Give Meaning Back to Independence Day

If you believe in democracy, we need freedom of the press. Support it with your modest amounts—tens and twenties or more if you can afford it—and know that you’re doing something for the world in which your children will live.

(CALGARY, Alberta) - We all know what self-censorship is. On a daily basis we routinely censor ourselves knowing that we should not say certain things to co-workers, friends, or family, just to keep relationships running smoothly (or, often, to keep our job). It’s not, in principle, a bad thing to do even though it’s sometimes just a way to put off unpleasant things until the future.

Where self-censorship is bad, even harmful to democracy is in our news media. As editor of the Airdrie Echo back in the late 70s and early 80s, I experienced it from time to time although it was pretty low key and in terms of harm to Airdrie it was pretty insignificant. I wrote my columns with a leftist-slant, even though I knew that, overall, they were generally not appreciated. Even my extended family, brought up drinking the Alberta Kool-Aide, didn’t often appreciate them.

There was a columnist with the Calgary Herald around that time named Roy Farran whose column was called, “I write as I please”. This was true, but only if you took into account that he had particular conservative biases which coincided with the conservative biases of the newspaper. I could never have written as I pleased for that newspaper.

I am, you could say, the Roy Farran of Salem-News.com. In the same way, here, I write as I please. This could be a topic to explore for this whole column, but I’m leaving that alone for now, as we have here bigger fish to fry.

The famous Canadian-born Harvard economist (confidant to JFK) John Kenneth Galbraith learned to write at Fortune magazine, under the editorship of Henry Luce, the founder of the Time-Life empire. In retrospect, Galbraith said

“Self-censorship at Fortune, I learned, involved a constant calculation as to whether a particular statement—sometimes a sentence or a paragraph—was worth the predictable argument, perhaps with Luce, possibly with some frightened or zealous surrogate. Often one decided that it was not the day for a fight. Or if your conscience was compelling, you couched the favorable reference to Roosevelt or the CIO in such careful language that it would slip by, overlooking the near-certainty that it would slip by all your readers as well.”

Self-censorship is part of almost all the media people today, to your detriment. The only media people not really affected are the true believers, those who don’t know they are self-censoring. This applies largely, although not exclusively, to outlets like Fox News. Fair and Balanced? Perhaps they actually believe it.

Now, to the point of this story. A fellow named Kirk supplied the following link in his comment to one of the other stories (thank you, Kirk, whoever you are):

Here you’ll see a bit of an interaction in the White House press room between Chip Reid (CBS), Helen Thomas (Hearst) and Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman. Chip is protesting about the White House control of the media. Helen Thomas is backing him up. Gibbs is being completely smooth and disingenuous—smiling and pretending he doesn’t understand the intent of the questions.

We see, here, the slightest of cracks in the control of the media. But it’s really about Reid, Thomas, and the other journalists in the room. Do their bosses (owned and controlled by corporate interests) really want to open things up to a free wheeling style? I think not, because then they are no longer in control of both the process and the outcome. If any of the other journalists in the room (a pretty inert looking bunch in the video) had started clamouring for a more open process, there would have been a chance for change, but it didn’t happen.

I’ve been saying for ten years that the internet will have the potential to change our political processes and perhaps even make real democracy possible. Of course, I’m not the only one saying such a thing. But now we see the actual potential.

An event can happen anywhere in the world. Someone will record it on their cell phone and within minutes it can be uploaded to YouTube. They alert someone like Tim King at Salem-News.com who will write a story about it—maybe just a few paragraphs—and post the link to YouTube. No corporate interest has a say in content or presentation.

If you believe in democracy, which only exists as a veritable wraith in the world, you should be down on your knees thanking those people who have made this site possible and keep it running.

It’s about the only place in the world that will publish my anti-establishment material (whether you agree with it or not). I’ve been up against the system for more than thirty years. Here in Canada we have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a pale imitation of the BBC. They have done a few of my critical pieces in the past, but mostly they are scared little producers who might do one thing, but are afraid of anything that might be part of a theme. The CBC is a public entity that is under political control. The conservative governments in Canada hate the CBC and are always cutting their funding. And because of the regular corporate pap they’re fed, much of the Canadian public goes along with it.

If you believe in the potential of democracy, it is in your interest—both personally and as a nation—to support Salem-News.com (and others like us). You have to put some money where your mouth is because while things like this are run on a shoestring, but they’re not free and can be so much better with a little money behind it.

Let me make clear that that this is an unsolicited, unsponsored article. My interest is expanding the outlets for my work and those like me to make the world a better place. Knowledge is power, said Francis Bacon all those centuries ago.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark July 6, 2009 8:35 am (Pacific time)

To all: For working example of Murdoch's malign impact via intentional drive for dollars uber alles, esp. any jrnlstic integrities hampering that, see recent history of the once respected Wall St. Journal. Pay special attention to all changes in Edit Page, and to the flood of departing veteran journalists long noted for the integrity of that page despite the journals noted economic stance. "See also" various multiple issues of three major professional journals, CJR, AJR, and Poynter, for solid same-statements re Murdoch and his ongoing drive for world media empire. IF still unconvinced after seeking out full detailed information from true sources, repeating mine here, there is nothing more to be done for you short of rapid psychiatric treatment.

Carlie July 6, 2009 6:57 am (Pacific time)

In any business, to succeed and continue, you need a customer base. People vote with their money, time, or whatever valued commodity they have to trade for what any business is offering. If you don't have what they want you will simply fade away. Bottom line for me is to always respect your customer and provide them with a fair value, for if you don't, they will know it. It does not matter what you're selling, even if it's free, it should have some fair-minded value. It can be a big wake-up call for those who only see one side of an issue, that's why they usually fail. They end up with the Darwin Award as they march down the trail...I don't have decades of experience in learning about the above, but there are endless centuries of historical record to verify what works and what doesn't, even during these dynamic times.

Henry Ruark July 5, 2009 8:26 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Missing here re Fox is the factual history of its genesis which occurred by direct action of Australian press tycoon Murdoch. If anyone reads solid report of his family and actions Down Under and in other world press situations you will understand the depth of depravity to which Fox and all other Murdoch acquisitions are known to stoop, and to maintain that posture despite some of the good people who wander in for a while...usually very short tenure. It is simply a fact of life that it is precisely that way, undeniably so by consensus of 98 percent of those who have reported both nationally and internationally...heavy documentation on ID to Editor with working phone. Talk radio in America is also a high-risk area for all who listen, often seduced and suckered in precisely the same way by the same techniques and tactics, well and widely recognized-so within and also outside the jrnlst profession. For those who comment here otherwise, simple question: What qualifies YOU to judge as comments show in this matter ? Short-time work for respected OREGONIAN,producing erroneous belief it is far/out liberal is striking example of judgments at risk. I know Big O from close working contacts over 50-years and would most violently disagree...and I do have more than 60 working years in every level of the profession, as well as split time in education with media emphasis. Wire-service slug on copy for tech to send is moretocome and dialog here is wide open for further from others, but bring documentation or be ready to cite solid decades at the working level within the profession. One of the greatest dangers to our American democracy is what has been allowed to happen to our once-vaunted and actually quite-"free" press. D.J. tells it true and well even from far-afield, based on his own working experience all to perilously close to mine own. Forgive diatribe but cometh from the heart on deeply-felt basis of painful experience.

Daniel Johnson July 5, 2009 8:19 pm (Pacific time)

MJ: So, you've made it clear that you are to the right politically. Don't forget the old saying: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

MJ July 5, 2009 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson you may not like FOX, but to believe that their viewers are following some Pied Piper is absurd. FOX has top professionals in their news departments, you see politicans from all parties on the network. Sure you have pundits that provide a conservative view, but they also bring on liberals during their debates. Shows on MSNBC provide pundits on the opposite side, but as you know they have a much smaller audience than FOX and rarely offer opposing viewpoints. Likewise with talk radio, the conservatives attract the larger audiences. I wonder if you randomly picked people out and gave them a paper/pencil test on who was the best informed I think I know who would out perform most others. Have you seen many man in the street interviews discussing political news stories of the day? Those who just read their daily newspaper, watch the major networks are essentially way behind the curve. I watch all of them, read several papers a day, and see FOX as far superior, and they are fair and balanced. I worked for the Oregonian newspaper back in the 60's, and even then that paper was so far to the left that it was hard to continue to work for them. Glad I moved on and found a more satisfying career in another field. I know I would help provide funding for any online newspaper that provided a fair and balanced news delivery and editorials.

