Monday, November 22, 2004 Page: 3A
America has embraced a growing trend of defining without detail, of
vilifying without explanation. And I suspect I’m the next target because I
work in the “Mainstream Media.”
I’m talking about the habit of twisting harmless terms into negative
labels. “Mainstream Media” is relatively new. The classic example is
“liberal.”
The word is bandied like a bayonet, used to gore anyone who opposes a
certain view, person or party. Debate details rarely matter. You simply say an
opponent is “a liberal” and the insult is automatic.
There’s irony here. I mean, this country was founded by people who, at the
time, were pretty liberal. You know, revolting against a longstanding
monarchy, establishing a democracy.
The Civil War involved another liberal action: ending slavery.
In fact, pretty much all our wars have been about protecting and spreading
liberty. We liberated Iraq from an oppressive dictator. Sounds liberal to me.
In my dictionary, “liberal” is defined as “belonging to the people,”
“giving freely,” “ample,” “not strict,” “tolerant,” and “favoring
reform or progress.”
Gosh, how can we ever allow stuff like that here in the land of the free?
Intellectually lazy love labels
I’m not defending people, I’m defending a word. That’s the point. To
criticize or defend a person you have to take time to review what the person
did and why you think those actions are bad or good. You need context.
Yet we increasingly avoid such hard work. Better to define a label as bad
and slap it on. No muss, no bother.
“Liberal” may be the most common example, but there are others.
“Tax-and-spend” is a meaningless redundancy. What else do you do when you
tax? It’s how much you tax and what you spend it on that matters.
“Activist judge” is more recent. As near as I can tell, an activist judge
is one who makes a ruling you don’t like, or overturns one you did like.
I’m citing examples used by “conservatives,” but only because I can’t
think of those used by “liberals.” If you know of some, please pass them on.
And now comes “Mainstream Media,” often glibly shortened to MSM. It is
relatively meaningless. To my knowledge, no one has agreed upon which
“media” are mainstream and which aren’t. There’s no “mainstream” license,
no association to join, no criteria to meet.
Yet MSM is bad. MSM wanted George Bush out. MSM supports the “liberal”
agenda. MSM weakens “family values.” Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are not
MSM, but Dan Rather and Ted Koppel are, even though all four reach millions of
people through enormous national media outlets.
I work for a paper that uses Associated Press stories and is owned by one
of the largest newspaper chains in the country. I expect I am considered MSM,
even though I’m given plenty of leeway in what I write. I can and do disagree
with co-workers, and my workplace is the same as any other: a collection of
distinct people with complex experiences and opinions.
But there I go again, seeing individuals instead of labels.
How un-American of me.
Call Guydish at 829-7161 or e-mail [email protected].