Increasingly, in our relativistic culture, publishing itself has become polluted with lies, bias and propaganda.
When I was in journalism classes in college, I was fortunate to have several professors who actually believed that bias has no place in news reporting (one could extend that to any form of publishing, although book writers have more latitude in this area; the publishing of a worldview in book form is more acceptable than advocacy journalism above-the-fold).
Evidently, since I was in college – an ice age ago – professors on the whole have become more Marxist. This week, I'll discuss more than lies in journalism, but we must know that the tendency to peddle leftist bias leads very quickly to the justification of lying in the media and, by extension, some pretty disturbing solutions to man's problems.
Recently, I was on the campus of the University of Oklahoma, and as I enjoyed a Starbucks and gazed longingly at Owen Field, I happened to read the op-ed page for The Oklahoma Daily. There was a sort of "point-counterpoint" raging about global warming/climate change. One of the writers was, I thought, disturbing in his worldview.
A political science – and communications (ouch) – senior, he expressed not only frustration with critics of the debate, but crossed over into advocating the elimination of those who would disagree with him. Consider his annoyance at those of us who shiver in a particularly bitter winter and wonder why the global warming beef:
"This type of pathetic rationalization makes me reconsider my stance on the limited use of eugenics," he writes. "Perhaps we should start sterilizing stupid people as well."
One wonders if this young, dimwitted chap would have been more at home in Uncle Joe Stalin's Communist Utopia, sipping vodka and pecking away at a Pravda desk while his neighbors continued to mysteriously disappear.
We should be greatly disturbed that our institutions of higher learning are turning out ideologues who see murder as a reasonable solution.
By the way, I stopped reading the several paragraphs this writer provided to justify the climate change data. All that science talk just made my head hurt as I cupped my cold hands around the hot coffee cup. Brrrr!
The whole issue of responsibility in publishing is gigantic, for this particular form of communication impacts millions who base everyday decisions on what they read. What if they are reading the literary equivalent of dinosaur dung?
As an aside: Consider the outrageous bias of pacifist and tweedy pipe-smoker Walter Cronkite. Uncle Walter once famously went to Vietnam and declared that the war was unwinnable. See Jeremiah Denton's "Was Hell Was in Session" for a serious refutation of that lie, by an up-close participant who knew the truth right up to the end of the war. Admiral Denton's insider knowledge of those events is explosive!
I was reminded of a quote I read recently, from an interview that the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs conducted with Andrea Levin, the director of the media watchdog group, CAMERA:
"I think pro-Israeli media watching has an importance beyond the cause of Israel," she said. "Efforts that induce better adherence to ethical journalism in one subject area are positive generally in helping to strengthen American democracy, especially, again, as there are no enforceable codes of professional conduct in the media."
I added italics to that fascinating final sentence, because Levin has hit on a critical theme. Critics can lambast Sean Hannity all they want, or depict Rush Limbaugh as a hate-filled addict, neither of which he is, by the way. These media figures' critics literally hate them because they bring Marxist ideology to light in America. So far as I know, pundits like Hannity and Limbaugh present facts to their listeners.
By contrast, their ideological counterparts, people like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and former radio host Al Franken see nothing wrong with spewing their own worldview and demonizing their counterparts to boot.
Writers like the (thankfully) retired Anthony Lewis, Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd show their fangs on a weekly basis. I well remember a decade ago, watching Friedman interviewed on a television program. He was discussing Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, whose insistence that the Palestinians stop using murder as a political tool seemed to enrage Friedman. At one point, he leaned forward and fairly spat that Netanyahu wasn't a good enough man to lead.
Whew! I guess when pacifists get frustrated by the Arabs' refusal to stop blowing themselves up on school buses … the frustration is turned on people who have the backbone to stop such violence.
All this also calls to mind a great quote by the late David Bar Illan, who knew a thing or two about media and publishing bias. The former editor of the Jerusalem Post once said that "journalists often write the most mind-blowing nonsense."
But few seem to pick up on Illan's perspective. Too many of us accept what we read or hear, without really thinking through the ideas expressed. The aforementioned Cronkite is the classic case, as he read opinion-masquerading-as-news for decades, while his television image flickered in millions of homes.
Years ago, a syndicated columnist turned her leftist wrath on Netanyahu, after he'd allowed a doorway to be opened in Jerusalem's Old City, thereby allowing free flow of tourists, who had until that time had to turn around at the end of a tunnel and work their way back the way they'd come. Ironically, Netanyahu's allowance of the new doorway opened tourists to Arab shops!
The writer alleged that the new doorway somehow threatened the structure of the Temple Mount. Arab conspiracy theories have for years stoked fear that the Jews were trying to topple the Al-Aksa mosque (originally a Byzantine church, by the way – there's a delicious treat to chew on over your morning coffee).
I read her column, then looked at a photograph of the area. Having been there, I knew that the tunnel and doorway were in the opposite direction of the Al-Aksa. I'd even taken a photograph of the steel door that opened into the Arab shops area.
Still a bit naïve, I got in touch with the writer and asked her about her claim that, frankly, contributed to inflaming Muslims the world over.
During our conversation, it dawned on me that she had purposely written about the fictional plot to undermine the structure of the Mount. She knew very well the door had nothing to do with the Al-Aksa.
This was my introduction to publishing lies. I keep a photo of the steel door on my desk, as a reminder.
Because I've also spent a fair amount of time dialoguing with journalists from various mainline church organizations, I know that claims such as the one above stoke their anti-Zionism fervor, as well. They in turn serve as useful idiots for serial killers like Yasser Arafat, who use them in the global terror war. How tragic that millions of mainline Christians actually believe that Israel is a brutal bully.
To add further irony to this story, three years ago I visited the Temple Mount and winced when I saw what the Arabs were doing to the physical structure of the area. Ancient paving stones had been pulled up and replaced with new ones, and a series of extensive steps had been hollowed out, which lead to an underground mosque. Walking around the perimeter of the Old City, one could also see a giant bulge in the southern edge of the wall. The Arabs themselves had stupidly threatened the structure of the whole Temple Mount, yet they succeed in routinely blaming Israel for attempting to topple the Al-Aska and the Dome of the Rock!
What does this have to do with a punk poli-sci major at OU? Just this: he is part of a sizeable community that believes it's okay to push their ideology no matter the cost.
Vast numbers of Americans still do not comprehend that journalists, political change agents and entertainment figures lie to them on a daily basis. Those lies are undermining the very structure of American society.
Let us resolve to open a door to truth and take a stand for truth in media.