Free Press?

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57


"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:224

Was Jefferson psychotic or a hypocrite? I would maintain that he was neither. The theory I would advance is that in the 20 years between these quotes both he and the news media he at first defended and later derided had changed. Jefferson may have seen and understood that although sound in nature many of his lofty ideals did not translate very well in practice. Not every one was a high minded as he was. The press also was experiencing growing pains. Many involved in it were not interested in truth or facts but interested only in what would sell more papers.

I dare say that the National Enquirer sells a lot of papers, but would you trust anything it reported. Would you want to see your name featured in such a publication. To a lesser extent we see the same kind of thing in mainstream media today. At Michele Malkin.com there is a story about an assault by a left wing "fanatic" on a conservative (and his room mates). Make sure you scroll down to the newspaper entry. The author of said story could maintains that he can only print what the police or victims, perpetrators and witnesses tell them. They are subject to libel and slander laws after all. The problem with this defense is that Ms. Malkin managed to get the true story without running afoul of these same strictures.

Today we see a media culture that is frankly Schizophrenic in the extreme. Most of us have little in common with the average newsroom professional. They are taught by the same kind of professors, take the same kinds of courses, everyone they know thinks like they do, they live in the same areas, most don't claim any religious dogma and most have a healthy disregard for those of us who do not think as they do. We "the masses" are to be educated, taught, enlightened, because these professionals KNOW better. We see this every time the President gives a speech. Why do the networks think they need to repeat in their own words what he said? How arrogant and insulting is that? We "the people" are not smart enough to understand what the President says in an address. Jefferson would be appalled.

If the MSM (main stream media) and or the DBP (drive by press) don't soon get their acts together they will find themselves hoisted with their own petard. No one is doing "in" the press, they don't have to. The press is doing enough damage all by itself. I want to read the "facts" not someone's interpretation of them. I want to know what happened not what someone thought should happen. When someone says there was a demonstration against the US I want to know whether there were 1,000 people or 10 people, because it makes a difference. When someone is arrested on an assault charges,I want to know that the victim was a target because of his race, religion, political party, ethnic affiliation or none of the above. There will be times that the reporter doesn't know, which is what should be said. That shouldn't be an out however. Those responsible for reporting the news should make it their first priority to find out what the real story is. Who, what, where, how and when are the first questions to ask, why should be explored from all sides, in order to really educate, enlighten and empower.

More thought should be on what is reported and how and less on how much the papers stock is worth and how much of a bonus is given for "cost cutting" measures and meeting fiscal goals so stockholders will be able to afford that new house in the Camans. Maybe someday, but probably not soon.

Duh - John Edwards and the Queens of Mean

The following quotes came from this story concerning the hiring by John Edwards, presidential candidate of two Liberal bloggers, even though their writings contained anti-religious sentiments and foul, filthy and tasteless chicken scrathes.
-----------
"Donohue head of the Catholic League described the bloggers as 'anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.' Among the postings he cited for complaint was one by Marcotte that reads: "The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics."
Another posting by McEwan is headlined to address religious conservatives: "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?"

“In a July interview cited by opponents, Hynes “ a consultant for John McCain “is quoted saying: ‘Is America a Christian nation? Of course it is. Don't be ridiculous. What a stupid question.’

“A contributer to the Daily Kos wrote ‘Hynes public writing is devoted to pure religious divisiveness — he focuses almost exclusively on the claim that Christianity is superior and that those who attend church live better lives.’ ”

" McEwan also defended herself on her blog earlier in the week, referencing her vote for 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry."
---------------
Let's just take things one at a time shall we. First what someone says on their blog is their own responsibility. If I offend someone because of something that I've said I'm sorry that they're offended but not that I said it. Do I have opinions? Absolutely. Are they always right or inoffensive? Absolutely not. That said, I also don't pretend I didn't write something especially when it is in black and white on the screen in front of me. Still, I try not to be offensive especially if I feel passionate about something. Using foul languages only goes to prove that one doesn't really have a good argument for their position.

This brings us to the difference between most popular Conservative and Liberal blogs unintentionally pointed out by the "Daily Kos" poster. Mr. Hynes, consultant to Sen. McCain, answered a question with his opinion. The most offensive word he uttered was "stupid." He didn't call anyone names, he simply suggested that the line of inquiry was asinine. Both McEwan and Marcotte insulted a whole section of our community, not just Catholics but anyone who has a belief in God. We "godbags" are held up to ridicule and are described in filthy, disgusting, illiterate terms. They then dare us to be offended. They call us thin skinned. If someone had used the N- word in a post to describe an African American the world would come to an end, but we "lousy m——ers" are not supposed to be offended. McEwan supposedly shows her lack of bigotry by pointing to her support of John Kerry. Now here's a practicing Catholic for you. He's pro abortion, pro birth control, and pro homosexual unions. All of these positions are in complete opposition to the position of the Catholic Church. It's not surprising that she supports him. He may claim to be a practicing Catholic but he's going to have to practice a lot harder to get it right.

Lastly the moronic observation by the Daily Kos poster. He states that Hynes considers those "who attend Church live better lives." DUH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's follow this logically. Those Christians who attend Church and believe in a Supreme Being, and those who actually obey the tenets of their religion to 1) Love God and 2) Love their Neighbor as themselves, live better lives. They try not to lie, cheat or steal, they pay tithing, support the poor and needy, they love their families and try to love their fellow men. Are they perfect ? No, but neither are those who do not practice such beliefs. Many of these people do lie, cheat and steal, do drugs, abuse alcohol, and change sexual partners more often than they change their underwear. Pornography and other person debasing activities are engaged in by a larger percentage of non-believers than believers. Tolerance may be something that faithful people struggle with but they are not the only ones. Intolerance is a equal opportunity failing. The hypocrisy in claiming that because one is religious, one is a hypocrite is stunning. Jesus Christ himself stated that he did not come for the perfected but for the sinner. The well do not need a physician, but those who are sick do.

"We claim the privilage of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privaledge. Let them worship how, where or what they may," 11th Article of Faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This is one of the tenets of my faith. I try, imperfectly to live it EVERY day. I guess that makes me not just a hypocrite but a "godbag" as well. At least I'm in good company.