“Does she not get that the 1st Amendment isn’t designed to keep people from getting verbally attacked?”

Sarah doesn’t say anything about the first amendment protecting her from the MEDIA. She indicated we all have first amendment rights.. including herself and Joe the plumber, but if people constantly get attacked by the liberal and biased media there might at some point be a fear of speaking out.

If you listen to the interview you can understand she DID NOT imply that the media is violating her first amendment rights. Make sure to read the part about Joe the plumber.

From the interview..
——-
“I don’t think that they are doing their job when they suggest that calling a candidate out on their record, their plans for this country and their associations is mean spirited or negative campaigning. If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of first amendment rights, and our ability to ask questions with out fear of attacks by the main stream media. Look at Joe the plumber, good ole Joe the plumber in Toledo Ohio. He just asked a simple straight forward question and the media started investigating and attacking him. So.. you know there is some fear there and and in those terms I don’t think they have been doing their job in that kind of context.”
———-

All of you armchair quarterbacks who think you are smarter or more capable that Sarah Palin wouldn’t last a 20 minutes with her in a face to face debate. You are all seem to be weak sexist men who google for information after the fact. yeah that makes you soooo smart.. good grief..

This has been a great conversation.

Agreed. Know what would make it better?

Beer.

This has been a great conversation. I’m not one to make a big issue out of media bias, but there is certainly more than enough reason to be on the look out for it and we should have ideas as to how to counteract it. I take heart that the media world is diversifying more than it is consolodating thanks the the Internet. Us bloggers may be the pamphleteers of the modern world, but at least we are open about our biases. Sure, it’s a lot messier to have to dig through multiple information sources in search of “the truth,” but it is certainly a system more conducive to liberty than one in which just a few centralized media tell us all they deem worth knowing.

Would you agree that even if Palin’s larger point was accurate (the supression of one idea set in favor of another), her invocation of the First Amendment was probably ill-considered because it leaves the impression that there is something unconstitutional about the media’s coverage?

In the sense that they are individual rights, yes, Palin’s statements are a little silly.

But then again, thats the way we talk about the first amendment. How many times, for example, is the word “censorship” invoked where there has been no attempt on the part of the state to keep anyone from publishing anything. Obviously, we are not really talking about “censorship” in those cases, but it doesn’t mean there are not real issues about the way, for example, libraries handle contrversial material. So the argument becomes not about the actual “right to publish” but the context within which such rights can be exercised.

So if we look at this situation in this light (i.e. not Republicans appeal to their individual 1st amendment rights, but an argument about the context – the public space we set aside for political discourse), there can be an argument made that there comes a point where we can make an individuals use of their free speech rights meaningless.

This is why I brought up the example of civil rights legislation. The courts found, rightly, that it didn’t matter if literacy laws for voting were neutrally written. What mattered was how those laws functioned in the actual context people were living in, where one group of people were A) less well educated as a result of deliberate governmental policy, and B) subject to greater scrutiny than other more favored groups of people.

In a similar way, there has been much talk over the years about the “unfair playing field” powerful (and wealthy) special interests have when it comes to presenting/promoting their ideas in the public arena. There have, indeed, been attempts to limit their access (McCain/Feingold anyone?), not because any individuals free speech rights had been denied, but because the context, the arena of ideas, had been skewed or toherwise compromised. Now, these sorts of concerns and attempts at remedy have been deemed OK by the Supreme Court (much to the chagrin of Conservatives at the time), but if that is the world we live in, then so be it.

I guess that is why I responded in the first place. I wondered if Justin’s problem with it was not that he was against these types of concerns as a class…but he was against them this time because it was raised by a Republican.

It seems that you would argue that the remedy is in systematical/philisophical changes and not in Constitutional law. Would you agree that even if Palin’s larger point was accurate (the supression of one idea set in favor of another), her invocation of the First Amendment was probably ill-considered because it leaves the impression that there is something unconstitutional about the media’s coverage? As you point out, there are plenty of reasons to worry about the tyranny of the majority in the press, but none of those really fit into Constitutional requirements or prohibitions.

Palin’s comments are just another example of the longstanding conservative ploy of pinning the “liberal media” label on any news outlet that is not willing to regurgitate their talking points. On the other hand Rush Limbaugh is a true American hero for basically scripting his show according to what the Bush administration and the Republican party asks him to say. Hooey!!

It is little wonder that Palin was chosen to pander to certain elements of the Republican base. The things that come out of her mouth are nearly identical to the ridiculous right-wing conspiracy-theory nonsense that fills up my E-mail from my conservative friends. There is no question that the Rush Limbaugh crowd loves this woman.

Truth…ah…that I cant do. (I mean I can…but it involves Charles Sanders Peirce’s philosophical categories, his theory of logical abduction, not to mention more Kant than I like to admit to knowing. Besides, how it relates to practical politics is, well, speculative.)

I can do John Stuart Mill. His ideas of free inquiry and expression in “On Liberty” require some preconditions. For starters, there has to be something like a marketplace of ideas, a place where all ideas can be expressed free from filtering or other types of interference. The danger, particularly in a democratic society, is that the force of common opinion will force out unpopular ideas merely on the basis of their NOT being the common opinion. This is the famed “tyranny of the majority,” which was also a concern of Tocqueville…but for different reasons of course.

Now, older conceptions of the press viewed its job as merely operating as a conduit through which political leaders and other opinion makers transmitted their ideas to the populace. This conception of the press has largely been abandonded in favor of the “interprative model” which views the job of the press as being to tell the populace not what politicians/opinion makers SAY but what they MEAN. This has progressed to the point that what pols actually say has become less and less meaningful. (This is where the contemporary idea of a “meme” enters and plays a central role.) Notice there is no overriding concern that the “interpretation” offered about a particular subject be accurate. In fact, we are quite comfortable in the knowledge that they are not. What I mean by that is we quite happily consume “news” from sources we know are more interested in promoting a particular ideological viewpoint than anything else. We know what organs will favor this partry or that party.

Of course, this is all OK as long as the marketplace of ideas is working. As long as everyone has free and relatively equal access than Mill’s ideals of liberty can be met. Now, the theoretical question becomes, what do we do if that marketplace is compromised? Assuming that it cannot be compromised is, I believe, foolish and more than a little naive.

For example: the argument is made that in the press today we have a self perpetuating subculture of liberal minded activists (in the crude political sense of the term.) They are an insulated elite with their own little hoops of “professional” initiation that have had the effect, if not the design, of keeping those with competing ideological visions marginalized. Now, largely because they have admittedly rejected the older conception of the press as a neutral player in favor of the “interprative model” AND they have effectively excluded other perspectives from the prefession (most surveys on the matter posit a 7-1 to 9-1 ratio – yeah…thats just an “accident”), we are developing a situation where one of the major political parties will have a difficult time expressing their ideas and getting them across to people without their being “intepreted” and filtered in a nagative fashion by an unfriendly press.

At this point throwing up your hands and saying “bias is inevitable” isn’t going to cut it. That would result in saying it is ok to destroy the marketplace of ideas, and thus, by implication, it is ok to discriminate against ideas those in power dislike. (Which I’m hoping most of us do not want.) Neither would schemes such as the “fairness doctrine,” which merely introduces the interested parties as judges in their own cases (never a good idea), help us solve this dilemma.

What is needed I think, is A) the outright rejection of the interpretive model of the press. I dont see how having a “ethics” that says “you cant be objective, so dont even bother trying” is an improvement over one that says, “objectivity is always the goal, even if it is often elusive…for that reason vigilence is forever couselled.” B) the lessening of importance of schools of journalism as entry points for the profession. The tendency to liberal monoculture in these programs is legendary. Besides, I’d rather have a reporter writing about economics who has an MBA to one with a journalism degree.

These are modet proposals which I am sure would not guarentee a free and open marketplace of ideas…but they would lessen the impact of the ills that are currently visible.

Now, let me make it clear, that I do not think the argument I made above is fully fiunctional. Obviously the press is not quite as monolithic as the argument supposes…but it does seem to be trending that way.

Now, I’m not saying Palin is right here, I’m merely saying it isn’t complete nonsense from a theoretical point of view.

That’s my favorite point of view.

So, playing on that, is there any right for the people to receive the truth from the press? From an original intent standpoint, the press at the time of our founding was almost exclusively partisan, so it’d be hard to argue the first amendment required fair representation in the press. We’d have to say the Constitution has evolved to require a greater level of objectivity. My Con Law education ends at the college level (plus all my self ed since then) so I may be missing some cases, but I can’t think of anything that would deem biased coverage on a large scale as unconstitutional.

