Media

As will be shown, many of the movers and shakers in the dominant liberal media---e.g., television show producers, journalists, and editors---take a dim view of the general public. They feel they are superior to it.

Considering that the vast majority of these particular movers and shakers are liberals (George Will once wrote that "about 90 percent of...reporters, editors and producers [working for this country's newspapers and television stations] are Democrats"^l), and considering how loudly liberals tend to crow about equality, it is somewhat surprising and hypocritical that so many influential liberals view themselves as superior, as unequal, to the "common" man or woman. (Reminds one of George Orwell's "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.")

To support the position that many movers and shakers in the dominant media take a dim view of the general public, let's start with a citation from Chicago Tribune TV critic Steve Johnson: "Those running ABC and NBC have been quoted as saying that viewers are stupid, although not in those words."²

Let's follow that with words from actor Tim Robbins: "There's a dangerous elitism in this country that ironically translates into low-brow entertainment. The powers that be think the American public won't tolerate an intelligent movie."³

TV critic Phil Kloer reported that "a lot of the people who write and produce television shows look down on the people who watch their shows"⁴; plus Kloer quoted a professor of media studies at Johns Hopkins University, one Mark Crispin, in agreement: "I think they certainly do have contempt for their audience."⁵

According to James Warren of the Chicago Tribune: "A contempt for ordinary citizens has also been reflective in American journalism....[Walter] Lippmann, one of the most influential journalists of his time, clearly took issue with the long-held American notion that the common man was perfectly capable of handling a range of responsibilities. Such a view...became intrinsic to much liberal thought, namely that institutions, more than individuals, are key to democracy."⁶

The liberal love of a big, nanny-state government begins to come into focus. According to many elitist liberals, we as individuals are evidently too stupid to take care of ourselves, so we need big government institutions and programs to help us.

While this view is not exactly news to many of you who listen to conservative talk radio shows or read conservative publications, it helps to have some documentation to support your position.

Perhaps these quotes can be used to help lift the veil that obscures the vision many rank and file Democrats have of their liberal leaders, especially rank and file Democrats from so-called "minority" groups like Hispanics or African-Americans. Democratic Party leaders seem to view these groups as so incapable of fending for themselves that they need a cornucopia of government programs to help them. These groups shouldn't buy into an inferiority complex any more than elitist liberals should buy into a superiority complex.

(And how can the elitist liberals deem themselves superior when so many of their positions and ideas are patently absurd? Talk about a paradox. Maybe their superiority complex is really just masking feelings of inferiority, feelings of intellectual insecurity and emptiness.)

Endnotes

1. George Will, "Free-market flavor for elections," Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 15, 1997, p. 19.

2. Steve Johnson, "Simple Truths," Chicago Tribune, Oct. 24, 2002, section 5, p. 12.

3. Frank Sanello, "Playing it straight," Chicago Tribune, Oct. 28, 1990, sec. 13, p. 6.

4. Phil Kloer, "Picture this: junk-tube junkies and zombies---that's how TV shows us watching TV," Chicago Tribune, Aug. 15, 1991, sec. 5, p. 13D.

5. Ibid.

6. James Warren, "In defense of intelligence of the average American," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 12, 1999, sec. 5, p. 8.