Larwyn's e-mails that consolidate conservative blogs are back. Her most recent two e-mails contained about 25 conservative blogs. I did a search on them and found only two uses of the phrases "mainstream media" or "MSM." One blog used the phrase "aka mainstream media" and the other put the phrase "mainstream media" in quotes. Thus, my campaign to obliterate the once-popular phrase "mainstream media" has worked.
When I first began blogging four or five years ago the phrase "mainstream media" was common. Conservative, libertarian and contrarian bloggers used the stock phrase almost as often as the five vowels. In 2007 I was still using the phrase myself, but by 2009 I had concluded that the phrase is inaccurate and began a campaign against it. There is no "mainstream media" in the United States. The American media is dominated by Progressives who are not representative of the mainstream public.
There may have been a mainstream media between 1900 and 1980 and especially between 1930 and 1975. In the 19th century there was a partisan media (each party had its own newspapers) but five factors supported a consolidation of viewpoints and the creation of the monolithic, mainstream "Progressive" viewpoint that has dominated the media between 1900 and today but which the public has bypassed. That is, the media's viewpoint was once but is no longer mainstream. Increasingly, the Progressive consensus that existed between 1900 and 1980 has given way to a division between those who favor big government and Wall Street and those who believe in freedom.
The reasons that the 19th century's diverse media became a mainstream media are fivefold. First, the expansion of markets created the necessity for large scale news sources. This is the business issue of economies of scale. Although this did not eliminate the possibility of a two-party media (witness talk radio today, for example) it at a minimum created the need for reduced variability within the two parties. Second, the dominance of Wall Street in financing media corporations led to the reduced variability of views away from those inconsistent with the needs of Wall Street. Third, the growth in scale led to mergers, reducing the number of editors. This resulted from the expansion of markets and Wall Street's influence. Fourth, Adolph Ochs's and the New York Times's creation of "objective" journalism fit the new mass market and Progressivism. This was complemented with the Progressive ideology of journalism that John Dewey set forth in his Public and Its Problems. Journalists were to serve as cartoonists who made the serious solutions proposed by Progressive experts in government accessible to the public, who are too slow, in the Progressives' views, to grasp the truth that the experts understand. Moreover, applying the Ochs model, journalists could claim that they are "objective" and "scientific" and so there was no need for diversity of views. Fifth, the policies that the new Progressive journalism advocated, the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank; the New Deal; government regulation; the "third way" of Theodore Roosevelt led to increased consolidation and the bankruptcy of smaller newspapers. For example, the Times probably advocated the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in the 1930s (I haven't checked, but I assume so); by the 1970s the number of newspapers in New York City had dramatically fallen because of strikes and labor costs. The bankrupt newspapers included Republican ones like the Herald Tribune. Other New York newspapers that fell in the 1960s because of strikes and labor costs were the Journal American, the Long Island Star Journal and the New York Daily Mirror not to mention the Banner (just kidding, a reference to The Fountainhead).
In sum, the policies of Progressivism and the New Deal led to (a) a reduction in the flow of ideas and (b) a unification of public ideology in favor of a monolithic state buttressed by supposed experts that supported a monolithic ideology. The spread of mass media over consolidated markets was consistent with the emphasis on scale and size that the Federal Reserve Bank and Wall Street facilitated. This ideology was inconsistent with the rapid growth in technology, the innovation, of the 19th century. Hence, it is not surprising that the pace of innovation in the American economy has slowed since the 19th century.