In my thinking, it’s my right to seek the truth and speak the truth but the press has no obligation to give me the truth and the failure to do so doesn’t violate any of my rights.

The first amendment is a prohibition of not a guarantee for. You reference China, but that government prohibits speech and such acts would obviously be a free speech violation here. But unless we can show a government entity is complicit in forcing the bias onto the media, I can’t find where there’d be a case.

So, other than speaking out when we see bias, I don’t know how else to combat it.

Rich – You twisted the point to go on your own rant,

OK point twisting = bad…I’ll remember that.

The free press are owned by corporations. They are entitled to print news as they see fit.

Yep. No “point twisting” there.

Just how is Palin saying she wants to interfere with anyone or infringe upon anything? She certainly doesn’t propose any such measures.

Alan asks:

Rich, but what is the remedy? To regulate the press?

I dont know. Certainly there could exist a greater toleration for political diversity in the academic circles that produce our journalists these days. Now, I’m not saying Palin is right here, I’m merely saying it isn’t complete nonsense from a theoretical point of view. (This is a very hostile age for anyone willing to take the role of Devil’s Advocate…you didnt have many of those in the days of the Salem witch trials either. Oh well.)

Alan again:

Palin seems to think she has the right to be free from bias. She doesn’t.

What if it isnt her rights involved? What if we the people are unable to get more than one side of the story?

Rob says:

Rich, not sure what you are talking about.

It seems to me that the media is more in the tank for McCain than for Obama.

1. I think you must be high to believe that. (I’m having fun.)
2. It isn’t all that important to the theoretical argument here. The question is, can we imagine a state where the media is so non-independant that our ability to get real information is threatened? Well, I can imagine it. I see it happening today in China. I hear it all the time in the threats to “regulate” the internet. (Often times by media who have seen their monopoly on public discourse eroded.) Try to imagine it the other direction with Democrats as the threatened party…see the theoretical possibilities?

Justin weighs in:

Okay Rich, I’ll take up that subject. Although it would be nice for you to admit that she is absolutely, 100% wrong here, regardless of whatever philosophical discussion you want to switch this to.

Fine. She’s wrong. And I’m also certain she had NOTHING of my philosophical musings in mind when she uttered her statements. (I thought I at least implied as much.)

Unfortunately, the rest of your post is about the minute details of this campaign and not the broader themes I was addressing.

But if we are going to go there.

1. There have been four “investigative reports” done by the WaPo and the NYT on Cindy McCain. How many such reports were done on Michelle Obama? (None.)

2. There has been nothing like the “McCain had an affair!” “scoop” by the NYT. Nothing even close.

3. Not a single MSM source attempted to cover the Annenberg Project story, even though it was a multi-million dollar education reform effort headed by Obama rather recently. (Gee, I wonder why?)

4. A good 50% of the other things you list became stories NOT because the MSM covered them, but DESPITE their initial silence about them. Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Khalid, New Party, Joe the Plumber, ACORN, not to mention the current credit card fraud scandal, were not the results of MSM scrutiny. In fact the MSM has done little but adopt the Obama memoes on these issues as their own editorial line. Name me a McCain negative that DIDN’T originate in the MSM? (Except for maybe the incessant “He’s a cranky old guy!”…although thats been Joe Klein’s mantra for months.)

Moving on…

The thing about Palin is that she is just another fool who thinks a lot of thing but fails to understand; she fails to understand the constitution, the role of the VP, the role of the press, the basics of international relations, the basics of common decency and respect *wink wink* and that leaking amniotic fluid means that your baby is on the way so you should get your arse to a hospital and not on a plane.

I honestly don’t know how in her heart of hearts she could possibly think that she should be running for VP, that being said, the most adept liars are usually quite good at lying to and believing themselves.

It will take a free market shift to influence the influencers. Until then, we consumers of information simply have to work harder to get a complete view of an issue.

She herself uses socialist words to describe the “collective” ownership of Alaska’s resources and how they “share the wealth.” Thus, I am sure she is not being negative.

She also pals around with secessionist parties and encourages them to keep up the good work. Their founder died in a sale of plastic explosives, so when she talks about pallin’ around, I am sure she does not mean anything by it.