The phrase “You don’t hate the media enough” has become a resounding call to action among conservatives, echoing through various corners of the internet. It speaks to a deeper frustration with a press corps perceived as biased, deceptive, and agenda-driven. This sentiment often rises to the surface when the media seemingly distorts the truth about former President Donald Trump, vilifies innocent individuals, or omits crucial facts that might undermine their preferred narrative.
This pervasive discontent begs the question: what if conservatives adopted a different strategy in dealing with the mainstream media? Calling them the “media” or the “propaganda press” may not fully capture the malevolent nature many believe they embody. A more fitting term, one that evokes the true essence of their perceived dishonesty and manipulation, might be required.
For years, some have suggested labeling the media as the “American Stasi,” after the notorious East German secret police that sowed fear and mistrust among citizens through surveillance and censorship. The Stasi’s influence was so insidious that its network of informants included journalists, artists, and writers—individuals who shape society’s narratives and culture.
This analogy is particularly poignant when considering modern journalism in the American context. Naming the media as the American Stasi could strip away any remaining confusion and provide a clearer understanding of their actions. Just as a precise medical diagnosis or the correct identification of a demon brings clarity, so too does calling the media by a name that encapsulates their perceived role in society.
Becket Adams, writing for National Review, provides a compelling example. Adams describes the media’s lackluster response to assassination attempts on Trump, contrasting what should be epochal events with the mundane treatment given by many journalists. He highlights a disturbing trend wherein significant moments in American history are trivialized, losing their weight and context in a blur of partisan reporting.
Adams points to Peter Baker of The New York Times as an example, illustrating how the narrative of Trump inciting political violence overshadowed the gravity of the assassination attempts. This skewed portrayal, Adams argues, reflects a broader degradation in journalistic integrity and historical perspective.
This frustration is further amplified when considering past instances where the media have unjustly targeted individuals. The cases of Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and falsely accused Richard Jewell are etched in public memory, painted by the same broad strokes of media mischaracterization and destruction.
However, it is essential to differentiate between ethical journalists and those who engage in such harmful conduct. Honorable journalists like Quin Hillyer and Matt Taibbi, despite not being Trump supporters, strive to report truthfully without maligning others through lies and deceit.
Drawing from historical precedence, such as the postwar Eastern European regimes’ reliance on writers and artists to promote Soviet values, the comparison to the Stasi may not be far-fetched. In a consuming new book, “A State of Secrecy: Stasi Informers and the Culture of Surveillance,” Alison Lewis reveals how writers were co-opted into the surveillance state, shaping narratives that benefited the regime. This historical parallel underscores the potential dangers of a co-opted media.
In theology and popular culture, naming an evil force has always been portrayed as a means to control or dispel it. From the exorcisms in “The Exorcist” to the confrontations in “The Conjuring,” identifying the adversary by its true name is a recurring theme that offers power and clarity. Ursula K. Le Guin’s novel “A Wizard of Earthsea” further explores this notion, where knowing a dragon’s true name allows the protagonist to exert control over it, symbolizing the power of understanding and naming.
Thus, moving beyond the terms “liberal media” or “propaganda press” to something as evocative as the “American Stasi” might sharpen the public’s perception of the media’s supposed transgressions. This new label could crystallize the conservative critique, making it more resonant with those who feel disillusioned by mainstream journalism’s current state.
As the conversation about media accountability intensifies, adopting this new terminology might not only provide clarity but also galvanize those who seek to uphold the values of truth, integrity, and liberty. By naming what they see as evil, conservatives could better confront and challenge the forces they believe are acting against American interests.
Liberty requires eternal vigilance. That's why we work hard to deliver news about issues that threaten your liberty.
