The Myth Of The Objective Media

Enshrined in the Constitution, in the first amendment, are the words “Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press:”. The founders understood that the communication of ideas, either as individuals or within organizations known as “the press”, was a fundamental right and crucial to the operation of a democracy. They knew that if the government controlled speech and could suppress speech that was critical of it, the people would not be able to make informed decisions when they voted and power would collocate around those who controlled the speech.

Now some may be thinking, that is what we have now. The “mainstream media”, consisting of the major network television broadcasts and a majority of newspapers, is in the pocket of the statists in the Democrat party and they have brainwashed the American people. The other side argues that the “alternative media”, made up primarily of talk radio and the Internet, it unfair to its ideas and programs. Both sides may complain that they are treated unfairly by some member of “the press” but I would argue that this is exactly what the founders intended. The idea that “the press” as a whole is to be objective is a myth we have created for ourselves and was not in any way, shape or form that held by the people of the eighteenth century. If you had an idea or a point of view you wanted to disseminate, you had three choices. First, if you could get the listeners, you could make speeches. Second, you could write a pamphlet. This is what Thomas Paine did with “Common Sense” and in so doing, gave the final push to the Continental Congress to declare for independence. I’m sure King George did not think it a “fair and objective” treatment of his policies. Finally, you could start a newspaper. Samuel Adams and his friends did this to support their revolutionary ideas, as did Thomas Jefferson when he formed his political party in opposition to John Adams. His paper was anything but objective and everyone knew it and accepted it.

The point is that “the press” was understood to have a point of view and its dissemination of the news was understood to support that point of view, a point of view that was political in nature. The papers themselves advertised this fact in their names-the Democrat this or the Republican that. There was no regulation of these papers and the market determined their success of failure. Samuel Adams’ first paper lasted only two years but some of those early papers continue to this day. If their ideas and viewpoint attracted people, it was a success; if they were not, it went under. For the politically active, getting your product noticed in the marketplace of ideas was just as difficult then as it is now.

Over the years, the press has not changed but our perception of it has. We expect the press to simply “give us the facts” and let us fit it into our ideological understanding. We created the myth of media objectivity where there was none, never has been and never will be. Much of the press, for its part, has bought into the myth as well and believes that it is objective and unbiased, lying to itself. Given this situation, we have two choices. We can complain that the media is not what we think it should be, which is what most of those on the “right” do. Or was can delude ourselves into believing that what we receive from the major media outlets is objective and simply swallow their “spin” as true. This is what the majority of Americans who don’t have the will, desire or time to think critically about the issues choose to do. Why? Here is the real issue. Most Americans are products of government schools whose objective, because they are government schools, is to turn out a product that will support the idea that government is good and all the things government does, or tries to do, are good. Americans are not taught to think critically in school, we are not taught to be discerning. Therefore, when students come out of the system, they naturally gravitate toward media that support the worldview they have been spoon-fed for over a decade of their young lives. The more the Federal government controls the schools, the worse this tendency is going to be. The founders knew this which is why there was no “Department of Education” for almost two hundred years. Education was understood to be a family and community matter, not a government matter.

Today, there are more choices than ever before when it comes to receiving information and viewpoints and because of that fact, people who receive it are forced to learn to think critically and be discerning. The marketplace works and we need to let it work, particularly in the areas of political ideology. Any suggestion by any political official that we need regulation in the media should be met with strong opposition. Failing papers should not be “bailed out”, talk radio should not be subject to any form of the “Fairness Doctrine” and the Internet should not be regulated in any way... The marketplace should determine the success or failure of every idea.

The reality is this. The statist, through years of patient work and indoctrination, has bought off larger and larger segments of the population. The current administration seems to believe that it can do pretty much anything it wants and is not constrained by the Constitution, economic reality or common sense. About one sixth of the population of this great country put these people in office. The great question yet to be decided it this-is this the “tyranny of the minority” or has the statist truly won the ideological battle in the marketplace of ideas? If the latter is true, liberty is lost. If the former is true, will the majority rise up before the statist clamps down on any dissenting ideas? It is a race whose outcome has not yet been decided but in order for liberty to triumph, we must actually enter the contest.

www.patricksamuels.com