The Fourth Estate

It is commonly known that the clergy, nobility, and commoners make up the first three estates originally noted by Louis XVI of France in the late 1700's; the press has been named as the fourth estate, a declaration attributed to Edmund Burke. In spite of the prominent position granted the press by Burke (he claimed that they were greater than the other three together), the role of the press is somewhat anomalous and incongruent in our overall system of checks and balances. The separation of powers in our form of government is designed to promote balance and oversight; each branch of government, as it were, "watches" the other branches to make sure they do not overstep their bounds. Seemingly outside this structure, the press has long prided itself on its ability to play the role of impartial observer and, in some cases, to be the advocate of those who have no voice. Ingredient in this role is the presumed ideal of Truth or Justice, depending on the story at hand; however, when the press abdicates this role and abandons these ideals, who watches them? Who keeps them in check when there is patent bias in their coverage? What recourse do the people have if the press, among themselves, decide on who is to lead a city, a state, a nation? To whom do the people turn if important concerns are left unaddressed or, worse, underaddressed, promoting the appearance that the story has been covered thoroughly and in its entirety? To what bar can the public appeal if commonsense positions are never given a voice and the proponents of those views are marginalized? If the fourth estate controls the media how can dissent against them ever be raised?

The Pulitzer Prize in journalism is ostensibly given to those journalists who are true to their calling; indeed, the past winners of this prestigous prize carry well that standard. However, of late, journalism has followed rather than led; the press (and I include tv and radio journalists as well as those of print in this) has abandoned its ideals, it doesn't think for itself, so against what standard does it compare that upon which it reports. It should be seeking out that which benefits all Americans when covering political figures; it should be the truly impartial savant its ideals tout. Isn't this the purpose of the editorial; isn't the editor supposed to be the conscience of the paper; I should think that rather than checking to see "which way the wind is blowing," the fourth estate should be "kicking up a little dust" of its own. I don't see "in your face" journalism with the once heralded "hard hitting facts"; I don't see thoughtful insightful editorials, putting forth good ideas; I don't see much research in the reporting, research, that is, that spans more than a few years. The western world is more than 2000 years old, this can't be the first time many of the problems facing us now have appeared; but if we don't learn from the past, as it is often said, we will repeat it. Shouldn't the fourth estate be contributing by holding up present situations to the light of the past? If they keep doing what they have done, how can they expect different results...or maybe they don't want different results...maybe they don't care about solving the problems...maybe all they want is to have problems to report on.

How can we, as a public, address this issue and help to solve this problem; the fourth estate is clearly walking a tightrope between having a job and helping the country; the model for news has been "if it bleeds it leads," meaning that the public wants that and so they can either keep their job by giving the public what it wants (shades of the Roman Empire) or step up to the plate and do some courageous reporting. This may be a good time for legitimate heirs to the fourth estate to call the assumption upon which the current model is based into question and leave the other to go the way of all flesh. I, for one, do not want dumbed down "news" that panders to the prurient interests of the hoi poloi. I want to be challenged in thought and deed; I want to be introduced to higher values, goals, and ideals; I want insightful analysis of current situations and I want to be shown how to connect the dots between cultures. Why is no one in the press critical of "political correctness"? The only political party that has a whole body of scholarly literature reaching back to the very founding fathers themselves never gets equal time or coverage...as they say these days, what's up with that? There are no questions raised about the fundamental assumptions grounding the two main political parties; it's a tug-of-war between the two main parties into which the press jumps now on this side, now on that...but never with the founding fathers. Did you know that there are serious questions about whether the 16th ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was ever legally ratified? Yet where is this story every April 15th? The fourth estate gets to decide which stories are "newsworthy" and which are "wacko," they then portray them in their respective "lights" so that the public never comes to question what it should question. This tactic is used by the intelligence services and is known as a strategy of dis-information; it is meant to garble the truth in such a way as to make it unbelievable. If you want something unbelievable, try this: the mixture of two poisons makes table salt. Nothing is more strange than the truth when it is compared to how we think things are.

Should it be the case that some member of the fourth estate happens upon these humble remarks, no doubt some hackles will be raised because everything that the fourth estate has done right would be conspicuously absent to that reader. If you are that reader, then now you know how we feel.

Thank God for blogs and youtube!