Some things seem so basic that I am surprised that I appear to be speaking “gibberish” to others. Maybe that’s why there’s a disconnect between me and the world.
An example is this notion of the “dialectic”. In philosophy it gets quite complicated, and I am not of that bent. I leave that to better minds. But in common parlance, it was put forth by Ayn Rand: Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
So, for example, take the common right wing assertion that the American news media is “liberal”.
Then examine the underlying premises: The media is a unified entity > the force behind the media makes it espouse ideological views while pretending to be objective > that force is a liberal force.
Examine the contradiction: The major outlets for American news are owned by large profit-seeking corporations > the owners control huge chunks of wealth and desire to conserve it > the “owning class” could best be called “conservative”.
So what they are saying is that conservatives give us a liberal media. A contradiction.
What are the possibilities? Either end of the contradiction could be true or false. Perhaps the media isn’t liberal at all, but appears that way from the far right end of the spectrum. Perhaps the owning class isn’t conservative at all, but merely comprised of profit seekers. Perhaps the owning class is comprised of mostly liberal minds.
But the most intriguing possibility of all is that both ends of the contradiction are true – yes, conservatives own the media, and yes, the media is liberal.
Where does that lead?
This, from rather long comment stream at Electric City Weblog following a post by Dave Budge: Pain Update:
MT: Regulated capitalism produces more freedom than unregulated capitalism. It’s a contradiction. Everything contains contradiction. There are no pure philosophies that do not in some way force a yielding of principle to attain better results. This is where libertarians go wrong.
Steve: “Regulated capitalism produces more freedom than unregulated capitalism.” Up is down, black is white, war is peace, . . . How perfectly Orwellian.
MT: It’s an essential fact of life , Steve, seen even by Rand. We attain enlightenment by confronting contradictions. Deal with it.
Budge: I guess I have to brush up on my gibberish. It’s one thing to confront contradictions but quite another to espouse them as “truth.”
Round and round we go. Most blog discourse is pointless: We start with out conclusions, Google, find evidence that reinforces the conclusion, rinse and repeat. We accomplish exactly nothing. Better to confront contradiction. It’s not only useful – it’s fun.
So then, someone explain to me: Why does a conservative ownership give us a liberal media?
Piece of Mindful 
I don’t believe that we have a ‘liberal media.’ I do believe, though, that mainline reporters are, on average, less conservative that owners. There are several possible explanations for this. First, and perhaps most likely, is that owners are giving the general public what they want: we have moderate, non-conservative reporters because we live in a moderate, non-conservative country. There is some demand for conservative media, to be sure, and niche organizations are filling it. Mostly, though, we have a media that reflects demand. Second, media jobs aren’t very well paid, and aren’t focused so much on the concept of received wisdom (as opposed to open investigation). This cuts out two strands of conservative young people from entry into the profession: those not open enough to opposing points of view to perform in a moderate environment, and those interested in a better living. Then there are regional factors. California and New York have their share of conservatives, to be sure, but anyone who can’t tell the difference, culturally, between West Hollywood and Colorado Springs isn’t paying attention.
What I am certain is not happening is a vast conspiracy of some kind. Conservative outlets can and do form. No one is preventing Colorado Springs from becoming a content-generating center, and indeed, it is in a different position on this now than, say, 30 years ago.
LikeLike
Excellent analysis.
I am asking conservatives to confront the contradiction. If they do, they will come away with a better understanding of the workings of the media.
LikeLike
Mark, you’re off the rails here. When Rand said there were no “contradictions” she wasn’t saying the people don’t have contradictory observations or beliefs. Far from it. But that quote comes from the epistemology of Objectivism. In other words, in the definition of what is “knowledge” or “truth.”
Now I’ve said that I’m not an Objectivist for several reasons. One of those is that the Objectivist believes that there is no such thing as “priori” (innate) knowledge and that all knowledge is derived from observation and reason. So, Objectivism excludes both metaphysical knowledge (which I question) and instinctual knowledge (which I accept.) Some would say that the ability to reason is priori knowledge and thus disproves Objectivism. I won’t get into the epistemological argument here since I’m convinced that you don’t care about such esoteric philosophical constructs (like Empiricism, Rationalism, Constructivism and, with Rand, Objectivism.)
But the fact remains that you’ve taken Rand’s quote and applied it to something that she would never have asserted in the context of your example.
