Wars, The Press, & The Public

 

Journalists in battle situation

The press has always sought to cover events that can be sensationalized and profited on. War is no exception. Though correspondence has evolved over time, from reporting the events of war to being lapdogs for the military industrial complex, the media has and will continue to be a pervader of war. 

In today's sensationalized world, the media seeks profit from drama and division. We see this with the race riots, and we see this with war.

The 'Fourth Estate" is essentially the 4th branch of government. The media serves as this estate as they often times mold political issues; based off of ratings on certain stories covered. During the Vietnam War, the media played an integral role in highlighting human rights tragedies. Post 9/11, however, the media simply reinforced the government's defense of war in the Middle East. The media should serve as a check on government, not an enabler. We should have a media that holds our leaders accountable, not hold them on a pedestal and worship.

The watchdog press is such a unique phenomena. A submissive lap Pug during the Obama and Biden administrations, and a Pitbull during the Trump administration, the media needs to find a balance between hit pieces and ego strokes.

Journalists should seek to expose the truth and investigate reality. They should not seek to divide and conquer, they should simply publish the truth. Recently, this understanding has been lost. Investigatory journalism has long helped this country mane progressive changes.

Without turning a blind eye to truth, watchdog journalism, when practiced properly, can make a lasting impact that will benefit generations of people and alter the status quo.

The press has a history of starting wars. Many in the political establishment are also responsible for war escalation.

The CATO Institute, a Libertarian leaning think tank, argues that the media's influence on sueding public opinion makes them responsible for starting wars. They point to the yellow journalism of Hurt and Pulitzer during the Spanish-American war and the influence of Judith Miller of the New York Times during the Iraq war as evidence. 

From 2010, this graphic shows cable news ratings

The media is just like any business: provide a product people want, make a profit. It is pretty simple. The only times people really pay attention to the news is if something is happening. As much as we would all like to go back to boring, khaki, pre-Trump life, we really can't. We have become so consumed with the drama of politics- and war- that we crave it and get bored with the blandness of people like Biden. 

This being said, the media needs to make money. They make their money off of advertisements during programming and that rate is determined by viewership. If people don't like boring news, they won't tune in unless it is interesting. This means the media must have something juicy for the people. It's what we want. It's what we need. And the media can provide. It's our savior.

The life and death of Reese Erlich brought a new style of investigatory journalism that sought to delegitimize war. Erlich's work was published in Vice; reason #1 he was not mainstream enough. Vice is an opinion publication that is not taken seriously by most. Pro-war voices like George Will were already in syndication with major publications like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

The 'New Partisan Press' era does not truly highlight where we are with journalism. Twitter journalists and keyboard fiends are moving the pendulum on absolutely no public policy. While journalists are living inside the Twitterverse, the rest of the world is not paying attention. People have stopped watching the news and started looking for more positive things to watch; especially during the time of Covid. 

The state of journalism today is sad... in my humble opinion. No longer are people able to turn on the tv or log onto social media without seeing some sort of liberal spin. Not to mention, if you watch Fox News you are looked down upon as they are perceived to be too radical. Even the most seasoned journalists at the most mainstream outlets have fallen victim to partisanship.

Sources

The Fourth Estate | Link

Watchdog Journalism | Link

The Press & War | Link

Free Press: A Transhistoric Relationship Between the Media and Government

 

Enshrined in the greatest living document that ever graced this planet is the freedom for a free and fair media. For centuries the United States of America has been a model for the world as we cherish the sacred right to a free press. A transhistoric value, the freedom of the press has brought accountability, transparency, and progressive change to American culture. 

Our Constitution is the basis for American law, ethical practices, and moral guidance. The very fabric of our union is the idea that our government can only govern through the consent of the governed. This means that without the support and consent of the American electorate the government is no longer free or fair. 

The 1st Amendment emphasizes the importance of the legislative branch of government in the process of abridging rights. A right is a protection from an overbearing government; protection from the government. The 1st Amendment protects individuals from the heavy hand of government.

Though it does not protect individuals from each other, employers, or other non-governmental organizations, it does protect the individual from a government that seeks oppression. A fundamental personal right, the 1st Amendment protects anyone and everyone who seeks to print the truth about the government.

The 6th clause of the 1st Amendment only emboldens the freedom of the presst by giving the people the right to air their grievances. From the average Joe to the major media networks, our constitution protects and encourages the accountability of the government by the governed. 

Without the media, the average Joe would not be equipped with pressing information regarding public policy and the working of our government. If our government had its way, the American electorate would continue to walk with ignorance to the governing structure. An ignorant governed leads to a sketchy and powerful government. 

The eight values of free expression are valuable components of the 1st Amendment. Arguably the most valuable component is dissent. Dissent allows for the free exchange of ideas. Disagreement of ideas is good for a free society as it allows for the ideas of all to be heard. Without dissent, the people become sheep for the government. A conforming and weak society is ripe for a tyrannical and authoritarian government that diminishes rights and personal liberties.

Perhaps the most dissentful voices in media history are those who voice disagreement with war. Anti-war voices have long been suppressed dating back to the jailing of journalists during the civil war and as recent as the persecution of Julian Assange for publishing damaging material against American troops in the Middle East.

Anti-war voices such as Assange have been persecuted for centuries. In previous blog posts I explored the impact of Julian Assange on the American media and the influence he holds in creating a transparent government that is accountable to a free press. 

The immediate aftermath of 9/11 brought with it a silenced media that was a lapdog to the military industrial complex and the government. Pro-war voices like George Will were elevated while anti-war voices were silenced and censured. This chilling effect discourages people from speaking up and speaking out. The fear of legal and political retaliation is one that most people fear; not just those in the media.

The Trump-era has ushered in another era for the chilling effect. That is, supporters and defenders of the former president are blacklisted from jobs, media appearances, and social settings because of their advocacy for the former president. We have seen this before in history, but not to this extent. To be a Trump supporter is the equivalent of a witch in 1600s Salem. The persecution of right leaning people for their politics is very real and discouraging for other people to step up and step out.

Sources:

First Amendment: Link

Dissent: Link

Julian Assange: Link

William F. Buckley Jr.: Hero or Villain?

 

William F. Buckley Jr. is arguably one of the first provocative opinion journalists that ostracized both the left and the right. Aside from his journalistic influence and provocativeness, William F. Buckley Jr. was one the most influential thought creators in the modern conservative movement with a lasting legacy still referenced by American conservatives.

Born in 1925, Buckley was the son of an oil tycoon who afforded him the preppy lifestyle of some of New England's most influential families. Accustomed to life in the 1%, Buckley travelled the world bouncing from boarding school to boarding school before joining the army in WWII and attending Yale University where he excelled to prominence as a captain of the Yale Debate Team (Brittanica).

William F. Buckey Jr., founder of the National Review

In 1955, Buckley entered into the world of journalism. Through the creation of the National Review, Buckley brought conservative perspectives to the forefront for the first time. In 1962 his political column "On the Right" was syndicated which propelled Buckley to national prominence Brittanica).

In 1965, just 3 years after rising to stardom, Buckley announced his candidacy for Mayor of New York City under the Conservative party. Buckley saw the increase in crime and the city's unwillingness to address problems such as crime and poverty as a driving factor in deciding whether or not to run. Buckley would go on to win 13% of the vote and eventually would support the Mayor-elect Republican John Lindsey (Madden, 1965, p. 1).  

William Buckley's campaign for Mayor

Buckley's Rise to fame quickly made him a target for media attacks and personal vendettas. In 1966, shortly after his campaign for Mayor, Buckley signed a tv deal for national debates with prominent liberal figures. This deal made Buckley even more of a household name and legitimized the National Review as a source of alternate, conservative perspectives (Adams, 1966, p. 67).

In 1980, after 25 years of syndication, the National Review celebrated 25 years of excellence with a star studded evening. President-elect, and conservative icon, Ronald Reagan spoke continuous praise of Buckley's performance as editor of the National Review and his steadfast support for conservatism and conservative politics. Buckley's ability to bring together all different types of conservatives has solidified his standing in the Republican Party and American politics for generations to come (Carroll, 1980, p. 28). 

Firing Line w/ William Buckley poster

William Buckley's most influential accomplishment in life was his involvement with the longest running public policy program "Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.." A 34 season series airing between 1966 and 1999, "Firing Line" interviewed provocative and influential figures ranging from presidents to religious leaders to anarchists and civil rights leaders.

Though it was cancelled in 1999, PBS recently renewed the series under host Margaret Hoover. Hoover, the granddaughter of former Republican president Herbert Hoover, is a former George W. Bush administration official who offers a conservative, academic perspective in contrast to her guests.

In 2008, after a long and impactful life, William F. Buckley Jr. died at the age of 82 years old. The impact and legacy of Buckley will continue to be debated for decades to come. The praise of Buckley is bipartisan and he is credited with laying the ground work for the election of some of New York's most prominent Republicans such as Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor George Pataki. After his passing, Mayor Michael Bloomberg- a Republican at the time who would soon become a progressive Democrat- praised the work of Buckley (Roberts, 2008).