The stagflation of the 1970s, more than the immediate failure of New Deal policies in the 1930s, awoke the public to Progressivism's failure. I was certainly awakened and many others were too, leading to the election of Ronald Reagan. His election was unfortunate because Reagan, although adopting the rhetoric of Ayn Rand and freedom, was in fact, as Rand pointed out in a letter to the New York Times, not really a believer in freedom. Upon election Reagan did not reduce government, although he limited its growth. Hence, he was very much in the Progressive tradition of William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Harding and Coolidge were elected in favor of a return to "normalcy" from the Progressive years of Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson, but neither repealed any of the elements of the Progressive program. That Progressivism never died also was evidenced by Hoover's election in 1928. Hoover had played a key role in implementing Wilson's wartime Progressive interventions by setting up state regulated food cartels. One example of the dominance of a monolithic media is the fact that many mistakenly still believe today that Hoover favored laissez faire, limited government. Franklin Roosevelt and Hoover just differed on the application of state power; Hoover believed in public works and the cartelization of business; Roosevelt shared these views but added welfare and social security. The New Deal further consolidated power and media opinion (and perhaps ownership). State control of public opinion was further re-enforced through the expansion of state universities and the secularization of the elite northeastern Christian universities like Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
The Progressive New Deal approach did not work. Its program was largely that of the Federalists and the Whigs, and it required a high degree of centralization that is inconsistent with a modern or post-modern economy. It is ironic that in advocating the 1500-year-old Roman model of organization to America's industrial economy the advocates called themselves "Progressive" but so was it. The system required centralization, fascism, which led to (a) economies of scale, lower costs and increased consumption in the short run and (b) a slowing of diversity of ideas and innovation, which led to reduced progress in the longer run. By the 1970s the failure of Whig or Keynesian economics (Keynesian economics adapted Whig ideas) was evident as inflation and unemployment accompanied deficit spending. Since then, the economy has NOT recovered despite several stock market and real estate bubbles. The American economy has NOT been able to produce consistent, healthy growth. Rather, the Fed has financed retailing, real estate, finance and other bubbles in services and real estate that do not produce the value to the economy as would spontaneously developing firms. Life has gotten worse since 1970, not better.
Hence, Progressivism continues to fail and the media's (as well as universities') views increasingly reveal themselves to be ideological justification for the power structure of Progressivism. When Progressivism failed in 2008, the media and universities worked together to provide disinformation about the importance of public support for the failing Wall Street stock salesmen. Billionaire investment bankers needed vast sums of money so that they could invest in the carry trade, and this was critical to America, according to the Democrats and their servants in universities and the media. But the public has become increasingly aware that the power structure does not serve its interests, and therefore that Progressivism is NOT mainstream. However, a public understanding of why and how the Federal Reserve Bank is the centerpiece of Progressivism and the reason America is faltering has yet to evolve.
Hence, I applaud Larwyn and the conservative bloggers for their reduced use of the phrase "mainstream media" and MSM. There is no such thing, and these phrases empower dying institutions.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Move to Latvia?
Given that nearly half of Americans approve or strongly approve of Obama's performance in the presidency to date (with slightly over half disapproving or strongly disapproving) I have become concerned about my future in the United States. This is not the America to which I was born and it is not the America to which my grandparents and great grandparents moved. I do not have children, but still, I am concerned that the nation has lost its way badly enough that I need to look into other options, such as eastern Europe. Although America is still freer than most other countries (some argue that Hong Kong and Singapore are freer), eastern Europe is catching up. I did a search on Latvia in Google and came up with this photo that appeared in a BBC article. The article says that blond Latvian women go on this march each year to fight recession. Although I doubt that the march will stop an economic recession, it looks like my kind of country!
National Gallery Exhibits New Painting of Michelle Obama
 |
| New Photo of Michelle Obama at the National Gallery, h/t Curmudgeonly Skeptic |
Blog impressario Larwyn's back from a long illness. Her grandson is at Princeton and her latest blog excerpts are a riot. This one is care of The Curmudegonly Skpetic.com. The one below is courtesy of Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Obama Lied About His Religious Affiliation
Because of recent poll findings (reported in Newsweek, for example, with factual errors) that as much as 31% of the public believes that Obama is a Muslim, there has been a spate of publicity concerning an issue that surfaced on my blog during the election campaign: whether then-Senator Obama was lying about his religious affiliation. The Democratic Party's media refused to ask this question (Newsweek insists, without evidence, that the claim is factually wrong. Unlike Newsweek, I look for evidence when I claim something to be a fact), and otherwise hard headed analysts such as Mayor Ed Koch happily allowed themselves to be duped. It seems that party affiliation, political correctness and anger about George W. Bush made many eager to be conned. The propaganda characteristically part of the Democratic Party's media also played a role. For instance, Newsweek reports (assuming that they were able to get this straight, which is dubious) that the editors of the Atlanta Constitution now believe that a presidential candidate's religious beliefs ought not to concern the public. Rather, I would suggest that the Atlanta Constitution's opinions ought not to concern the public.
Sharad Karkhanis has forwarded Madeline Brooks's Canada Free Press article article to me (see below). For me, the question is not whether he is a Muslim or a Christian but whether he misrepresented his religion as well as his position on Israel, the Middle East and Pakistan-India conflict. No issue is off limits with respect to a presidential race, and the fact that the Atlanta Constitution's editors think otherwise suggests that they are not an important or useful source of information. The gullible willingness of many Jews and Hindus as well as Christians to believe the Democratic media's propaganda concerning Obama shows a serious weakness in our educations and in common sense.
Madeline Brooks called Obama's church to learn that, contrary to logic and any possible interpretation of either Christianity or Islam, Jeremiah Wright's church sees no conflict between Islamic and Christian doctrine. Hence, the fact that Obama had produced no evidence of conversion is entirely consistent with his legitimate membership in Wright's church. He need not have converted to Christianity to belong to Wright's church, and the church says that many members are Muslims. No one in the Democratic media ever asked Wright's church whether a Muslim could belong. It turns out a Muslim can belong. Hence, his membership, far from being evidence of Christianity as the flightless birds at Newsweek claim, is actually evidence of his Muslim faith. Nor is Obama's assertion of Christianity evidence of a thing.
Obama’s Unique Form of ‘Christianity:’ No Baptism Or Renunciation of Islam Required By Madeline Brooks Saturday, August 21, 2010
New questions arise lately concerning whether President Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, as Mr. Obama gives his partial support to the mosque at Ground Zero.
We’ve all heard by now that Obama became a Christian mostly to expedite his political career and that the Trinity United Church of Christ he joined, presided over by Reverend Jonathan Wright, was not exactly mainstream. We’ve heard about Wright’s damning of America and we know that the church was – and might still be - a hot bed of black nationalism. But what is not as well known is that no baptism is required, nor must Muslims renounce Islam to be accepted as full members in that church.
On a tip from a pastor, which I wrote about here I called the Trinity United Church back in February, 2010 to ask about the requirements of membership. The church receptionist transferred my call to the Director of Membership, who told me that baptism is optional and that Muslims who believe in the prophet Mohammed can be full members. In fact, she reassured me cheerfully, they have plenty of Muslim members.
Never mind that this is theologically impossible, except when one makes one’s own rules. The doctrines of Christianity and Islam are incompatible. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is one with the Creator, through the doctrine of the Trinity, and that Jesus died on the cross in order to redeem humanity from its sins. Islam calls the Trinity ‘idolatry’ because it sees the Trinity’s three parts as separate entities – three distinct gods – instead of one divine being. Islam also denies Christianity’s claim that Jesus Christ died on the cross, or that he is the unique savior of humanity.
Baptism is central to Christian practices, both as a way to mark the convert’s entrance into a new life and as a washing away of sinful practices from the person’s past. The core of the new life as a Christian is a renunciation of other religious beliefs. The World Council of Churches is an umbrella organization for Protestant churches that represents about 550 million Christians throughout more than 120 countries. It has declared the centrality of baptism for a Christian, and notes that no matter how much churches may differ in other ways, the vast majority of churches agree on the importance of baptism.
Why would a Muslim want to join a church that proclaimed these Christian beliefs? It would be a betrayal of his own convictions. Besides, the word “Trinity” is in the name of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which should discourage a Muslim who thinks the Christian trinity is blasphemous. What’s going on here?
The Trinity United Church of Christ is affiliated with the mainline United Church of Christ which branched out of Congregationalism, and going back even further, that denomination had its roots in Puritanism. All these connections are very traditional. The affirmation of faith of the parent organization, as found in their constitution begins with, “The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior.” However, when the black pride movement burgeoned in Chicago during the 1960s at the time when Malcolm X made that city the headquarters for the Nation of Islam, the Trinity United Church of Christ appears to have made doctrinal adjustments to accommodate its constituents. They were African Americans who wanted a veneer of Christianity, which many of them had been raised with, to cover their newly acquired black nationalism and Nation of Islam inspired faith. At the same time, the church needed new members because church attendance was falling off.
So a new syncretic religion was born, Muslim Christianity. Never mind that it makes a mish mash of theology – in order to suit the emotional and cultural needs of the parishioners. Obama may have been telling the truth when he called himself a Christian, even though he has not apparently spent much time in any church since leaving the tutelage of Rev. Wright. But for the rest of us, there is confusion, a confusion that is sure to grow as not only the President but possibly many others influenced by him, take the side of Islamic political entities while still calling themselves ‘Christian.’
