George Rebane
This year I took the advice of several friends and started blogging, first through our local paper’s website and then striking out on my own. In recent years bloggers have become prominent on the international landscape as a source of every kind of information that can be transmitted over the World Wide Web, and in doing so they have become a kind of complementary burden to the established press – our vaunted Fourth Estate. I don’t believe that any blogger really wanted to get into the news business. But responding to their readers, some of them wound up becoming another news source.
Contrary to the loud protestations from the established media, the continuing decline of the journalistic profession really helped put bloggers on the map. As an example of such decline, one need only go to the Society of Professional Journalists and compare their code of ethics against what is daily printed and broadcast. Within this experience, it was a slam dunk for bloggers to become a growing and threatening alternative for every kind of content that was formerly the reserve of the professional press.
My personal theory of why mainstream journalism has suffered a decline hangs on two factors – the quality of the talent and the number of outlets. In the liberal arts, especially the humanities, most people educated in the post-Great Society era (1965 onwards) have been dealt a meager hand in the game of life. The increase in the number of outlets (primarily TV and Internet) has nevertheless provided employment for more marginal talking heads or journalists, if you will. Today’s average reporter appears to be woefully ill-informed about history, current events relating to his assignment, and, of course, English grammar. How many times have you heard today’s educated say ‘That surprised her and I.’, ‘There is a lot more features.’, or something similar. But then all that doesn’t matter much because today’s audience is also less demanding. And so it goes in the information age.
Reducing all this down to our little “burg” – as a recent commenter so aptly cited our mountain county hideaway – a few Nevada County bloggers and I have been encouraged by the local editor to rise beyond ourselves. Specifically, he understands us all to be aspiring journalists seeking to duplicate the long-sought professionalism of our newspaper, The Union, and assessing us to fall woefully short in the effort. Tirelessly this exemplar, nay, self-declared paragon of “thick-skinned” journalism patrols our blogs and does his best to point out our errors and short-comings. These range from the egregious to the unforgivable – lexicographic behavior literally beyond the journalistic pale especially to the extent that it shades The Union – and all this in the name of holding us “accountable”. Evidence of his industry in pursuing this grail is sprinkled throughout our blogs. And though I hesitate to burden the reader with the task of seeing for himself; such undertaking would serve, if only anecdotally, to validate some of the points made above, especially relating to the ‘meager hand’.
So dear Reader, I am here to provide relief to those disappointed in what they perceive as my attempts at journalism and hereby declare unconditionally – I am not a journalist.
I consider the stated ethics of the SPJ to be self-serving statements of utter hypocrisy. How many of us have seen journalists cite their bona fides of being unbiased, balanced, or residing in any other state of disinfected equilibrium. How many of us have heard a single journalist offer a full disclosure as to his political leanings, moneyed support of causes or candidates, or receipt of benefices. Their claims to residing at such extra-human heights have been refuted in word and song to the point where now only humor serves when the next claim to balance, objectivity, and correctness is trotted out.
I believe journalists to be plain old humans like the rest of us with our inbred and acquired propensities to tilt this way or that – the protestations of our little tinpot editor definitely withstanding. I believe them to be equally swayed by fame, fortune, and fear. With the immortal membership dictum of Groucho Marx echoing in my ears, I say again, I am not a journalist. So what in tarnation am I?
I am simply a commentator who sees the world around him through a special set of eyeballs. And if I can describe what I see well enough, then my readers may be entertained, enlightened, or enraged. The main thing for me is my readership, it is only their insightful comments and return visits that make all this worthwhile for me and for any blogger whose written word is their labor of love.
Now, dear Reader, that you’ve suffered through this little piece of credo that may unintentionally slip into harangue, let me state some of my tilts – the ones I would want you to know so you can better follow the admonition of a local left-wing blogger who advises that my blog should be read “with caution”. I consider that excellent advice for I will certainly do my best to convince you that my views are reasonable and valid. And if you consider them otherwise, I and the other readers would welcome your more reasonable and valid counter. I will not attempt to manipulate you since, in a single breath, that would be a lie to both of us. Onward –
1. I am a naturalized citizen who legally emigrated from a post-war displaced persons camp in Germany. I was born in Estonia and with my family have witnessed at first hand the ravages of two distinct types of tyranny – national socialism and international socialism. The touted ‘blessings of collectivism’ to me is not a theoretical subject.
2. As is often the case with survivors/escapees from tyranny, naturalized U.S. citizens become super-patriots. I too am so afflicted.
3. My economic values derive from what is known as the Austrian School. I am an unabashed market capitalist. For details see Hazlitt’s ‘Economics in One Lesson’.
4. My socio-political make up is shaped by the Founders as seen through the lights of the Federalist Papers and later well summarized in ‘The Law’ by F. Bastiat.
5. I view and interpret the intricacies of ‘natural things’ around me through the lens shaped by my experience and education in my chosen field of systems science. (See ‘About’ for more)
6. The behavior of humans and society are for me further clarified by Skinnerian behaviorism where not explicitly refuted by cognitive science.
7. Politically I veer toward the right and find the greatest comfort in a form of libertarianism that shuns their orthodox isolationist views. The Republicans, who most often get my vote, are a poor match; the Democrats, who seldom get my vote, are no match at all. Jo Ann and I give money to CATO, The Heritage Foundation, and US English. We give money to many local charities and 501c3 organizations too long to list here. We also have contributed to the campaigns of Nate Beason and Sue Horne. We have no financial interests in Nevada County save our home.
8. I am a Christian. My ‘open theism’ and scientific cosmology must match, and I am constantly looking from my respondents for any errors in my belief system. I grieve for the current state of Christianity and its perception by the secular humanists. As a Bayesian, I take no tenet of my belief system to have probability one or zero.
9. Since (as a Bayesian) I am not perfect, I constantly test my belief system and seek the counsel and critique of people of other persuasions subject to reason. Consequently, many (most?) of my friends, correspondents, and intellectual combatants are people of good will, reason, and intellect who see the world through their own valuable lenses that are different from mine. I am blessed.
10. I see us all of equal worth only in the eyes of God. On earth we are all different along every dimension or attribute that you care to dig up. To each other our value varies immensely as witnessed by our walk and not our talk. To deny this reality denies our potential for the future.
11. I believe that humans are on an epochal threshold called The Singularity. To the extent that we recognize that and make appropriate social policy, we will maximize our likelihood of survival and the future potential of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. To the extent that we deny/ignore it, we will suffer.
12. In the last resort, I evaluate all propositions, initiatives, and conundra with the pragmatic and seminal utility – ‘Will this better help us all go to the stars?’
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment