Political journalism is not politically neutral or “value-free.” This may also be said of political science, pretensions to the contrary notwithstanding. The reason is this: The reporting of news, like academic discourse on politics, inevitably involves criteria of importance: some things are intrinsically more important than others. But criteria of importance are not politically neutral.
Moreover, the criteria employed by any political commentator depend on his or her intellectual breadth and depth. Some journalists, like some political scientists, have more knowledge and practical wisdom than others. They are not value-free, which is not to say that political commentary is a species of autobiography.
Confronting the journalist is a chaos of news data. What he selects for emphasis depends on objective as well subjective factors. For example, it will be admitted that the color of a politician’s tie is politically trivial vis-à-vis his moral and intellectual character. Only when journalists (or political scientists) focus on the trivial is journalism (or political science) value-free or ethically neutral. But a value-free journalism (or political science) would be “worth-less.”
Civility does not require the mindless toleration of all opinions—as if mankind has learned nothing in the past about barbaric and subversive doctrines.
This said, we may now distinguish between three basic types of political journalism in a democracy. One is “demagogic” journalism. This journalism addresses not the intellect but the emotions and prejudices of the masses. It uses disarming or ingratiating buzzwords such as “democracy” or “self-determination” or “peace.” It dismisses opponents not by rational argument but by pejorative labels like “left-winger” or “right-winger,” “extremist” or “racist.” It selects only “facts” which advance its partisan cause. This type of journalism is hardly distinguishable from propaganda.
If I-ARI’s posts get you thinking, share them with your friends on Twitter. And, if you are not already a member of I-ARI, follow the Israel-America Renaissance Institute (+ all the extras) on Twitter.
A second type of journalism is “constitutional” journalism. This journalism is informed by the basic principles of democracy, which include not only freedom and equality but civility. Civility presupposes some intellectual detachment and the ability to appreciate and evaluate diverse points of view.
Civility does not require the mindless toleration of all opinions—as if mankind has learned nothing in the past about barbaric and subversive doctrines. Constitutional journalism fosters only those principles that preserve democracy. It may lean toward liberalism as well as conservatism, since both recognize individual rights and due process of law.
In contrast to demagogic journalism, constitutional journalism appeals primarily to the intellect of its readers. It examines opposed opinions on their merits, or rather, in relation to democracy’s basic principles, which are accepted as axiomatic. Constitutional journalism therefore fosters civility and political solidarity.
Finally, there is what I call “philosophical” journalism. Philosophical journalism is exceptional if only because it relates the changing panorama of events to perennial ideas concerning the ends of man and society. It offers not only information but moral insight.
What makes philosophical journalism uncommon (and discomfiting) is that it reveals tensions and even contradictions between democracy’s fundamental principles. For example, democracies tend to remove all moral and legal restraints on freedom of expression. This conduces not only to pornography, but to defamation of character and political incitement, all of which militate against civility.
Another example: Democracy requires “one adult, one vote.” This egalitarianism tends to invade the intellect, such that all opinions on political and moral matters become theoretically equal. But if all such opinions are equal, there are no rational grounds for preferring tolerance to intolerance.
Indeed, a document of the American Council of Learned Societies entitled Speaking for the Humanities maintains that democracy cannot be justified as a system of government inherently superior to totalitarianism; it is simply an “ideological commitment” that the West has chosen to make. We have here a manifestation of the moral relativism rampant in American education, a relativism that also infects Israel—its media and universities.
Clearly, philosophical journalism, as defined above, is necessary for the preservation of any democracy that wishes to preserve civility in public discourse and behavior. It needs to be emphasized, however, that civility is eroded by unconstrained freedom and opinions, for both principles, carried to extremes, undermine respect for intellectual and moral discernment.
On the other hand, civility is not the ultimate aim of philosophical journalism. That aim, like that of philosophy itself, is truth. Publishing the truth is often divisive. Hence, the philosophical journalist must be cautious. There are times when he must convey the truth in guarded ways so as not to inflame public passions. However, there are critical moments in a nation’s history when a philosophical journalist needs to employ naked truth to arouse passionate indignation when his people, steeped in apathy or confusion, would otherwise be incapable of recognizing their leaders’ inability to deal with matters affecting their nation’s security and survival.