Now, addressing the oft held notion that traditional media is “liberal.” First, there is no reason to assume that corporations are “conservative.” And we get deep into the weeds of semantics in the discussion. Corporations are almost always simply seeking profits and, hence, they promote things that achieves those ends. Let’s take News Corp for example. It’s pretty easy to think that Fox News and the New York Post have a conservative slant. But News Corp also produces popular TV shows like Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, House and The Shield. All of which press the limits of acceptable conservative morality from time to time. Does, then, Rupert Murdock’s conservatism define his content? It would seem otherwise. So the contradiction is not in the premise that News Corp is Conservative, it’s in the premise that such conservatism, to what ever extent it exists, matters to media content.
Secondly, there are many corporations that are apparently not “conservative” such as Progressive Insurance, Microsoft, Oracle and Google. They are capitalists for sure but all of them promote some egalitarian social policies. It all boils down to what the definition of “is” is. But a corporation is not excluded from embracing some aspect of liberalism simply because it’s a corporation. Obviously what you define a liberal can be different than what others might interpret it to be.
LikeLike
I think the statement Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong speaks for itself without much further analysis. It’s a useful tool when trying to understand complex phenomenon – disassemble, reassemble, analyze apparent contradiction with the understanding that that will lead to further illumination.
Your notions about the origins of knowledge and all of that are interesting, but the truth is that I get no positive psychic feedback from that sort of thing. That’s why I said better minds than mine need to deal with it.
It is true of News Corp that they are willing to go further out on a limb than the other networks. It’s interesting. Nader said the other night that as he travels the country, the only local stations that dependably show up are FOX affiliates. They like controversy.
And I think we agree that there is not much philosophical sentimentality behind corporate news. It has long stopped being a loss leader, and is a profit center now, and so has become sensational. But there are certain slants that have easy access to airtime, and these are mostly of the right wing variety. It is rare to see a progressive on the air.
But that is not ‘news’ per se. That is the commentary side. The news itself, to the degree that it has any governing philosophy at all, is merely in service of power. Some news is never news inside this country, some slants are never given. When the decision is made to go to war, the networks fall in line and the generals line up at the doors. When the government wants to fight a secret war, the networks are quiet.
And there is an intertangling of corporate interests and power – the next “humanitarian” adventure, the next Kosovo,is probably in the works right now, where some corporate interest or larger imperialist objective is protected.
As far as the news being “liberal” – not hardly. But that meme is sheer genius – it keeps them on the defensive, and causes them to lean right.
LikeLike
PS – Amy Goodman, as part of her spiel when she travels the country, shows CNN and CNN International – same network, completely different coverages. Apparently, other countries don’t settle for the same crap they dish out here.
LikeLike
Mark, I think the idea that news was ever a “loss-leader” – thereby making it more truthful – is patently silly. Were news organizations ever altruistic by nature?
LikeLike
Good point.
Someone recently said – I forget who – but it was interesting, that the networks started doing loss-leader news after the payola scandals, worried about losing their broadcasting licenses. A long time ago in a faraway land.
LikeLike
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
True in govts, true in media. I think history shows that countries that have slid into socialism, the favorable media flourished. Why? Because they become partners in crime and deceit, the govt. controls or wipes out their competition and in return they glorify the leaders.
Hugo is the perfect example.
LikeLike
I think that’s wrong.
And anyway, we’re socialist too – corporate socialism. No body is capitalist or free market- that system is feared by everyone. Only people without power are subject to it.
And Hugo is a mild sort of problem compared to the type of thugs your philosophy gives us (Augusto, anyone?), and the media in Venezuela is openly critical of him. If we were as tolerant of dissent as them, our media too would be freer.
LikeLike
Right Mark. Just envision blogging was a paying profession and state controlled.
Gov. Brian would come to you and say, Mark, we’re going to eliminate all the conservative blogs out there because they don’t like me. In return I want a bunch of positive posts on me and my left leaning agenda.
You’d sell what soul you have left, Mark.
LikeLike
And your Augusto example you oft refer to.
Was done in by the media.
>>After surviving an assassination attempt, Pinochet believes himself invincible – and goes ahead with a plebiscite designed to legitimize his continuance in power. Defying threats of violence, the nonviolent opposition organizes massively behind a “No” vote against the dictator, skillfully using the mass media to promote positive images of change. Chileans repudiate the regime at the polls and the country is back on the road to full democracy, without violence.<<
Checkmate.
LikeLike
How many years was he in power, you mini-thug, you? How many years? How many people did he murder? What did he do with the press in his country? You don’t know! You don’t know about the Argentine generals, the Uruguay massacre … you don’t know about Latin American history at all. And you don’t know about American complicity.
That he was voted out of power? He presumed he was popular, or never would allowed the election. It was a complete accident. Did that blow right by you, as so much of history itself?
You suffer from Gregg’s Syndrome – selective indignation, and you scale the heights of hypocrisy, gleefully oblivious to history around you or anywhere else. Don’t ever, ever talk to me about having a soul. That is the most craven insult you can loose from your ignorant lips.
LikeLike
I guess I wasn’t done.
Here’s a prime example of private property confiscation via your buddy Hugo.
Please note the press is there, wearing their red like the other thugs, documenting another victory for the peoples of Venezuela.
http://faustasblog.com/?p=15989
LikeLike
I no speaka the language. Swede , you are most troublesome, knowing so little of these matters, finding a sliver here and there and saying it is a tree. It’s worse than that – you refuse to look deeper. Do you read books?
What is going on in Venezuela is a revolution of sorts, but a mostly peaceful one, thought threat of violence is right under the surface and tension is always high. Chavez attained power by peaceful means and has been reelected. He withstood a violent coup, and was put back in power by popular demand when it failed. The people who support him are mostly powerless beyond the their numbers at the ballot box. The people who oppose him are well armed, wealthy and have US backing. Violence is always a possibility, assassination a distinct possibility. Democratic governance is difficult at best, and even more difficult when an ax is hanging over your head. See, for example, September 11,1973.
You don’t know about any of this. Typically, you start with your conclusion and look for evidence. What you found here, even if it is what your right wing source says it is, is anecdotal.
You are a very shallow man, surely as smart as anyone, but not one who goes deep. Many of us are aware of Chavez’s flamboyance, and autocratic tendencies, and we worry for his safety. We hope that the vision survives him, and that Democratic rule in Venezuela, which replaced centuries of exploitation and rule by thugs and wealthy US-backed barons, survives.
LikeLike
Intelligence can be defined in many ways Mark. Just because I don’t ramble on in numerous shades of grey running from one rabbit hole to another doesn’t mean I don’t have a grasp of worldly politics.
Take GWB, for instance. You’ve and others have called him a dunce, C student, terrible communicator. Yet he captured the ultimate prize, and will one day be greatly appreciated.
Frankly no one has time, in this mode of communication, to be less than concise in your portrayals. These aren’t lectures from some dried up professor that most college students avoid. No one wants to be bored, they want clear thoughts with wit and humor.
You provide the opposite.
I’m staying with shallow.
Oh, the thugs are in the red shirts, no spanish needed.
LikeLike
So you don’t read books. I get that. When I was young and my kids were growing up and I had to punch a clock, I didn’t read either. That only happened when I became my own boss. I suddenly had time, and was set free. I left one prison, conservatism, and entered another, leftism in its many shades. I thought for sure there was a guiding philosophy that overshadowed events.
But there is none. There are no free markets or good governments. There is no philosophy that translates into an orderly system of good governance. There is only eternal vigilance.
Chavez needs be watched. He has the ring now, and it can intoxicate a person. I only know that he is better than the ruling oligarchy, that the vast majority of the people of that country like him and have reelected him.
Your brief clip of men in red shirts – how can we know anything of that incident? Is it even real? Do we understand the back story? Why did cameras happen to be there? Are the red shirts so dumb as to act like thugs when they are on camera?
Even after all of that, it could be real. Even if it is real, it is an anecdote. You are a man of anecdotes, which is what makes you shallow. You take pride in that?
GWB – not dumb. He was a C student, but A students have fucked us over too. We all respond to our environment. W had it easy – born rich, never had to work, was bailed out of trouble again and again. When his companies went bust, mysterious Arab sheiks bailed him out. He developed into a man who had but a shallow understanding of the world around him, no curiosity, and a tendency to use violence as his primary negotiating tool.
But he wasn’t in charge. Cheney and company were. He was just a pretty face. They used him, and he enjoyed every minute of it.
What they did in Iraq merely fulfilled a dream that began to take shape in 1989, with the fall of the Soviet Union – a permanent military presence in the Middle East, control of the oil fields, leverage over Europe, India and China. That millions had ot die to attain that dream – well, history will be kind to him no doubt, because as Churchill noted, we intend to write it.
See what you miss by not reading? A remarkably interesting and unfathomable world, not subject to philosophical dictates.
LikeLike