14 January 2011

In defense of 'journalistic savagery'

Cal Thomas covers a lot of ground in his latest column. Having already dismissed the notion that any exterior stimulus could have influenced the Tucson amoklaufer, he proceeds to a history lesson that he hopes will discourage any attempt to censor or regulate political discourse. After scorning the "Left" as hypocrites for desiring to censor inflammatory speech but not TV sexuality, gangster rap or flag burning, Thomas takes us back to the late 18th century and the beginnings of American journalism. "Compared to 18th-century journalism in America, today's media are tame," he claims. His guide is historian Eric Burns, who described some Early Republic reporting as "journalistic savagery." Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans freely slandered each other, Thomas notes, making no distinction between straight news and partisan opinion and brazenly lying about each other. Despite such beginnings, "Journalism survived, even displaying responsibility on occasion." The moral, Thomas informs us, is that "The public can sort out the good from the bad and ugly. They don't need politicians doing it for them."

Like many Republican sympathizers, Thomas has wandered away from the immediate subject of the inflammatory potential of political rhetoric to make his preferred stand against the usual "left" conspiracy to suppress the "right." Once we remind ourselves of the original context, however, the example of the 18th century proves less reassuring than Thomas thinks it is. If we're concerned with possible links between political rhetoric and violence, the Early Republic showed the most obvious connections. It was the era of dueling, climaxing with the murder by the Vice President of the United States of a former Treasury Secretary who was also one of the most important Framers of the Constitution. If the era is different from our own, it's because it was less likely then that rhetoric would inspire an assassin, but more likely that it would get the actual author shot. But Thomas's implicit claim is that the hair-trigger discourse of 200 years ago, though less "tame" than today's rhetoric, was still acceptable by proper American free-speech standards. Somehow, dueling and other forms of reprisal typical of the period don't figure in Thomas's history. Should we assume that those were acceptable to him, so long as "journalism survived" without government interference? Should we infer that he'd accept such practices today as an alternative to censorship? I suppose it depends on whom he assumes would get shot first.

3 comments:

Crhymethinc said...

Most, if not all, right-wingers seem to think of themselves as John Wayne - always getting the first shot off, always hitting the target and always winning against the bad guys. So I'm sure Mr. Thomas - if he acknowledges the truth about early journalism - imagines that right-wing journalists will always win their duel. It's called "overconfidence" and it has lead to the falling of men far greater than Mr. Thomas may aspire imagine himself to be.

I, for one, would support the idea of legalized dueling. I'd love to see someone get Rush or Beck or Palin onto the field of honor and dispatch them with extreme prejudice.

Samuel Wilson said...

One problem with your scenario: it would require an actual liberal politician to have enough sense of honor and sensitivity to offense, not to mention courage, to challenge a slanderer.

Crhymethinc said...

I'm not talking about politicians. I mean open dueling for the American people in general. To challenge someone you go to court, you give your reason for the challenge, all the details - when, where, etc. The person challenges either accepts or refuses - publicly, in court. That way it's all legal and whatever happens, happens. At least (hopefully) innocents are kept out of harm's way.

I notice you seem to single out liberal politicians as lacking honor and courage. I know in many of our discussion, we agree that politicians on the left seem to lack a certain amount of spine. But do you think, if faced with a very real possibility of death or public disgrace many politicians on the right would show any more honor or courage? I think most politicians, in general, are cowards. That's why they are so willing to "lead from behind".