Consider America. Its institutions of higher education are permeated by moral and cultural relativism, a doctrine that undermines America’s foundational documents the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. American colleges and universities have become breeding grounds for atheism, immorality, and even anti-Americanism. That these institutions should receive public financial support to corrupt American youth should surely be a public issue.
Consider Israel. Israel is an indispensable American ally. The trouble is that Israel is led by timid men. This has been the case since her stunning, nay, miraculous, victory in the Six Day War of June 1967. In that year the United States was bogged down in the Vietnam War and was in dire need of Israel to keep the eastern Mediterranean free of Soviet encroachment. This was the most opportune time for Israel’s government to declare Jewish sovereignty over the Judea and Samaria. Failure to do so was a virtual replay of the spies who lacked the faith and courage to go up and conquer the land which God had promised them.
I shudder to contemplate what now lies in store for Israel. Ponder the fact the Netanyahu Government has endorsed the creation of an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish civilization. Judea and Samaria is the land on which thousands of years of Jewish history took place. This is the land on which the patriarchs and prophets of Israel walked and taught the Jewish people. This is the land on which the collective consciousness of the Jewish people was formed. In view of these existential facts and considerations, never was Israel in greater need of philosophical journalism—a journalism that exposes the flawed Zionist foundations of the state as well as its anti-Jewish and self-destructive system of governance.
Needed in Israel is a team of ten men to rectify the errors of the ten spies of antiquity. Can we find a Caleb or a Joshua for this mission?
Needed in America is a presidential candidate with courage enough to expose the anti-Americanism of its first black president, a man who makes a mockery of the Declaration of Independence which made it possible for him to pursue his “audacity of hope,” now morphed into the Audacity of Arrogance.
Both countries lack the same thing: Men who can articulate their “ancient faith” rooted in the Bible of Israel.
FOLLOW I-ARI on Twitter.
JOIN I-ARI on Facebook.
I-ARI Editorial Advisory Board:
Journalism
by Paul Eidelberg
Political journalism is not politically neutral or “value-free.” This may also be said of political science, pretensions to the contrary notwithstanding. The reason is this: The reporting of news, like academic discourse on politics, inevitably involves criteria of importance: some things are intrinsically more important than others. But criteria of importance are not politically neutral.
Moreover, the criteria employed by any political commentator depend on his or her intellectual breadth and depth. Some journalists, like some political scientists, have more knowledge and practical wisdom than others. They are not value-free, which is not to say that political commentary is a species of autobiography.
Confronting the journalist is a chaos of news data. What he selects for emphasis depends on objective as well subjective factors. For example, it will be admitted that the color of a politician’s tie is politically trivial vis-à-vis his moral and intellectual character. Only when journalists (or political scientists) focus on the trivial is journalism (or political science) value-free or ethically neutral. But a value-free journalism (or political science) would be “worth-less.”
This said, we may now distinguish between three basic types of political journalism in a democracy. One is “demagogic” journalism. This journalism addresses not the intellect but the emotions and prejudices of the masses. It uses disarming or ingratiating buzzwords such as “democracy” or “self-determination” or “peace.” It dismisses opponents not by rational argument but by pejorative labels like “left-winger” or “right-winger,” “extremist” or “racist.” It selects only “facts” which advance its partisan cause. This type of journalism is hardly distinguishable from propaganda.
A second type of journalism is “constitutional” journalism. This journalism is informed by the basic principles of democracy, which include not only freedom and equality but civility. Civility presupposes some intellectual detachment and the ability to appreciate and evaluate diverse points of view.
Civility does not require the mindless toleration of all opinions—as if mankind has learned nothing in the past about barbaric and subversive doctrines. Constitutional journalism fosters only those principles that preserve democracy. It may lean toward liberalism as well as conservatism, since both recognize individual rights and due process of law.
