Ruth Marcus reveals another journalistic value

[phantom power]

Greenwald is right, if the Fourth Estate has become populated by such a bunch of boot-licking authority-worshippers, it does explain a lot. x(

Yesterday, The New York Times‘ Roger Cohen displayed a core value of American political journalism — love of government secrecy — as he applauded President Obama for conducting what he described as numerous covert, lawless wars without a shred of transparency, democratic debate or accountability. Today, The Washington Post‘s Ruth Marcus reveals another (related) leading journalistic value — extreme deference to those in political power — with a column denouncing Emma Sullivan, the 18-year-old high school student in Kansas who committed the crime of saying something disrespectful about the Hon. Sam Brownback, her state’s Governor.

...

Needless to say, Marcus finds Sullivan’s conduct to be terribly upsetting and wrong. First, the journalist questions whether Sullivan, as a student, even has a Constitutional right to write what she did (“Sullivan has a First Amendment right to express her views — although not unlimited”); it’s always inspiring when journalists become the lead advocates for legal limits on political speech. But then Marcus gets to her real point: it is wrong to speak so ill of our nation’s honorable leaders:

...The Constitution does not grant teenagers the fundamental right to have a cellphone or use foul language on it. The parental role is to inculcate values of respect for authority — even those you disagree with — and the importance of civil discourse. It’s not to stand up for your little darling no matter how much she mouths off.

Behold the mind of the American journalist: Marcus — last seen in this space three years ago demanding that Bush officials be fully shielded from all accountability for their crimes (the ultimate expression of “respect for authority”) — wants everyone to learn and be guided by extreme deference to political officials and to humbly apologize when they offend those officials with harsh criticism. In other words, Marcus wants all young citizens to be trained to be employees of The Washington Post. In a just world, Marcus’ column would be written instead by Sullivan’s mother, who exudes what the journalistic ethos should be — “I raised my kids to be independent, to be strong, to be free thinkers. If she wants to tweet her opinion about Governor Brownback, I say for her to go for it” — but people who think that way only rarely receive establishment media platforms. Instead, we’re plagued with the Ruth Marcuses of the world — “inculcate values of respect for authority”!!! — and that explains a lot.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/30/ruth_marcus_reveals_another_journalistic_value/singleton

[libinnyandia]

1. I have never been particularly fond of her columns. She, not as

bad as George Will, Cal Thomas, Bill O'Reilly etc, bu still waste of newsprint.

[rusty fender]

2. Wow! Ruth Marcus never questioned authority?

What kind of "journalist" never questions authority?:wow:

[phantom power]

3. A journalist who doesn't question authority == propagandist

:(