Words losing their meaning

Over-reaction and the meaning of words seem to be a theme around here lately. Edward Wasserman provides us with another example of over-reaction and the twisting of words with his reaction to the Reagan TV movie controversy. Personally, I found the whole flap with CBS a bit over the top, given that most TV movies are neither historical nor serious but rather soap opera versions of reality. I don’t see how a bad TV movie could really damage Reagan’s legacy. Conservatives probably are a little over-zealous and over-sensitive about President Reagan.

But all that being said, Wasserman skips the bounds of reality with his reaction. Waserman isn’t just upset with CBS for caving to public pressure; he believes that this is an example of state censorship:

But it was way more serious than that. The instruments of suppression here — the Republican National Committee and a coven of political hacks and journalistic mouth-breathers allied with the party’s rightmost wing — are only a quarter-step removed from the White House and from the full might of the state.
They have clout not because they can gin up nasty e-mails. They were obeyed because of the withering regulatory scrutiny, antitrust hamstringing and legislative lunacy that the government could inflict on Viacom. Does anybody think that CBS would have caved if the GOP didn’t control two of three branches of government?
If this were Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, we wouldn’t quibble that the disapproval came not from the Interior Ministry but from the Ba’ath Party. We’d recognize it for what it was: official censorship.

Hold this rather outrageous claim aside for a moment and let Wasserman complete his accusation. You see, Wassermn adds another level of conspiracy theory to the mix. He argues that all these big media companies are acting out of fear of the “Ruling Party” in Washington:

Viacom — with its 39 TV stations, vast Infinity radio network, UPN, Paramount, MTV, Comedy Central, Showtime, program syndicators, Blockbuster, Simon & Schuster — is immensely susceptible to governmental displeasure, like any corporation with far-flung interests.
By helping private media control congeal, Bush’s ”free-market” ideologues are fostering emergence of a national communications regime more sensitive than ever to state wishes, run entirely by Viacoms.

There are a number of problems with Wasserman?s grand theory, let me note a few:
- First of all, it stretches the meaning of censorship to the breaking point if we include private action to dilute something?s impact. There is absolutely no reason to believe that CBS is being prevented from showing the movie and in fact they intend to show it on another network, albeit a cable one. Censorship should be reserved for the prohibiting of content from being published or aired. Protests and boycotts are not censorship.
- Second, it is a real stretch to assume that because the people protesting the movie were intellectually and politically affiliated with the current president that the power of the State was behind them. Conservatives would love to believe that the President acts on their wishes but reality suggests otherwise. Wassermn in fact offers no factual connection between the pressure applied to CBS and the administration, bald assertion is all we get. Also, it is a stretch to believe that Bush controls the regulatory regime enough to use it against the media. The FCC is clearly in a state of turmoil and Chairman Powell is not necessarily in a position of unfettered power. One can argue about the wisdom of the new media rules but it is hard to see how they seek a ?national communications regime? orchestrated out of the White House and with the FCC as the enforcer.
- What is so interesting about this conspiracy theory is that it continues a persistent myth: the multi-national corporation as the hand-maiden of conservatives. This is simply false. Outside of tax policy, and even within that arcane field, multi-national corporations are far more comfortable with a politically correct liberalism than they are with any form of conservatism. The content of the vast majority of media outlets is liberal and anti-conservative values. Waserman’s theory fails to explain why so much of the media bashes Bush on a regular basis and why the values and content these conglomerates produce is so liberal. Ted Turner a tool of the Bush administration? Is Viacom – with MTV, Comedy Central, and Showtime – really sensitive to state pressure to the degree that it changes its programming to avoid conflict with the Bush Administration? This doesn?t pass the laugh test.

In the end Wasserman?s conspiracy theory is a typical one. It takes a single issue and tries to use it to explain a complicated series of unrelated events. The simply explanation is less conspiratorial but likely true. Conservatives are tired of being beaten up in the media and seeing a beloved figure as the butt of jokes and lies. So when it becomes known that another hit job is on its way, they react in outrage. Unfortunately, conservative defensiveness about Reagan and his legacy and annoyance with the cultural liberalism of the media just doesn?t have the sizzle of a giant conspiracy to run the media. Used to be that journalist sought to debunk conspiracy theories and give us the plain truth, now they spin their own.