abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by Richard McBane

Eighteenth century British statesman Edmund Burke may have been the first to recognize and equate the press to a branch of government when he called the Reporters' Gallery in Parliament a Fourth Estate.¹ The growth and power of the press in its quasi-governmental role were more clearly recognized in the nineteenth century by John C. Calhoun at a time when American newspapers were clearly and proudly partisan. Wrote Calhoun, "...the press, instead of being the organ of the whole, is usually the organ of these various and diversified interests respectively; or, rather of the parties growing out of them. It is used by them as the means of controlling public opinion, and of so moulding it, as to promote their peculiar interests, and to aid in carrying on the warfare of party."²

Calhoun also clearly foresaw a continuing increase in the future power of the press to affect the course of public affairs, writing, "To all these causes, public opinion, and its organ, the press, owe their origin and great influence. Already they have attained a force in the more civilized portions of the globe sufficient to be felt by all governments, even the most absolute and despotic. But, as great as they now are, they have as yet attained nothing like their maximum force."³

The moral consequences of the influence of the press in shaping both public opinion and governmental responses to the opinion thus shaped were set forth barely 30 years later by Lord Acton who wrote, "This is the power of journalism, of salons and club life, which teaches people to depend on popularity and success and not on the guide within, to act not from knowledge, but from opinion, and to be led by opinion of others rather than by knowledge which is their own.... Nearly everybody yields up his conscience, his practical judgment, into the keeping of others."⁴

Those moral consequences were more clearly seen some 70 years later, in the middle of the twentieth century, when Ludwig von Mises, observed, "The ideologies which produced all the mischiefs and catastrophes of our century are not an achievement of the mob. They are the feats of pseudo scholars and pseudo intellectuals. They were propagated from the chairs of universities and from the pulpits; they were disseminated by the press, by novels, by plays, by the movies, and the radio. The intellectuals are responsible for converting the masses to socialism and interventionism. What is needed to turn the flood is to change the mentality of the intellectuals. Then the masses will follow suit."⁵

When Calhoun wrote of the press, he had in view only newspapers and related political pamphlets. By the time von Mises wrote a century later, he perceived the scope of the press to be much wider, recognizing that the pernicious influences were spread not only by the newspapers but through the schools, the churches, the arts, and the radio. Since then we can add the baleful glow of the TV and the mesmerizing fascination of the Internet to the list of what can broadly be characterized as the mass media. The scope, power, and influence of the Fourth Estate at the opening of the twenty-first century undoubtedly would stagger and appall Calhoun and Acton.

Recently, Jeffrey Ziegler, president of the National Reform Association, wrote, "The media boys just don't get it. Public officials make public policy."⁶ Actually, some of the media boys do get it, and so do some of our current crop of politicians. Policy arises from power, and in an age when political actions are premised on public opinion polls, spin doctors, and appearance rather than substance, the tail does sometimes wag the dog. The Fourth Estate, with its pollsters, the modern equivalent of biblical diviners and seers, is powerful enough to subvert constitutional government, at least to the extent of diverting, distorting, or deflecting the policy-making functions of government. An appearance on the network evening news may carry more weight than evidence before a Congressional committee, and a well-placed accusation, with or without substance, may suffice to wipe out a life-time of public service.

The authority of the Fourth Estate may be unofficial, but it is no less real. Therefore, it is essential that we understand exactly what it represents.

Gegrapha, a global fellowship of Christians in journalism, was founded in 1998. At the founding conference in London, Phillip E. Johnson discussed, in one of the presentations, a form of discrimination against Christians, namely, "... the way that intellectual elites in secular democracies use biased language, often unconsciously, to marginalize religious thinking and ensure that the world will be run on agnostic principles."⁷

John Leo, a syndicated columnist, picked up on the "elite" idea in a column last spring, pointing out that, "Reporters tend to be part of a broadly defined social and cultural elite, so their work tends to reflect the conventional values of this elite. The astonishing distrust (by the public) of the news media is not rooted in inaccuracy or poor reportorial skills, but in the daily clash of world views between reporters and their readers."⁸ He concludes, "The values of accountants and plumbers do not matter much to customers, but those of reporters are crucial. They determine which stories are selected and omitted, and how important those stories feel to readers."⁹

One element of the Fourth Estate world view which is of particular importance to Christians, and thus to any hopes for explicitly Christian government, is the question of truth. Journalists, whether in the print or electronic media, have a variety of ethical codes, all of which, in one way or another, give lip service to reporting the truth.

The Committee of Concerned Journalists, a reform group created by the Pew Foundation's Project for Excellence in Journalism, came out with a new ethical code in 2000. The first of the nine "core principles," was: "The first obligation of journalism is to the truth."¹⁰ A new code of ethics adopted by the Society of Professional Journalists in 1996, set forth four general principles. The first is headed "Seek Truth and Report It."¹¹

This sounds good, but the devil is always in the details. We live in what is sometimes referred to as a "post-modern" world. This is a world of relativism; a world in which a president of the United States can commit perjury with impunity, and dispute over the meaning of the word "is." This is a world in which the word "truth" may be used, but also may be drained of all meaning.

