Tag Archives: I.F. Stone

We Have All Been Here Before

9 Replies

This unprepossessing gentleman is I.F. Stone, crusading journalist and truth-teller. I’ve been reading The Haunted Fifties, a collection of his writings that includes a four-page piece he wrote in December 1953 — more than seven decades ago — that stopped me in my tracks. It could literally have been written yesterday. Which tells me some very disturbing things about my own country’s history and the throughlines that lead directly to Trump’s racist authoritarianism.

The piece is called “Bleak Landscape of the Resistance,” and recounts a meeting in Chicago organized by the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born, which definitely sounds like a group that could have been formed last week in Minneapolis. (The article can be downloaded from the I.F. Stone’s Weekly Archive, or you could buy a copy of The Haunted Fifties through an online used bookseller.)

I don’t think we realize how bad things were in the 1950s. It went far beyond Joe McCarthy. The executive branch — yes, under the “moderate” stewardship of President Eisenhower — was just as committed as McCarthy to rooting out “subversive” elements, which meant any one who had ever displayed the slightest shade of pinko.

Reading Stone’s piece made me realize that McCarthy is the convenient fall guy for a much broader and more intense anti-immigrant regime that was just as destructive as anything Trump has managed to do. To label this period “The McCarthy Era” is to absolve many others of their complicity in a campaign of oppression that led to the deportations of many — including American citizens who happened to be born elsewhere.

Calling it “The McCarthy Era” also isolates this period as an outlier in our history when the truth is quite the opposite: Trump may be cruder than Ike or John Foster Dulles or J. Edgar Hoover or A. Mitchell Palmer, but his official actions are very much in line with similar episodes that litter the dark side of American history.

Continue reading →

Journalism’s obsession with objectivity

5 Replies

Objectivity is the key to good journalism. So they say. So almost everybody says.

I’m not here to deny the importance of objectivity. It’s one of the sharpest tools available for exploring the truth. But it’s not the only tool, and modern journalism is sorely limited by its strict adherence to objectivity.

I’ve been pondering objectivity for some time, and feeling a sense of disquietude about its dominance in the field of journalism. That sense came into sharp focus after I discovered “The View From Somewhere,” a podcast (and book) by Lewis Raven Wallace, a trans journalist who was fired in 2017 by public radio’s Marketplace over a post on their personal blog entitled “Objectivity Is Dead, and I’m Okay With It.” I highly recommend the podcast for those who care about journalism. Haven’t read the book yet.

Some of the facts and concepts in this post are borrowed, in whole or in part, from Wallace’s work. It’s my own interpretation, of course.

Let’s start with some history. The concept of journalistic objectivity is relatively new — almost exactly a hundred years old, in fact. It emerged, coincidentally or not, at a time when newspapers had become very profitable enterprises bought and sold by rich men and corporations. Objectivity was used by those owners as a cudgel against employees’ efforts to unionize. Reporters were often fired for a supposed lack of objectivity — solely because they were trying to organize their workplaces.

From that twisted acorn did our mighty oak of objectivity spring. That’s not the whole story, but it should be remembered that objectivity has been used, not just as a guideline, but also as a weapon.

Continue reading →

On journalism and blogging

18 Replies

If you’re not following me on Twitter, you missed a downright Pharisaical disputation about journalism and blogging and bias, and what exactly it is that I do.

My end of the argument has been severely restricted by Twitter’s character limit, so I thought I’d address the question in greater length here.

The critics are, quelle surprise, Phil Scott fans. In fact, the most persistent was Hayden Dublois, a nice young man who’s a paid staffer on the Scott campaign.

His complaint, echoed by others, is that I’ve been unfair to Scott because I’ve frequently criticized him while never scrutinizing Sue Minter.

Which is, as a matter of fact, not true. I was sharply critical of her campaign in its first several months; I thought she was getting left in the dust by Matt Dunne. I’ve criticized her for too often following Dunne’s lead and for failing to articulate differences between herself and the Shumlin administration. I criticized her performance in the post-primary debate for missing opportunities to confront Scott and for appearing overly programmed.

It is accurate, however, to say that I’ve been far more critical of Phil Scott. So, why is that?

Continue reading →