson, at least when depressed by print coverage of his presidency, concurred generally with Henry Miller above (and yet he still preferred newspapers over government, per the quote above) "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." When my high school football team, which the local newspaper was (beyond doubt) a fan of, regularly got facts wrong, I learned that it is by no means always a question of "bias" in newspapers, but more often a question of time and deadlines. (Indeed, Corporate profitability seems the biggest factor in squelching investigative journalism because it is more expensive than reprinting press releases after some fact checking and perhaps amplification of the story). It seems the only way out of the box is to have a diversity of media, and a diversity of voices, with little consideration of the extent to which a notion is already accepted in the community as a standard for whether or not a story gets publicized. Without that diversity being quite timely provided, France's proposal to provide a single newspaper (unless that newspaper regularly prints four or five or more political views side by side on a single subject) does not seem to maximize the number of informed citizens making free choices, but only takes one step in that direction. A nice slogan in response to media "bias" charges might be: "Freedom: Get Used To It." "Bias" of a sort is fine, so long as it isn't always leaning in the same general direction, unless expressly advertised as such. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 [email protected] 906-204-2333 309-413-6541 fax _______________________________________________ election-law mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------
