"he United States as we know it was
shaped first by what most people call the Civil War and second by the
Progressive Era of the late 1800s and early 1900s. If there is a year
when the constitutional American republic died absolutely, it would be
1913. (Thomas DiLorenzo
refers to the passing of the Constitutional amendments to authorize both
the income tax and direct election of U.S. Senators as the
"Revolution of
1913." Congress also authorized the Federal Reserve System in
that year.)"
'Progressive' Journalists and State Power
by William L. Anderson
At the end of the movie
Animal House, a band tries unsuccessfully to march through a
brick wall at the end of an alley. This is supposed to be a scene which
reflects the absolute absurdity of the film, but it also unwittingly
presents a picture of the modern "Progressive" mindset: the
state can do anything as long as it has enough authority.
Such actions, of course, reflect Einstein’s alleged definition of
insanity (repeat an action over and over again while expecting different
results), yet that irony is lost at the present time, especially in the
world of modern journalism. People are forever diagnosing the mainstream
media as either having a "liberal" bias or engaging in coverage
that lacks "objectivity." The answer to such issues,
unfortunately, seems to be to engage in more insanity. Let me
explain.
In
a recent column, Glenn Greenwald decries what he sees as a
"merger" of journalists and the state, and I agree with his
sentiments wholeheartedly. Greenwald is one of the few journalists out
there who is not a shill for particular politicians or the Democratic
Party, despite the fact that his political views definitely are
left-of-center.
Yet, for all of his excellent insights, I’m afraid that even the great
Greenwald is missing the bigger picture. The problem is not misplaced
priorities on behalf of journalists or the fact that most media outlets
are owned by corporations (which most Progressives confuse with free
markets). The problem is that
modern journalism is a relic of the
Progressive Era when state power merged with the press to promote
"American" interests. Progressivism itself – of both the
"liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints – is the
problem.
Most Americans believe that the significant "revolution" in our
nation’s history occurred from 1775 to 1781, yet the republic that
emerged following the colonial war with Great Britain no longer exists
and has not existed for at least a century. We may shoot fireworks on
July 4, but the document we supposedly celebrate – the Declaration of
Independence – is nothing more than parchment under glass and is more
irrelevant to our present lives than the old "constitution" of
the former Soviet Union.
The United States as we know it was shaped first by what most people call
the Civil War and second by the Progressive Era of the late 1800s and
early 1900s. If there is a year when the constitutional American republic
died absolutely, it would be 1913.
(Thomas DiLorenzo refers to
the passing of the Constitutional amendments to authorize both the income
tax and direct election of U.S. Senators as the
"Revolution of
1913." Congress also authorized the Federal Reserve System in
that year.)
However, the process leading to the permanent establishment of the
Leviathan State was begun long before 1913, which codified the movement
that already existed. Every "Progressive’s" favorite Republican
President, Theodore Roosevelt, already had put into motion the process in
which Congress ceded its powers of lawmaking to the executive branch,
something that continues apace today.
In his utterly statist
Losing the News, Alex S. Jones decries the loss of daily
newspapers and suggests that what he calls the "watchdog of
government" be
"rescued" by government itself through subsidies and government
regulation, and does so without any irony whatsoever. Yes, he calls
for a "watchdog of government" to be tied financially to the
state, a relationship that he claims will increase the
"objectivity" of the press, a view that makes sense only if one
falls into the "Progressive" camp.
It is hard to fathom the utter nonsense of Jones’ proposition, yet Jones
is typical of most mainstream journalists today. As a former newspaper
reporter, I can attest to the desire by journalists to have
"access" to those in political power and to be advocates for a
certain politician or political points of view. If there is a constant
theme among mainstream journalists, it is that state control of our lives
must increase.
If one reads a typical newspaper or watches a news show on television,
this point almost is impossible to miss. Look at all of the journalists
who worked in the executive branch of the federal or even state
governments. (Relatively few former legislators become journalists, as
lobbying is a more lucrative career. The vast number of journalists who
had government titles worked either directly for an elected official –
i.e. Chris Matthews – or had a high-profile position as a political
appointee for a regulatory agency.)
This is not unlike the "revolving door" between government
regulators and the firms they help regulate or between
U.S.
Department of Justice antitrust division attorneys and high-paying
private firms that specialize in antitrust litigation and defense. The
relationships are more than just symbolic, however; they highlight the
real merger between modern corporate journalism and the state.
Greenwald’s concerns deal specifically with the WikiLeaks release of
classified U.S. Government documents, but the problem is much broader
than just whether or not one thinks Julian Assange is a hero or a
criminal. Furthermore, the problem is not that many journalistic outlets
are owned by private corporations. Instead, the problem with modern
journalism is that most journalists are little more than foot soldiers
for state power, and they demand (and receive) special privileges from
the authorities.
In Losing the News, Jones (who was an editorial supervisor of mine
more than 30 years ago) is openly disdainful of blogs and the
"citizen journalism" that has erupted on the Internet. Instead,
he holds to the academic/state view that "journalists" should
be credentialed, and that First Amendment protection should be
afforded only those who fall into that proper category.
One would think that his would be a minority view, but it is not. As they
have done with the rest of the Constitution, Progressives have
re-interpreted the First Amendment as offering protection only to those
people who have proper journalistic credentials and who are employed by
official media outlets. Thus, as Greenwald points out, many of them can
argue that Assange really is not a journalist, so he does not enjoy the
same protections as did the New York Times after it published the
Pentagon Papers.
Read newspapers like the New York Times and Washington
Post, or watch Fox News or MSNBC, and you will see what I mean.
Journalists employed for all of these entities (with the exceptions of
Judge Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel on the Fox Business Channel)
tend to believe that "progress" occurs only with the
advancement of state power over the lives of individuals.
That is why you will see uncritical support from these outlets of the
Transportation Security Administration’s utterly-invasive
"security" measures, or why the NYT has been a consistent shill
for high income tax rates. Such things are the logical end of a
Progressive ideology that claims freedom advances only with the
advancement of state power (in the hands of the correct and
properly-credentialed people, of course).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson307.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
- 'Progressive' Journalists and State Power MJ
