Mark R. Levin, Unfreedom of the Press (New York, et al.; Threshold Editions, 2019)
Mark Levin is a well-known lawyer turned radio and Fox News host. In this book his subject is what he perceives to be a liberal news media which has abandoned both the values of the Founding Fathers and the values of good journalism. In particular, he argues that a single ideology dominates the news and that that ideology has distorted news coverage, that this distortion has led to a distrust of the press and that this distrust has led to an erosion in confidence in public institutions.
To be honest, I think this is what he is arguing. Had the first chapter of this book been handed to me by one of my students, I would have had it re-written. There is, for example, no attempt at defining terms. While he frequently uses such terms as “progressive,” “objective” and “ideology,” he doesn't provide any definitions. As a result, he can take a quote from John Dewey and have that serve as evidence of contemporary progressive beliefs. As egregious is his use of this quotation, in which Dewey is discussing his theory of education, as evidence of his opinion on journalism. Levin uses a quotation from Walter Lippmann in a similar manner. He uses a quote about the need for expertise in government as evidence of Lippman’s advice to journalists. He also quotes at length an interview with Lara Logan in which she criticizes the major liberal media outlets. While he identifies her as a former CBS correspondent, he neglected to mention that she left CBS after violating their professional standards.
For thirty or so years, I was a history professor. One of the courses I taught was “Historical Methods,” an introduction to doing historical research. Among the issues we discussed was the problem of “objectivity:” to what extent should the “truth” of history reflect that of the sciences. The object of history, using the phrase of the German historian Leopold von Ranke, was to present the past “as it actually was (“Wie es eigentlich gewesen.”) For decades, academic historians have pursued this goal with limited success. As Peter Nozick argues in his book, That Noble Dream: The Objectivity Question and the American Historical Profession, there is little consensus today within the profession about the “objectivity” of history. Similar questions have been raised among journalists.
By covering a story, a journalist is implicitly saying, “This story is worthy of being covered.” The question, then, is “Why is it worthy of covering?” There are many possible answers to this question. It could be because it affects a significant number of people. It could be that it shows a great injustice. Or maybe that people will be willing to buy more copies of the newspaper if this story is included. The fact that every news story begins with a choice suggests that the there are limits to the “objectivity” of the story.
Levin is critical of the mainstream press because its ideology does not allow it to report on Trump objectively. But he seems to be unaware that he, too, has an ideology. In That Noble Dream, Nozick identifies four periods in the discussion about objectivity within the historical profession. It would seem that Levin comes out of the third period, the one following WWII. The Cold War brought about a shared outlook: the United States were the good guys and the Soviet Union were the bad guys. Christianity, Western Civilization, family and individualism were good; atheism, Communism, and collectivism were bad.
Within the historical profession, this consensus was challenged by the Civil Rights and Women's movement and the end of the Cold War. Historians worked to include these new voices into the narrative of US history. In most institutions, the traditional Western Civ survey course was replaced by a survey of World History. This was not a matter of ideology, it was a recognition that the story we had been telling was from a limited point of view. A more inclusive story needed to be told.
I believe a similar change has occurred in journalism. Think about the number of stories from diners in the Midwest after Trump’s win. Journalists came to realize that they had not paid enough attention to Middle America and so they went to the “Heartland” to correct the problem. One can certainly argue they overcorrected, but it was clearly led by a desire to good journalism rather than sudden conversion to Trumpism. Once you realize you have only reported on part of the story, you work to tell the other parts. Levin seems to regard this desire to tell a more complete story as “the progressive agenda.”
I think that part of the dissatisfaction that many feel with the contemporary news media is that they do not recognize this important change in both history and journalism. If you went to elementary school in the 50s or 60s, you were taught a version of American history which corresponded to the Cold War version of US history. But those same people are not aware of the changes in history or journalism. Rather than appreciate the wider narrative, it is much easier to simply ascribe it to “progressivism,” rather than to acknowledge the limited version of history they were taught as kids.
In discussing the “unfreedom of the press,” Levin never discusses his own role as a journalist. He never discusses his own point of view. It would seem like this would be a good opportunity to reflect on his own journalistic role. Apparently, he regards his beliefs as “objective.” While Fox news is mentioned, there is no attempt to analyze its approach to journalism. In fact, neither Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes is mentioned. But he does go to great lengths to defend Trump's attacks on the press. He argues that Trump never used the power of the government to censor the press. Apparently, so long as you don’t bring in the power of the state, threatening violence is okay. Clearly this is the best way to get “objective” reporting.
Comments are closed on this story.