Daniel Johnson July 5, 2009 12:28 am (Pacific time)

Kirk: Before you go any further with your analysis, there is one thing you need to understand about what I'll call "the media". It's a business. Fox News. New York Times, Sacramento Bee--they are all businesses in existence to make money. The main way they make money is through advertising. (Newspaper subscriptions, for example, usually aren't enough to cover the cost of what you physically receive). So, advertising is based on readership or the number of eyes that look at a page, TV or computer screen. While their are many individuals within the media (I was one of them) who believe their job is to deliver truthful facts and analysis to the audience, if what they are delivering interferes in some way with the flow of advertising dollars, then their bosses will halt the process. It is all they can do if they want to keep their jobs. And, overall, the newspaper, TV channel or website has to at least break even. From that income, comes the salaries for all those people gathering and delivering the news and analyses. It is, in a sense, a Catch-22. There is an unfortunately large segment of Americans who get most, if not all, of their news from Fox. They may have a bit of cynicism about the process but overall they think they are getting the straight goods. What they are not aware of, and might not even understand, is that Fox is pandering to their prejudices--whether it's immigration, welfare fraud, government regulations, taxes, etc. All media do it to attract and keep and audience. And I am not being critical of America alone. It's exactly the here in Canada. I don't know what the audience here is for Fox, but we have the equivalent in the CanWest media empire. Salem-News does the same thing. We have a leftist bias and we admit it and don't try to hide it. But our goal, each day, is to deliver the best version of the truth we can. As editor Tim King once said to me: "Truth is a left-wing conspiracy". So, here we are. I look forward to your response.

Henry Ruark July 4, 2009 1:16 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Kirk: Your main point reduces to fact that democracy is most assuredly a do-it-yourself proposition, demanding the demonstration of solid citizen responsibilities for full understandings of issues, problems, and actions. THEN "the vote-power" can take over for decisions shaping American life. Re growing disagreements, with facts now surfacing re last forty years there is now little rational, reasonable choice left us --only remedies for inevitable consequences when we fail not only ourselves but the prescient vision of our Founders. Only when we preserve, protect and extend their unique patterns for freedom --surely "invented here" but then perverted via political and economic pressures we must now resist, refuse and reform, will we begin to make of that pattern what it can and now must become, in this 21st Century. See current Op Ed for more detailed analysis, with deep documentation available on request.

Kirk July 4, 2009 10:07 am (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson I certainly follow much of what you say, except that no doubt a significant percentage of Americans assess what's going on in our country much different than what you and others do. Today is an extremely important day for those who understand what incredible bravery it took for our Founding Fathers to come forward with the Declaration of Independence and what followed with our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. When we have news sources along with government "jointly" involved in deciding what news is acceptable and what is not, then we must illuminate this situation to all. Frankly I'm starting to see that bi-parisanship is becoming less and less meaningfull and the deep seperation of individaul perspectives is growing. What you think is fair and balanced is more than likely viewed as propaganda by others. The Helen Thomas and Chip Reid video acknowledges that finally some hardcore progressives are seeing the danger of what's been happening to our media. The recent Governor Sara Palin resignation clearly demonstrates how many in the media use propaganda to demonize individuals they disagree with. In the case of Palin, they have misjudged this individual and have now most likely created a scenario where she will become one heck of a force to deal with. The vast majority of Americans demand fairness, the gloves will be coming off.

[Return to Top]

Give Meaning Back to Independence Day

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News