In contrast to demagogic journalism, constitutional journalism appeals primarily to the intellect of its readers. It examines opposed opinions on their merits, or rather, in relation to democracy’s basic principles, which are accepted as axiomatic. Constitutional journalism therefore fosters civility and political solidarity.
Finally, there is what I call “philosophical” journalism. Philosophical journalism is exceptional if only because it relates the changing panorama of events to perennial ideas concerning the ends of man and society. It offers not only information but moral insight.
What makes philosophical journalism uncommon (and discomfiting) is that it reveals tensions and even contradictions between democracy’s fundamental principles. For example, democracies tend to remove all moral and legal restraints on freedom of expression. This conduces not only to pornography, but to defamation of character and political incitement, all of which militate against civility.
Another example: Democracy requires “one adult, one vote.” This egalitarianism tends to invade the intellect, such that all opinions on political and moral matters become theoretically equal. But if all such opinions are equal, there are no rational grounds for preferring tolerance to intolerance.
Indeed, a document of the American Council of Learned Societies entitled Speaking for the Humanities maintains that democracy cannot be justified as a system of government inherently superior to totalitarianism; it is simply an “ideological commitment” that the West has chosen to make. We have here a manifestation of the moral relativism rampant in American education, a relativism that also infects Israel—its media and universities.
Clearly, philosophical journalism, as defined above, is necessary for the preservation of any democracy that wishes to preserve civility in public discourse and behavior. It needs to be emphasized, however, that civility is eroded by unconstrained freedom and opinions, for both principles, carried to extremes, undermine respect for intellectual and moral discernment.
On the other hand, civility is not the ultimate aim of philosophical journalism. That aim, like that of philosophy itself, is truth. Publishing the truth is often divisive. Hence, the philosophical journalist must be cautious. There are times when he must convey the truth in guarded ways so as not to inflame public passions. However, there are critical moments in a nation’s history when a philosophical journalist needs to employ naked truth to arouse passionate indignation when his people, steeped in apathy or confusion, would otherwise be incapable of recognizing their leaders’ inability to deal with matters affecting their nation’s security and survival.
Consider America. Its institutions of higher education are permeated by moral and cultural relativism, a doctrine that undermines America’s foundational documents the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. American colleges and universities have become breeding grounds for atheism, immorality, and even anti-Americanism. That these institutions should receive public financial support to corrupt American youth should surely be a public issue.
Consider Israel. Israel is an indispensable American ally. The trouble is that Israel is led by timid men. This has been the case since her stunning, nay, miraculous, victory in the Six Day War of June 1967. In that year the United States was bogged down in the Vietnam War and was in dire need of Israel to keep the eastern Mediterranean free of Soviet encroachment. This was the most opportune time for Israel’s government to declare Jewish sovereignty over the Judea and Samaria. Failure to do so was a virtual replay of the spies who lacked the faith and courage to go up and conquer the land which God had promised them.
I shudder to contemplate what now lies in store for Israel. Ponder the fact the Netanyahu Government has endorsed the creation of an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish civilization. Judea and Samaria is the land on which thousands of years of Jewish history took place. This is the land on which the patriarchs and prophets of Israel walked and taught the Jewish people. This is the land on which the collective consciousness of the Jewish people was formed. In view of these existential facts and considerations, never was Israel in greater need of philosophical journalism—a journalism that exposes the flawed Zionist foundations of the state as well as its anti-Jewish and self-destructive system of governance.
Needed in Israel is a team of ten men to rectify the errors of the ten spies of antiquity. Can we find a Caleb or a Joshua for this mission?
Needed in America is a presidential candidate with courage enough to expose the anti-Americanism of its first black president, a man who makes a mockery of the Declaration of Independence which made it possible for him to pursue his “audacity of hope,” now morphed into the Audacity of Arrogance.
Both countries lack the same thing: Men who can articulate their “ancient faith” rooted in the Bible of Israel.