Media and Medievalism

Robert Kaplan is well known for taking the long view and his latest piece, ‘The Media and Medievalism’, is no different.  Kaplan finds cause for concern in the media’s nimble ability to sidestep culpability and in their equivocation of moralism with morality.  Kaplan writes:

As with medieval churchmen, the media class of the well-worried had a tendency to confuse morality with sanctimony: Those with the loudest megaphones and no bureaucratic accountability have a tendency to embrace moral absolutes.  After all, transcending politics is easier than engaging in them, with the unsatisfactory moral compromises that are entailed.

To wit, some of our most prestigious correspondents have occasionally remarked that the only favoritism they harbor is toward the weak or toward the victims in any crisis.  That may do in church, but it does not necessarily lead to trustworthy analysis.  As Musil hinted, bankers are more dependable than angels because their desire for wealth preserves critical thinking more than does the desire for love.  In any case weakness defines a power relationship, not a moral attribute.  One side’s being weaker than the other – or harboring more victims – does not necessarily mean that the cause is just or even moral.  Rather, it may mean that it has miscalculated militarily or adopted a more cynical policy toward its own civilians.  Victims need to be humanely attended to, but it does not follow that their side in a conflict is entitled to political support by way of sympathetic news coverage.

Do yourself a favor: read the whole thing before reading the Washington Post’s story on Guantanamo detainees.  And try to keep Kaplan’s perspective in mind while watching Andrew Sullivan become positively unhinged over the next few days.

Comments

[Tim]

That Kaplan article was incredible.