APRIL
23, 2006 --
Daniel
Henninger is the deputy editor of the editorial page of The Wall Street
Journal.
He also writes a column for the paper and can be seen from time to time on
one TV talk show or another.
His April 21 column seems to be concerned that the Internet, in some measure,
has become the vehicle of expression "… of, um, crazy people."
Mr. Henninger apparently is concerned that the Internet, somehow, will promote "disinhibition,
the breaking down of personal restraints and the endless elevation of oneself."
Mr. Henninger directs his concern to webloggers, and wonders if people " are
being made unwitting participants in the personal and political life" of
loonies.
Wouldn't the click of a mouse end
"unwitting" participation? (Unless, of course, webloggers have succeeded
in sending out subliminal messages to those
among us who might have an aristocratic mindset.)
Mr. Henninger -- for invidious purpose? --began his column with the case of
blogger Kevin Ray Underwood, said to have kidnaped and killed "a 10 year-old
neighbor last week."
Mr. Henninger also takes note of the "robust" language (quoting from
Justice Brennan's opinion in N.Y. Times v. Sullivan) on left-leaning websites.
And he seems concerned that the Internet has enabled a throng of web weirdos
to share their thoughts with the world.
This writer acknowledges having shared his experience with anxiety and depression
by means of LPR -- but the
aim was to inform others similarly situated that they are not alone.
Does Mr. Henninger prefer that we keep ourselves isolated?
Would Mr. Henninger regard as "weird" my wondering, on LPR, why our
representatives don't use as Federalist 57 as guide, advising them to stay
close to the people -- why there is no political outcry against 29.99% interest
rates, why the GOP continues to be so ineffective, politically?
(I doubt the Republicans will respond, effectively, to high-gas-price politics
from the Democrats -- pointing out that Democrats have blocked development
of Alaska oil fields, among other policies that have not helped lower the price
at the pump.)
Several years ago, as I recall, The Wall Street Journal wrote disparagingly
about Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life." In this truly populist
movie, the bad guy is the banker, Henry F. Potter.
It is not clear just what irks people at WSJ about the Capra film, unless,
possibly, it is the aristocratic mindset evident in Mr. Henninger's comment
that the course language on leftist weblogs "used to be confined to construction
sites and corner bars."
Never in boites, brasseries or ballrooms?
(A New Yorker cartoon of the 1930's once suggested that political criticism
from the wealthy was limited to hisses in movie theaters during newsreels.)
I have no brief for the obscene attacks on Republicans I have seen from the
left but I doubt I have much in common with Mr. Henninger.
|
Perhaps
he and the left have more in common with each other -- each,
in their own way, apparently believing in rule by government
under their control than in the representative government established
by the Founding Fathers (that is to say, populism).
In the Capra movie, at a meeting of the Bailey Building and Loan, held after
the death of Peter Bailey, founder of the
bank, his elder son George tells the board of directors that Bedford Falls needs
the Building and Loan, if only so people don't have to crawl to Potter.
For seven years, I tried to draw the attention of the mainstream media, including
The Wall Street Journal, to the manipulation of property taxes by the New York
City political establishment to force
the three Dayton-Seaside apartment buildings, in Queens, into bankruptcy for
the purpose of getting different owners.
Not one mainstream outlet investigated the matter. The truth was not difficult
to learn; an aide to John Faso, now running for governor of New York but then
minority leader in the state assembly, made it clear to me in November 1999 that
the buildings would be forced
into bankruptcy.
They were, and new owners came in two years later. With the web, people kicked
around by politicians and insiders don't have to crawl to the Big Media to try
to get some sunlight on their predicament. In my circumstance, WNBC-TV News effectively
served City Hall with two pieces amounting to disinformation.
Only The Wave, a Rockaway weekly, reported the story fairly. The Riverdale Press
and The Wave ran sympathetic editorials and published my letters.
(I am reminded that Philip Geyelin, editorial page editor of The Washington Post,
speaking at a conference organized in 1973 by "More," a journalism
review,
noted that the volume of letters to the editor increased as more space was given
for them.
And then he wondered, just who is it who writes letters? - the tone of his voice
suggesting to me that he thought many such writers were not quite sound of mind.)
Could it be that people at the powerful media are concerned those of us who exercise
our right of free speech -- but are not paid for our efforts -- are also capable
of insight and intelligence -- and, thereby,
somehow pose a threat to the well-paid press?
In an early scene in "It's a Wonderful Life" Peter Bailey tells George,
who dismissed the building and loan as a nickel and dime operation, "You
know, George, I feel that in a small way we are doing something important. Satisfying
a fundamental urge
[helping people get their own homes]."
(Source: "The It's a Wonderful Life Book," by Jeanine Basinger, p.
143.)
I feel that in a small way we are doing something important on the Internet.
Satisfying the fundamental urge of a free people -- for liberty and justice.
If the deputy editor of the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is concerned,
truly, about the" the breaking down of personal restraints," he might
want to take note of the opening sentence in Federalist 57 that remarks on those
seeking the"ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the
few."
Or does Mr. Henninger see no aggrandizers among us, no one whose addiction to
money reflects...economic disinhibition?
|
|
