If you remember Watergate, then you recall the press of the ’70s was oriented against the government. When the press orients itself with the government, some examples in history show that they and the fearful masses turn against people that disagree (or may someday disagree) in vicious ways. The extremes are remembered as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler, each of which used the media to excoriate its detractors before the mass killing started.
The media today is becoming known for its brutal, partisan attacks on such people as America’s Sarah Palin, the Dan Rather vs W affair, Romney promoting cancer, and so on. Each action has been laid at the feet of political operatives, but each was dependent on the willing and compliant media for execution.
The North American media today is definably liberal in its voting and political contributions. Each media member should be free to vote and contribute as he or she wishes. However, if those political positions become a point of concealed activism, the sense of “rightness” quickly fades.
A survey last Monday (June 17, 2013) from Pew’s Project For Excellence in Journalism shows almost every media outlet presented more supportive statements in favor of gay marriage than opposing statements against gay marriage, including every TV news outlet. I am not so interested in gay marriage as I am in media uniformity with government policy. However, there it is.
Take another controversy. Pick one of your own. A partial list might include legalizing marijuana, abortion, gun control, welfare or immigration. Now, choose a statistically representative sample of media and count the column inches, TV minutes or other metric of your choice, apply a checkmark in one of three columns, pro, neutral and con, for each unit and see whether the media is providing equal coverage. You will find it is not.
Currently, members of the media actively suppress points of view with which they do not concur, both from their audiences and from non-conforming members of the press.
Am I making my point, here?
As long as you are doing research, see if you can find a reliable metric to discover whether a non-conforming but highly qualified member of the journalism community could get a job teaching a non-conforming position. I may be wrong, but in today’s environment I think the Occupy Movement, pro-abortion, pro-pot, anti-gun, pro-amnesty sectors are adequately represented in journalism schools, so I wonder whether somebody that teaches a different perspective could a) get hired and b) have a reasonable career path.
We have recently seen physical force used against people at the U.S. polls, the existing government has targeted its opponents with suppression by the IRS, whistleblowers are reassigned or resigned. It may be that some, such as the survivors of the Benghazi attack, have been removed from society and public scrutiny. The union-backed, Obama-backed Occupiers are using military tactics against local and regional police forces and the media all seem to be reporting on these issues in the same tone and depth. You got to learn to goose-step.
Therefore, when and if journalism becomes the willing accomplice of an oppressive and retaliatory government, civilization is at risk, has been at risk in the past and will be at risk forever, unless and until fair and honest debate is allowed.
Note: I did not say the current generalized media is a bunch of Nazi brownshirts gazing into the personal affairs of its enemies with ill intent, so let me be clear. It is.