We may assume that an action or opinion, accurately described or reported, is factually true. In the world of the Fourth Estate, we might be assuming too much. J. Douglas Tarpley, in his presentation on the Canons of American Journalism at Gegrapha's London conference in 1998, noted tensions and potential problems in journalism between providing information, or news, and what many journalists see as a need to provide meaning. He said, "Another function is to contextualize that information for citizens with in-depth reporting/analysis, commentary and editorial expression to help them understand the meaning of the information. Journalists have pledged to provide these perspectives to give people some sense of 'what the facts mean.'"¹²

Russell Chandler, at the same Gegrapha conference, premised his presentation on John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." But, he noted, "Postmodern philosophy rejects all claims of objective truth. Lying is impossible since it presupposes objective reality, and there is none."¹³ He also noted that in this kind of a world, standards of truth shift to fit the occasion. He wrote, "It's all a matter of perspective, of interpretation. If words about truth are simply constructions, then they can be churned and reinterpreted ad infinitum. If they can be constructed, they can also be 'deconstructed.'"¹⁴

While there may be a faithful Christian remnant within the mass media, it appears to be no more than a remnant, increasingly marginalized and virtually invisible. The larger part of the Fourth Estate, worshipping at the shrines of post-modernism and political correctness, reject God's law out of hand. The Ten Commandments are something to be banned from schools and courthouses, removed from public sight as well as from the public mind, and certainly from the realms of government.

Why, then, should we be surprised if the opinion makers of the Fourth Estate fail to follow the two commandments which apply most directly to journalistic practice; the Eighth and Ninth commandments (Ex. 20: 15-16)?

No one should steal the reputation of others, nor bear false witness. Yet, the Fourth Estate does so consistently, one might even say religiously. These malefactors of the mass media may be likened to the false prophets condemned by Jeremiah (Jer. 29: 8-9): "For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed. For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD."

The false prophets of the Fourth Estate have a direct bearing on the government of the United States of America. They build up and tear down reputations. They set priorities, agendas, and policy. They inflame or calm the populace as circumstances dictate to advance their goals, which are not God's goals. They have ascended, by their own election, to the level of civil magistrates, and so should be adjudged by the standards applied to the civil magistrates who rule through the sovereign will of God.

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, wrote of the correct, godly performance of civil magistrates, in part, saying: "And let them constantly keep the additional thought in view, that if a curse is pronounced on him that 'doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully,' a much heavier curse must lie on him who deals deceitfully in a righteous calling."¹⁵

While a certain amount of satisfaction may be attained by contemplating the eventual discomfiture of the false prophets, the faithful are not called to such contemplation. Nor should they be in despair over the apparent bleakness of the present moral state of our nation.

Rather, we are called to be diligent stewards of the resources which the Lord provides for us in this world. That means that we should not waste our resources in sham battles, but should clearly identify the enemies of the Lord and attack them where they are most vulnerable.

We have but little chance of electing committed, God-fearing civil magistrates without first installing committed, God-fearing men and women into positions of power and authority in the Fourth Estate. The people will not hear the true prophets as long as the false prophets control both the written and spoken word. If attitudes are to change, if absolutes are to be upheld, then it is essential that the whole counsel of God be preached in the churches, taught in the schools, portrayed in the movies and on TV, and published and broadcasted through the mass media.

It has been roughly 250 years since Edmund Burke identified the Fourth Estate. We did not get into this situation overnight. Certainly, we will not get out of it quickly. But, just as we must encourage committed Christians to be active in government, so, too, we must encourage committed Christians to seek vocations within the Fourth Estate. A little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor. 5: 6).

Only then, in the providence of God, will it be possible to have an explicitly Christian government.

Richard McBane is a ruling elder at Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Akron, Ohio, and a former moderator of the Presbytery of the Ascension. He retired from the Akron Beacon Journal in 1997 after more than 30 years as a reporter. He is a graduate of Hiram (Ohio) College and holds a master's degree in history from Michigan State University. He can be contacted at RLMCBANE@aol.com.

Endnotes

1. Burke said there were "Three Estates in Parliament; but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all." Thomas Carlyle, The Hero as Man of Letters.

2. John C. Calhoun, "A Disquisition on Government", Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, edited by Ross M. Lence (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992), 57.

3. Ibid., 65.

4. Lord Acton, from a letter to Mary Gladstone, June 1, 1880, Essays in Religion, Politics and Morality: Selected Writings of Lord Acton, Vol. III, edited by Rufus Fears (Indianapolis:Liberty Classics, 1988), 653.

5. Ludwig von Mises, Planning for Freedom (Libertarian Press), 1952, quoted by Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1991), 154-155.

6. Jeffrey A. Ziegler, "Schizophrenic! The Muddled World of Egalitarian Media Politicos," The Christian Statesman, Vol. 143, No. 6 (November-December 2000),

7. Phillip E. Johnson, "Press, Language, Religion and Religious Freedom," Gegrapha (www.gegra-pha.org).

8. John Leo, Newsroom elites only imagine diversity, The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, April 24-30, 2000.

9. Ibid.

10. As reported by Linda Foley, then Newspaper Guild president, Guild Reporter, Feb. 11, 2000, 7.

11. Provided as an appendix to presentation by J. Douglas Tarpley, "The Canons of American Journalism: The ASNE and SPJ Codes and Statement," Gegrapha (www.gegra-pha.org).

12. J. Douglas Tarpley, "The Canons of American Journalism: The ASNE and SPJ Codes and Statement," Gegrapha (www.gegra-pha.org).

13. Russell Chandler, "A Biblical Defense of Truth and Traditional Values of Journalism in a Postmodern World," Gegrapha (www.gegrapha.org).

14. Ibid.

15. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), 655.

back to top