In
parts 1 and 2 of this series I discussed the assertion of a Dissident Press, as
a constitutive element of representative democracy throughout United States
history. In effect the dissident press closes the circuit between the legal
rights promised in the Constitution, the governance of the republic and the
ability of all Americans to live in dignity as they pursue a life of liberty
and happiness. Independent journalists alert the population to the injustices
hidden in plain sight, and identify the levers of power available to those
seeking redress. Though we initially observe individual publishers and the
vehicles they created as rising in reaction to a specific issue, inequity or
injustice, it is notable that there is also continuity, not so much in the
sense of an institutional type of continuity, but as in a craft where: founding
principles govern, apprentices are nurtured, techniques are studied,
adaptations to emerging technology are made, and functionality and standards
are refined over generations.
With
the suppression and decline of the Socialist Press in the early 1900’s, a void
was created in the public discourse. From this void came journalists who began
to analyze and refine the craft into a body of coherent roles and tools,
mission and method, and provide critique of structural problems that undermine
journalistic independence. From this
period of self-reflection, a coherent body of standards and practices began to
be delineated, transferred and adapted by successive generations. Two key
figures in initiating this process were George Seldes and I. F. Stone.
George Seldes
George Seldes
Henry George Seldes can be credited with initiating the discourse with his critique
of mainstream media for, “Keeping the public from knowing what it needs to
know.” Seldes’ early career is spent in
the mainstream media during the time frame where advertising revenue came to
dominate the economics of the industry and consequently its voice. One could
frame Seldes work as that of a counterweight rising alongside a structural
problem, which seems to be one of the
tendencies of the dissident media. He set about educating the public,
and in particular journalists, as to the
corrupting influence of money, and proximity to power (access
journalism) with respect to journalistic integrity. In addition, his reliance
on the public record as an essential primary source, had a major
influence on those who follow. Another contribution of George Seldes is that he
begins to formally address the interference, by government agencies, with the
functions of a free and independent press.
I. F. Stone
I. F. Stone
I. F. Stone also began his career working within the mainstream media, and like
Seldes ran afoul of the industry and the US government by presenting and
framing information, which he found in the public record, in ways that served
the public, rather than those institutions. And, in the tradition of Willy
Heighton and others of the mid 19th century Labor Press, he goes on to educate
and activate his readers as to specific methods and actions they could, and in
fact should, employ to counter corporate malfeasance and the abuse of
governmental power. With particular regard to the US war in Vietnam, Stone’s
assertions that the war was misguided, unjust, and most importantly,
un-winnable, were on point. It took the
mainstream media about a decade to catch up with Izzy and see the writing on
the wall, but only after the release of The Pentagon Papers. Stone’s direction
to his contemporaries that, “it is time the full truth about the war were
told,” is accompanied by his very practical advice that his colleagues speak to the returning American military and
civilians who could testify to the actual conditions in Vietnam, attests to the
lack of journalistic intention by his contemporaries in the mainstream. I. F.
Stone’s Weekly, along with The Catholic Worker under Dorothy Day, and The
National Guardian under James Aronson were not only major organs of the
anti-war Viet Nam War movement, they could easily be credited as its founders.
Amy
Goodman and Democracy Now:
Perhaps
no individual in contemporary journalism has done more to protect, defend and
propagate this legacy than Amy Goodman. Goodman’s hard hitting journalism is
muckraking at its finest. Her methods and mission are soundly rooted in the
tradition of her predecessors Seldes and Stone. While the show Democracy Now,
for the most part, does not directly advocate specific actions that listeners
should or must take, her assembly and framing of the issues can be said to be
biased, but with an integrity that honors the highest standards of honesty,
objectivity and excellence in critical analysis, that Seldes and Stone set. In
the 20 years that Democracy Now has been aired, Goodman has nurtured and
promoted some of the most gifted and dedicated journalists to emerge. Jeremy
Scahill began his career at Democracy now, working on a pitiful stipend
provided by Goodman’s personal funds. She’s habitually hoists those like MattTaibi, Glenn Greenwald, Shane Bauer*, and anyone else who does good and valuable
work, upon her shoulders long enough for their voice to take hold in the public
discourse. I speculate that 50 years from now media and political scholars will
point to one of her most valuable contribution as her work in defining,
consolidating, and advancing the legacy and role of the dissident press as
closing the circuit between the legal rights promised in the Constitution, the
governance of the republic and the ability of all people to live in dignity as
they pursue a life of liberty and happiness.
*
The 2017 recipient of the prestigious Izzy Award is a good example of
emulation of method. Shane Bauer could be considered a modern day Upton Sinclair, operating
under cover and risking personal harm in order to create a first-hand account
of harms, corruption and abuse of the public trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment