The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy


The Mediacracy (Updated)

Filed under: EthicsBELIEFS & PERSPECTIVESThe Media — eidelberg @ 5:31 am
If the success of democracy depends on a well-informed public, then democracy today is an abysmal failure, thanks largely to the “mediacracy.”

The mediacracy consists of those who dominate the media, namely, Libertarians, Internationalists, Egalitarians, and (moral) Relativists. I shall refer to them by the acronym, LIERs.

A favorite pastime of the LIERs is Israel-bashing. Media bias against Israel assumes obscene proportions whenever Israel retaliates against Arab terrorists—be it Fatah in Jenin, Hamas in Gaza, or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Some commentators attribute the media’s anti-Israel bias to reporters threatened or bribed by Arab terrorists. Probably true in some cases, but Arab threats and bribes do not account for all the venom LIERs spew against Israel.

Others commentators attribute the mediacracy’s bias to anti-Semitism. There is truth in this contention, but it is superficially understood. I’ll come back to it later.

Still others ascribe the anti-Israel bias to the LIERs underdog mentality. Israel is perceived and portrayed as the Goliath in its conflict with those poor, little people, the “Palestinians,” who are compelled to use their own children as human bombs in this uneven conflict.

Add to this bias of the mediacracy its fatuity about civilian casualties. Excuse my naiveté, but why is the life of a civilian worth more than the life of a soldier? What is a soldier—especially in Israel—but a civilian in uniform? Does he not have loved ones, parents, perhaps children—a family that would be shattered by his loss?

On the other hand, is it right to call Arab terrorists that wantonly murder Jewish children “soldiers”? Is it right to call Arab terrorists soldiers when they use women as human shields? I ask these questions because I think it’s wrong to apply the Geneva Convention to Arab terrorists. When we think seriously about these terrorists, when we behold their cruelty, their inhumanity, their contempt for human life—it’s not only absurd to endow these savages with the rights of the Geneva convention; it makes that convention a mockery of human dignity. Why can’t the LIERs see this?

Another blind spot of these LIERs: Can Arab terrorists fight without the aid of civilians? Who provides their food, their clothing, their supplies, if not civilians? And is it not the case that Arab civilians provide safe havens for Arab terrorists? Are these civilians “innocent”? Are they not complicit in acts of murder? Why can’t the mediacrats see this?

Now ponder the demeaning statement that Israel has a right to defend itself. Whoever questioned a nation’s right to defend itself? Whoever questioned the right—nay, the duty—of a government to protect its own people? Yet the media’s savage attacks on Israel when it retaliates against Arab terrorists suggest that Israel does not have a right to defend itself! How are we to account for such perversity?

Back in the 1920s, Julian Benda, a most insightful Frenchman, warned of the pacifist mentality that was emasculating France, a mentality that would lead to the Second World War. In The Treason of the Intellectuals, Benda anticipated what I call the LIERs—the Libertarians, Internationalists, Egalitarians, and Relativists that dominate the media. He noted that for these people, justice becomes suspect when backed by force. To be sure, might does not make right. But to denigrate right when it is invested with might is to aid and abet the wicked. This is the crime the mediacracy is perpetrating in its slanderous attacks against Israel. What is really animating these LIERs?

Because of its Libertarianism, the mediacracy opposes all restraints on freedom of expression. As a case in point, On September 7, 2004, The New York Times published an article “Can History Save the Democrats,” virtually calling for the assassination of President Bush, by referring to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and President McKinley!

In a musical called Assassins, a character runs a carnival game inviting players to “Shoot the President, Win a Prize.” Assassination chic is covered by the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of expression. Perhaps liberals will soon say terrorism is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment? After all, The New York Times editorialized that the (Reagan) government’s attempt to close down the PLO’s New York office violates that amendment.

The inherent bias of the mediacracy against any restraint on freedom of expression makes it hostile to government authority, indeed, to authority per se. This is one reason why the mediacracy sides with Arab rioters in Israel—and with a vengeance. Why with a vengeance? Here we return to anti-Semitism.

Israel, perceived as a Jewish state, symbolizes nationalism. This offends the Internationalism of the mediacracy. The mediacracy also scorns the Jewish notion of the “Chosen People.” This, together with the ethical principles of the Ten Commandments, offends the Egalitarianism and moral Relativism of the LIERs.

Israel as a would-be Jewish nation therefore represents the absolute antithesis of what the LIERs represent. This is why it has been savaged by the mediacracy.