[zynner]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready when did the media get the gall to only serve news that served its own political, or economic ends?

My take on the media is, it is neither a liberal nor a conservative slant. Rather, it is a statists' slant.

Media "jouralists" (if you can call them that) go to universities to learn their craft. American universities today are full of statist professors. Their salaries, grants, scholarships, and livelihoods are entirely dependent upon the state. The state (federal, state, local) has an inherent self-interest in promoting a pro-statist viewpoint and agenda. You will never see an officially-sanctioned textbook that says something bad about the US government, except a few isolated instances where some other government person rode in on a white horse to save the day.

An example is that Americans are taught that Abraham Lincoln "freed the slaves." Not only did he do no such thing, he was in favor of shipping them off to Liberia, Africa. He belonged to a popular organization that created Liberia for that very reason. But Lincoln was the first link in a chain of the statist's illegal abuse of power. So, they will never, ever say a bad word about him, even though he was a de-facto dicator who trashed the Constitution. The point is, the universities will only teach views that are consistent with statist ideology.

Those who go into journalism are generally people who want to "do good works." If they are led to believe that only the state can "do good works," then we can't really expect them to come out with a journalism degree and view the world from a different view. To do that would require continued learning beyond and outside of the university. Those who do that sometimes are able to show that the statist view is flawed (men like John Stossel). Most, though, probably just give up because their paycheck demands they don't rock the boat.

Then, you have the executives. Some of them are former journalists with similar mindsets, while others were educated in business schools. It is generally in the best interests of any media business to promote a statist viewpoint because it is just easier to report on what the president is doing than 50 different governors. You also have the problem of the government claiming to "own" the airwaves and, therefore, the media businesses needing to also not rock the boat -- just as journalists who want press passes to White House briefings, so to the executives want to stay in business.

In addition, there is a much deeper incestuous relationship between big business and big government than most people realize. An example is that the Federal Reserve gives grants to universities. Since the FR promotes Keynesian economics, you can be sure that any department not promoting this statist economic view will not be supported with the big bucks of the FR (which controls the money supply, yet has always refused being audited -- so we really don't know how much money they make). It was when the statists infected the universities, paid by your tax dollars, that the media began to change.

Another issue is, government censorship on the media also has had a chilling effect on a free press. This is yet another reason why Lincoln was America's worst president ever. He threw reporters in jail who disagreed with him (without trial), shut down newspapers who printed negative stories of him (no laws gave him this power), and set a precedent that the government can control what the media does (a direct violation of the Constitution).

If the system can't exist and function under its agreed to limitations, we must design a new system, and cast off the old one that we don't follow.

I think advocating this is a mistake. There are many statists who would jump at the chance to do this.

For all its flaws, one great thing you can say about the US Constitution is this: it says what it says, for all to see who will see it.

As long as that document exists as the supreme law, any person can take the time to read it and ask themselves: If the Constitution really says that, then how come the government doesn't seem to do what the Constitution says?

As long as you have that, you have the ability to show people what the reality is. Most people never bother to read it after high school, when they are told by their government teacher what it "means." Even lawyers are taught by the government professors what it "means."

But being able to actually read it as an adult, without a government teacher influencing you to think a certain way, is proof that the elephant really is in the room -- no matter what anyone else tries to pretend.

~ zynner