Sharad Karkhanis has forwarded Madeline Brooks's Canada Free Press article article to me (see below). For me, the question is not whether he is a Muslim or a Christian but whether he misrepresented his religion as well as his position on Israel, the Middle East and Pakistan-India conflict. No issue is off limits with respect to a presidential race, and the fact that the Atlanta Constitution's editors think otherwise suggests that they are not an important or useful source of information. The gullible willingness of many Jews and Hindus as well as Christians to believe the Democratic media's propaganda concerning Obama shows a serious weakness in our educations and in common sense.
Madeline Brooks called Obama's church to learn that, contrary to logic and any possible interpretation of either Christianity or Islam, Jeremiah Wright's church sees no conflict between Islamic and Christian doctrine. Hence, the fact that Obama had produced no evidence of conversion is entirely consistent with his legitimate membership in Wright's church. He need not have converted to Christianity to belong to Wright's church, and the church says that many members are Muslims. No one in the Democratic media ever asked Wright's church whether a Muslim could belong. It turns out a Muslim can belong. Hence, his membership, far from being evidence of Christianity as the flightless birds at Newsweek claim, is actually evidence of his Muslim faith. Nor is Obama's assertion of Christianity evidence of a thing.
Obama’s Unique Form of ‘Christianity:’ No Baptism Or Renunciation of Islam Required By Madeline Brooks Saturday, August 21, 2010
New questions arise lately concerning whether President Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, as Mr. Obama gives his partial support to the mosque at Ground Zero.
We’ve all heard by now that Obama became a Christian mostly to expedite his political career and that the Trinity United Church of Christ he joined, presided over by Reverend Jonathan Wright, was not exactly mainstream. We’ve heard about Wright’s damning of America and we know that the church was – and might still be - a hot bed of black nationalism. But what is not as well known is that no baptism is required, nor must Muslims renounce Islam to be accepted as full members in that church.
On a tip from a pastor, which I wrote about here I called the Trinity United Church back in February, 2010 to ask about the requirements of membership. The church receptionist transferred my call to the Director of Membership, who told me that baptism is optional and that Muslims who believe in the prophet Mohammed can be full members. In fact, she reassured me cheerfully, they have plenty of Muslim members.
Never mind that this is theologically impossible, except when one makes one’s own rules. The doctrines of Christianity and Islam are incompatible. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is one with the Creator, through the doctrine of the Trinity, and that Jesus died on the cross in order to redeem humanity from its sins. Islam calls the Trinity ‘idolatry’ because it sees the Trinity’s three parts as separate entities – three distinct gods – instead of one divine being. Islam also denies Christianity’s claim that Jesus Christ died on the cross, or that he is the unique savior of humanity.
Baptism is central to Christian practices, both as a way to mark the convert’s entrance into a new life and as a washing away of sinful practices from the person’s past. The core of the new life as a Christian is a renunciation of other religious beliefs. The World Council of Churches is an umbrella organization for Protestant churches that represents about 550 million Christians throughout more than 120 countries. It has declared the centrality of baptism for a Christian, and notes that no matter how much churches may differ in other ways, the vast majority of churches agree on the importance of baptism.
Why would a Muslim want to join a church that proclaimed these Christian beliefs? It would be a betrayal of his own convictions. Besides, the word “Trinity” is in the name of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which should discourage a Muslim who thinks the Christian trinity is blasphemous. What’s going on here?
The Trinity United Church of Christ is affiliated with the mainline United Church of Christ which branched out of Congregationalism, and going back even further, that denomination had its roots in Puritanism. All these connections are very traditional. The affirmation of faith of the parent organization, as found in their constitution begins with, “The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior.” However, when the black pride movement burgeoned in Chicago during the 1960s at the time when Malcolm X made that city the headquarters for the Nation of Islam, the Trinity United Church of Christ appears to have made doctrinal adjustments to accommodate its constituents. They were African Americans who wanted a veneer of Christianity, which many of them had been raised with, to cover their newly acquired black nationalism and Nation of Islam inspired faith. At the same time, the church needed new members because church attendance was falling off.
So a new syncretic religion was born, Muslim Christianity. Never mind that it makes a mish mash of theology – in order to suit the emotional and cultural needs of the parishioners. Obama may have been telling the truth when he called himself a Christian, even though he has not apparently spent much time in any church since leaving the tutelage of Rev. Wright. But for the rest of us, there is confusion, a confusion that is sure to grow as not only the President but possibly many others influenced by him, take the side of Islamic political entities while still calling themselves ‘Christian.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
