Chris Hedges on Objectivity and Truth
Journalist and author Chris Hedges has written a very interesting editorial about the state of journalism in the Philadelphia Inquirer saying the quest for “balance” has lead to a “shirking of journalistic responsibility”:http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/10709238.htm .
His thesis isn’t anything “Campaign Desk”:http://www.campaigndesk.org/ hasn’t been saying already: reporting “he said/she said” is not journalism. But Hedges also explains why journalists should not get involved in advocacy. Their task is to look critically at everything and be suspicious of everything:
bq. The moment the Serbs pulled out of Kosovo my job changed from reporting on Kosovar Albanians who were being murdered and abused by Serbs to writing the stories of the elderly Serb couples who were being terrorized by bands of Kosovar Albanian thugs. [ ... ] But real reporters never have many powerful friends. They never forget that their job is to give a voice to those who would not have a voice without them. And they know enough about human nature to be wary of all who hold power.
Journalists are not the only ones who are supposed to be wary of those who hold power. So are citizens of a Republic. George Bush is our President, but he is a dangerous man with very dangerous potential, and I don’t trust him.
And I don’t just say that because he’s a Republican.
I oppose the Bush claims to absolute authority and subsequent weakenings of the US Constitution because it is American nature to be wary of all those who hold power. I would not trust the power to imprison indefinately on secret evidence to George Bush. I would not trust it to Bill Clinton — because yeah, he agrees with me today, but what about tomorrow? I would not trust my own mother with that power, as smart and capable as she is. I would not trust my wife with it, as smart and capable as _she_ is. and I certainly would not trust myself with it because I know *I* would misuse that authority in a heartbeat — and probably feel like I was doing the “right thing” in the process.
Editorial control _here_ is probably as much power as I can handle.
And so it is with most of the attempted power grabs of the Republican party — the attempts against the filibuster rule, for example, or Constitutional amendments for the line-item veto, etc. I do not oppose these things because they are Republican ideas, I oppose them because they are _wrong_ ideas. And when Democrats back them (and I expect they will when the wheel turns) I will oppose Democrats, because Democrats should not have that much power either.
So why, I wonder, is it that those who resisted Democratic Liberal authoritarianism for so many years are so eager for Republican Conservative authoritarianism now? For a President who can deny Citizen freedoms indefinitely without evidence; for a government that is a Christian theocracy?
My suspicion is that Liberals (in general) are dedicated to the idea of a Republic. They believe in Freedom and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They believe that you’re not supposed to trust your leaders, even if your leaders are your own family.
But Conservatives are authoritarian at heart, and _republican_ only when they are out of power. While they are losing, the ideals of Democracy keep them in the game and they will fight to save them. But with control of all three houses — and arguably much of the press — *now* they will take control.
Democrats could never do that. They might try, but I doubt they’d be effective. There are too many people on their side like me who would abandon them in an instant if they ever tried something like that. You would see a lot of Blues turn Red, at least for as long as it took to get the Democrats taken down a notch. That’s the reason there is so much constant and divisive strife in the party.
But Republicans — they can do that. Because their rank and file believe that when the Republicans have absolute authority, they too will have absolute authority. Because they are on the winning side.
It won’t happen of course. We know that. We’ve seen it on the Right in Germany and Italy and in the madness of King George. And we’ve seen it on the left in the USSR and China.
We’ve seen what happens in authoritarian systems across the political spectrum, and we know the end result of creeping paranoia and power-madness. We used to say “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But I don’t hear that much from the Right anymore — even though it’s still true today. What I hear is appologia for torture and indefinite incarceration and concentration camps and McCarthyism. Policies that, if they were proposed by Democrats while Democrats were in charge, would have the Limbaughs and the Coulters and the Ralph Reeds in a holy righteous froth.
They should be in a holy righteous froth now. But they think they are on the winning team. The funny thing is, as power corrupts the size of the winning team tends to shrink.
