Responsible Journalism?

Thanks to Bill Bennett for posting this:

" On The Responsibility of the Press, from Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Harvard 1978
"The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media). But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?

Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.

Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers' memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one's nation's defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: "everyone is entitled to know everything." But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information.

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.

Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?

There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend."

I believe that trend has changed. The readership now have choices and the press no longer has a monopoly on information.

Isn't it amazing how accurate Alexander Solzhenitsyn was, or how little the press has changed.

Nothing Better to Do?

" WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union is investigating complaints from more than a dozen black employees at a Six Flags theme park who were told their hairstyles were inappropriate."

Why do dogs lick themselves? Because they can.

Why does the IRS go after the little guys? Because they don't have lawyers.

People and institutions do pick the 'low hanging' fruit first.

If civil liberties are defined by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the ACLU has significantly more important violations it could pursue. Firearms bans in DC and other cities. Property being seized around the country by governments for private purposes are just two.

No, the ACLU believes hairstyles are more important. It is certainly an easy and highly public case.
Too bad those 'do-gooders' at the ACLU don't have the stamina to tackle the really tough cases. I guess they prefer to lick themselves.

Partisans

CSPANs Washington Journal asked the question if partisanship is good for government. (I can't get the exact question. Having trouble accessing the site.)

The Constitution is a product of partisanship and could arguably be called an imperfect document permitting slavery and discrimination against women and aborigines.

The beauty of the document lies in the Bill of Rights. The concept of federalism and the 9th and 10th amendments should have guaranteed that partisan arguments would be vetted in the states before pushing themselves onto the national level.

With Lincoln, FDR and the Supreme Court effectively killing federalism, coupled with a national media, partisan issues best left to be resolved at the state level: abortion and homosexual marriage, for example, have gained national prominence.

Partisanship is good. It indicates people are passionate about an issue. We now have a government and media that magnify local partisan issues onto the national and international arena.

Lieberman McCain Ticket

If Joe Lieberman runs as an independent he could do a lot worse than having McCain as a running mate.
That would really shake up the two parties, would it not?

Trust

" Nobody trusts professional competence, be it personal or institutional."


Is it any wonder when parents sue a school district to change the grade of their child so it won't mess up their chance to get into a 'good' college.
Or when colleges accept students who can't meet standards because they don't have enough of that color enrolled.
Or when a student at Harvard, is caught stealing words for her novel.
Degrees from a high school and university used to mean something. Now they basically prove you might have attended and paid your fees.

Stand for Something

After reading Mark Steyn's latest , I am reminded of "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
The modern liberal PC naval contemplation has resulted in a West that has chosen to spin its history into reminding itself of all the 'evil' it has done.
For some reason, humans have a tendency to forget the bad and remember the good things that have happened to them. Must be a survival technique.
If the West is going to survive, we will need to be reminded why it was so important that those 300 Spartans delayed the Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae .
While it is certainly true that perfection was not achieved by the Greeks or Romans or the Holy Roman Empire or the British Empire or the USA, each has made a significant contribution to human liberty and the modern West's complete ignorance of its history is the chink in the armor the Jihadists are exploiting.
A crash course in Western civilization should begin immediately by the MSM to remind the West why it's ideals are the best hope for humanity.