Buckley in his office at the National Review

The press coverage of Buckley throughout his life was relatively positive. Every firebrand political leader, particularly conservative leaders, are victim to media backlash. In his 2008 obituary, Buckley was praised for his influence in politics, as well as the influence of the National Review. For generations, Buckley will influence young conservative thinkers and manipulate political leaders. Without the contributions of Buckley, journalism and media would not be a hospitable to conservative voices or thinkers (Martin, 2008).

The National Review has long been a respected source of news and information. The National Review has housed columnists such as Larry Kudlow, Ben Shapiro, George Will, and other prominent conservative figures. The Review has endorsed every Republican nominee for President since Dwight Eisenhower with the exception of President Donald Trump in 2016.

Movie Poster for Best of Enemies (linked to movie trailer)

In 2015, Buckley's legacy was sealed with the production of the movie "Best of Enemies" which highlighted the tumultuous relationship between William F. Buckley Jr. and liberal author Gore Vidal. A cinematic success, "Best of Enemies" cemented Buckley's influence on journalism, politics, and conservatism for generations to come.

The tumultuous relationship between Buckley and the press ceded upon his death. Yes, many in the modern press continue to critique Buckley's brandish conservatism, but his work is widely quoted and even praised by many in conservative politics. The personality of Buckley created a conservative celebrity influence that was mimicked by President's Ronald Reagan and Trump. To this day, neocons, paleocons, and even Trumpers look to Buckley's work for ideological guidance, thus elevating Buckley to hero status.

Work Cited:

Adams, Val. (1966, March 21). Buckley Signed for TV Debates; To Face Different Opponent Each Week on Channel 9. The New York Times. page 67. | Link

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2021, February 23). William F. Buckley, Jr.. Encyclopedia Britannica. | Link

Carroll, Maurice. (1980, December 6). Buckley is Star As the Review Hails 25th Year: Reagan Due in City for Tongue in Cheek Explaination Magazines Mission Described. The New York Times. page 28. | Link

"The Legacy of Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.. The Hoover Institute. | Link

Madden, Richard. (1965, June 25). William Buckley in Race for Mayor. The New York Times. page. 1 & 19. | Link

Martin, Douglas. (2008, February 27). William F. Buckley Jr. is Dead at 82. The New York Times.

Roberts, Sam. (2008, March 1). The Mighty Political Legacy of William F. Buckley Jr. The New York Times. | Link

Muckraking v. Yellow Journalism

Teddy Roosevelt: the man who coined the term Muckracker

Muckraking and yellow journalism are two of the most prominent forms of publications in modern media. Pioneered at the turn of the 19th century, muckraking and yellow journalism have long defined the ways in which people received their news and information.

Muckraking is essentially the art of scandal. Muckrakers deliberately investigate and articulate information necessary to create a scandal and sell papers. By today's standards, one could make the argument that the modern media participates in muckraking journalism (Nieman).

A term coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, muckraking has toppled presidencies, ruined political careers, and waged war on foreign enemies. But it has also brought forth necessary change and progress. Muckraking often times will shed light on industry malpractice and deep rooted corruption (Khan Academy).

A cartoon depicting Pulitzer and Hearst, 1898

Yellow journalism is yet another form of journalistic malpractice. This is the act of publishing or poorly researched information under the rouse of being called news.

Prominent at the turn of the 19th century, yellow journalism was revolutionized by journalists Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. Victims of their time, Pulitzer and Heart would publish damning headlines and articles that would not hold the most accurate or relative information. 

Due to the lack of technology and other communication methods, many journalists relied on correspondence from individual to individual. Word of mouth journalism or interstate journalism without the ability to utilize modern technology made it difficult for journalists to print the most accurate and honest information (History). 

Most individuals would find this type of journalism to be bad. Both use a type of sensationalized media to sell their product. This leads to fake narratives and false information used to enflame tension between groups of people. Other individuals who would not like this type of journalistic practices would be individuals who are into shady dealings; such as John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil Company who was taken down by journalist Ida Tarbell.

When responsibly practiced, both of these methods can prove crucial to ensuring the press offers a transparent and honest news source. Muckraking can expose fraud, corruption, and crime by powerful people or organizations. Yellow journalism can unite a country behind a common enemy; much like occurred in the 1898 Spanish-American war.

Journalists are responsible for guiding public opinion and political narratives. This is a massive obligation that should be taken as serious as possible. Using these two very different methods can create lasting progress and change but it can also ruin credibility of media sources. Many could, and do, argue that the current state of the mainstream media is in direct correlation with the improper use of muckraking and yellow journalism.

History Channel | Yellow Journalism :: Link

Khan Academy | Muckraking :: Link

Nieman Reports | Yellow Journalism :: Link