“Progressive” Journalists and State Power

At the end of the movie “Animal House,” a band tries unsuccessfully to march through a brick wall at the end of an alley. This is supposed to be a scene which reflects the absolute absurdity of the film, but it also unwittingly presents a picture of the modern “Progressive” mindset: the state can do anything as long as it has enough authority.

Such actions, of course, reflect Einstein’s alleged definition of insanity (repeat an action over and over again while expecting different results), yet that irony is lost at the present time, especially in the world of modern journalism. People are forever diagnosing the mainstream media as either having a “liberal” bias or engaging in coverage that lacks “objectivity.” The answer to such issues, unfortunately, seems to be to engage in more insanity. Let me explain.

In a recent column, Glenn Greenwald decries what he sees as a “merger” of journalists and the state, and I agree with his sentiments wholeheartedly. Greenwald is one of the few journalists out there who is not a shill for particular politicians or the Democratic Party, despite the fact that his political views definitely are left-of-center.

Yet, for all of his excellent insights, I’m afraid that even the great Greenwald is missing the bigger picture. The problem is not misplaced priorities on behalf of journalists or the fact that most media outlets are owned by corporations (which most Progressives confuse with free markets). The problem is that modern journalism is a relic of the Progressive Era when state power merged with the press to promote “American” interests. Progressivism itself – of both the “liberal” and “conservative” viewpoints – is the problem.

Most Americans believe that the significant “revolution” in our nation’s history occurred from 1775 to 1781, yet the republic that emerged following the colonial war with Great Britain no longer exists and has not existed for at least a century. We may shoot fireworks on July 4, but the document we supposedly celebrate – the Declaration of Independence – is nothing more than parchment under glass and is more irrelevant to our present lives than the old “constitution” of the former Soviet Union.

The United States as we know it was shaped first by what most people call the Civil War and second by the Progressive Era of the late 1800s and early 1900s. If there is a year when the constitutional American republic died absolutely, it would be 1913. (Thomas DiLorenzo refers to the passing of the Constitutional amendments to authorize both the income tax and direct election of U.S. Senators as the “Revolution of 1913.” Congress also authorized the Federal Reserve System in that year.)

However, the process leading to the permanent establishment of the Leviathan State was begun long before 1913, which codified the movement that already existed. Every “Progressive’s” favorite Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, already had put into motion the process in which Congress ceded its powers of lawmaking to the executive branch, something that continues apace today.

In his utterly statist Losing the News, Alex S. Jones decries the loss of daily newspapers and suggests that what he calls the “watchdog of government” be “rescued” by government itself through subsidies and government regulation, and does so without any irony whatsoever. Yes, he calls for a “watchdog of government” to be tied financially to the state, a relationship that he claims will increase the “objectivity” of the press, a view that makes sense only if one falls into the “Progressive” camp.

It is hard to fathom the utter nonsense of Jones’ proposition, yet Jones is typical of most mainstream journalists today. As a former newspaper reporter, I can attest to the desire by journalists to have “access” to those in political power and to be advocates for a certain politician or political points of view. If there is a constant theme among mainstream journalists, it is that state control of our lives must increase.

If one reads a typical newspaper or watches a news show on television, this point almost is impossible to miss. Look at all of the journalists who worked in the executive branch of the federal or even state governments. (Relatively few former legislators become journalists, as lobbying is a more lucrative career. The vast number of journalists who had government titles worked either directly for an elected official – i.e. Chris Matthews – or had a high-profile position as a political appointee for a regulatory agency.)

This is not unlike the “revolving door” between government regulators and the firms they help regulate or between U.S. Department of Justice antitrust division attorneys and high-paying private firms that specialize in antitrust litigation and defense. The relationships are more than just symbolic, however; they highlight the real merger between modern corporate journalism and the state.

Greenwald’s concerns deal specifically with the WikiLeaks release of classified U.S. Government documents, but the problem is much broader than just whether or not one thinks Julian Assange is a hero or a criminal. Furthermore, the problem is not that many journalistic outlets are owned by private corporations. Instead, the problem with modern journalism is that most journalists are little more than foot soldiers for state power, and they demand (and receive) special privileges from the authorities.

In Losing the News, Jones (who was an editorial supervisor of mine more than 30 years ago) is openly disdainful of blogs and the “citizen journalism” that has erupted on the Internet. Instead, he holds to the academic/state view that “journalists” should be credentialed, and that First Amendment protection should be afforded only those who fall into that proper category.

One would think that his would be a minority view, but it is not. As they have done with the rest of the Constitution, Progressives have re-interpreted the First Amendment as offering protection only to those people who have proper journalistic credentials and who are employed by official media outlets. Thus, as Greenwald points out, many of them can argue that Assange really is not a journalist, so he does not enjoy the same protections as did the New York Times after it published the Pentagon Papers.

Read newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, or watch Fox News or MSNBC, and you will see what I mean. Journalists employed for all of these entities (with the exceptions of Judge Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel on the Fox Business Channel) tend to believe that “progress” occurs only with the advancement of state power over the lives of individuals.

That is why you will see uncritical support from these outlets of the Transportation Security Administration’s utterly-invasive “security” measures, or why the NYT has been a consistent shill for high income tax rates. Such things are the logical end of a Progressive ideology that claims freedom advances only with the advancement of state power (in the hands of the correct and properly-credentialed people, of course.)

Journalists, Privacy, Progressivism, and Subservience to the State

[Update, November 24, 11:30 AM]: Like Pavlov's dog salivating at the bell, the New York Times has weighed in on the TSA nonsense and, not surprisingly, claims that any opposition is just a right-wing plot by Congressional Republicans. Yes, the newspaper that gave us the Duke Lacrosse lies now claims that sexual assault and porn scanners are just fine if they are in an airport, and that little old ladies from Iowa really are a threat.

My response is here.[End Update]

As one who grew up reading the Chattanooga Times most of my life, I have come to understand the so-called Progressivist mindset which takes an out-and-out religious view of state power (or state power in the hands of the "right" people). While the newspaper itself claims to be secular, there is no doubt that over the years, it has promoted the Religion of the "Progressive" State and State Power both in its news columns and on the editorial page.

These days the old Times and Free Press now are owned by folks in Arkansas and the editorial pages are run by the old editors, but the Progressivism remains. I especially was curious to see how the editorial writers of the Times side of the TFP would handle the outright sexual assault that is occurring at the nation's airports.

No paper excoriates the "gulf" between the wealthy and poor (except it champions George Soros, the billionaire champion of the hard left) more than the TFP, and no paper is more politically correct when it comes to the usual feminist canards of sexual assault and the intrusions of state power into private exchange. Here is an editorial page that professes to worship at the shrine of "good government" to a point that is utterly predictable.

So, I decided to do a search of its editorials to see if it had any editorial commentary on the airport assaults, and I will say that editors Harry Austin and Wes Hasden took exactly the stand I thought they would take. The editorial writers that are quick to demand that Americans' privacy be protected from "predatory" private enterprise suddenly declare that when we are bowing to the state, there is no privacy.

Even the title of its November 18 editorial is telling: "New, useful tools against terror." Yes, in order to fight "terror," the government must terrorize airline passengers. Furthermore, as readers will see in this editorial, literally EVERYTHING the government says is taken as absolute truth, and any dissension by mere mundanes is wrong and plays to terrorists. Don't take my word for it, as the opening paragraph says it all:

The U.S. government is required by law and by custom to balance the competing interests of public safety and individual privacy. The latest skirmish over the issue is taking place at the nation’s airports. The introduction of full-body scanners at many sites and the promise of more to come have prompted a noisy debate about the images produced by the machines. Privacy advocates call them invasive and demeaning. Federal officials say they are a necessary adjunct in the war on terror. On balance, the latter appear to have the stronger case.

Why is the government's case the "stronger" argument?

Scanner opponents, in fact, call the images a “virtual strip search.” That might be so, but the new technology also provides security personnel with an enhanced ability to detect items and materials that can be used by terrorists to destroy an aircraft in flight or otherwise create havoc. Many experts agree the new scanner might have helped detect the type of bomb concealed in the underwear of a would-be terrorist on a Detroit-bound flight last Christmas. That threat was not detected by screens in use then, but the bomber’s mission ultimately proved unsuccessful.

No, the "experts" can tell you that the so-called Underwear Bomber's apparatus would not have been detected by the porn scanners. Furthermore, the idea that travelers have to be humiliated by TSA goons because someone unsuccessfully tried to sneak a bomb in his underwear is becoming a tiresome mantra, but when a newspaper is promoting State Power, any mantra will do, I guess.

But, Austin and Hasden are not satisfied with giving us the "Underwear Bomber" line. No, there is much, much more:

The question, of course, is whether the utility of the machine outweighs the perceived or real intrusion of privacy the scanner images create. The TSA, mindful of the delicacy of the issues involved, has done as much as possible to minimize such dangers.

The image produced by the scanner, according to those who have viewed them, is detailed enough to detect various explosives, weapons, plastics, powders and other devices that can pose a threat. The outline, though, is vague and faces are blurred.

Moreover, the images are viewed by personnel at a distance from security stations where the scans are made. That makes it impossible to match a specific image with a particular person. Once viewed, scanned images are neither saved nor stored. That should provide a measure of comfort for those concerned about privacy. (Emphasis mine)

Yes, try telling that to the man whose urine bag was breached. Try telling that to the woman whose breasts were exposed by laughing TSA agents (none of whom were disciplined -- but the husband who complained was arrested).

For that matter, don't forget that TSA agents do not use "sterile" gloves, which means that it is very likely that they can spread infections (not that anyone at TSA would care). What I find ironic is that no one at the Times (which always is out front on supposed environmental and health matters) finds this to be a problem. Yes, the same newspaper that constantly is demanding new state "protections" against predatory private enterprise takes a powder when the state engages in unsafe health practices.

Let's be honest. The entire editorial is nothing more than a glorified TSA press release bolstered by the Religion of the Progressive State that characterizes most editorials on that page. In fact, much of what was in that press release -- er, editorial -- was not true. Images HAVE been saved. Furthermore, the newspaper that trumpets every perceived environmental and health threat (when it comes from private enterprise) suddenly parrots the government's line that the radiation coming from the porn scanners is "safe."

Of course, the TFP would not be complete without its "Worship the Obama administration -- or else" dictate:

If would-be airline passengers prefer not to be scanned, there is an alternative — what John Pistole, the TSA administrator, candidly admits is a more invasive patdown than those depicted on TV or in the movies. TSA agents will manually search an individual’s entire body, including breasts and groin. Those who don’t like the new scanners or the idea of full-body patdowns have another choice. They can travel by some means other than airplane. (Emphasis mine)

So, the TFP is on the record as endorsing what legally is sexual assault as an alternative, with the qualifier: If you don't like it, you don't have to fly.

So, we see the end game of Progressivism and its propagandists. It is this: State power is good. Submit. Private enterprise is evil. Government always protects you. And so on and on and on.