generation dated their lives by what they were doing when thernJapanese attacked Pead Harbor; for their children, the dramaticrnmoments were the Kennedy assassination, Kent State, andrnWoodstock. In future years, the grandchildren will probably askrneach other; “What were you doing when O.J. Simpson wasrndeclared not guilty?”rnI referred to these spectacles as “show trials,” not becausernthey arc necessarily engineered by a repressive regime or designedrnto eliminate political rivals, but because they are used inrnmuch the same way that Stalin used the Moscow trials to deflectrncriticism from the Communist Party’s criminal ineptitudernand to rally his people around a dramatic episode that couldrninduce a feeling of national solidarity. The Soviet press, it goesrnwithout saying, played a vital role in whipping up publicrnopinion:rnDuring the whole period of the trial, from the announcenrentrnon 28 February 1938 that it would take place untilrnthe actual executions, the papers had, of course, been fullrnof the demands of workers’ meetings that no pity bernshown to the “foul band of murderers and spies.”rnLeaders and articles rubbed it in. (Robert Conquest,rnThe Great Terror: A Reassessment)rnThe Western press also did its best to “rub it in.” Whilernsome leftist intellectuals and journalists condemned the trialsrn(notably, John Dewey and the Manchester Guardian), the spectrumrnof liberal opinion ran from enthusiasm for Stalinist justice,rnexpressed by Walter Durantv of the New York Times, to thernrestrained skepticism of the New Statesman.rnOne did not expect anything better from the Soviet press,rnwhich was entirely under the party’s control. In fact, Lenin hadrnmoved quickly in 1917 to suppress newspapers that were, in order,rnrightist, liberal, and socialist. Before the revolution, he hadrnpromised to divvy up the press organs among the progressivernparties according to their electoral strength—something likernthe system used for the radio and television networks controlledrnby the Italian government—but once in power, Lenin quicklyrnsaw the importance of establishing a press that would, in BenrnBradlee’s words, “serve the public interest.”rnWe do things differently here. We do not, for the most part,rnarrest dissident journalists or close down their papers. Instead,rnwe allow the press lords to establish multimedia conglomeratesrnand invite them into the governing coalition. The Americanrnpress, in giving over their pages and air time to cheap thrillers—rnwhat the Italians call gialh—is, for the most part but not entirely,rnunwittingly serving as the propaganda arm of the regime.rnWatergate might be regarded as a constitutional crisis thatrnought to engage the attention of citizens living in what they belierned to be a free republic. That can scarcely be said of mostrnof the crises and trials that interrupt The Young and the Restlessrnand jenny Jones. I did not know either of the Simpsons or anyonernremotely associated with them. Neither of them representedrnanything significant: he, a hoodlum turned mercenaryrnathlete; she, a loose woman who may well have driven her husbandrnbeyond the brink. If he killed her because he loved herrnand could not endure her behavior, perhaps he deserved, in arnbetter wodd under a different legal system, to go free. I did notrnknow Rodney King either, or Clarence Thomas, or Anita Hill,rnand while there may be a few Americans who regard such peoplernas “role models,” the must be very few.rnErwin Knoll—a veteran journalist—used to say that wheneverrnthe media were booming any particular crisis, it was a goodrnindication that they had designs on our liberties, and a cynicrnmight observe that as President Bush and Clinton have draggedrnus inexorably into the Balkans War, the press cartel has succeeded,rnfirst in making sure there is no honest criticism ofrnAmerican foreign policy, and second, in concocting a scries ofrncelebrity incidents that degrade the moral conscience of therncitizens. When the National Enquirer actually scooped thernnetworks on the O.J. story, it was clear that the distinction betweenrnnews and scandal had been blurred, perhaps irremediably.rnThere are countless books and articles on the press: its history,rnits role in defining democracy, its problems, its scandals.rnWhat is hard to find is a serious discussion of the fundamentalrndishonesty, the trivial huckstering that characterizesrneven the best newspapers. I recently had dinner yvith a distinguishedrnEuropean scholar, who, with a little encouragement,rnasked me why there was so little freedom of discussion in thernUnited States. Was it due to the village mentality described byrnToequcville? Or was it merely the effect of the tight grip of thernmedia oligarchy? If the latter was true, how did I explain thernparallel development in the universities?rnThese are difficult questions, which I do not quite know howrnto answer. But one stab at it takes us to the heart of the Americanrnpeople. If every nation gets the government it deserves,rnthen perhaps our national dishonesty is only a reflection of therncowardice and dishonesty of most of our citizens. George Garrett,rnin Poison Pen, argued only half in jest that “American journalismrndoes indeed perform a valuable public service”:rnFor if, e’en for a brief period, a large number of Americansrnstopped swallowing the . . . (let’s call it Pablum so asrnnot to be crude and vulgar) the unadulterated Pablumrnthat is concocted to stifle their hunger for truth, and ifrnthey were permitted to enjo}^ the self-indulgence ofrnallowing their encephalitic and atrophied brains thernmerest little reflexive twitch of thought, a vague, faint,rndimly realized, atavistic tremor of vestigial skepticism,rnwhy, sirs, all hell would break loose!!rnIt would be worse (or better, depending on your pointrnof view) than the Terror which folloyved the French Revolution.rn. . . If, for some utterly whimsical and unanticipatedrnreason, honesty were to become a factor in Americanrnlife, it is obvious that the immediate result would bernchaos and anarchy.rnThe People, instantly deprived of all their leaders inrne’erv known field of endeavor, would be a swirling massrnof bleating, helpless sheep. And there would be nornwolves to profit from this condition.rnOur dependence upon the Entertainment Tonight reportingrnof network news and the government propaganda of the popularrnpress confirms us in our servility, but the consequences gornfar beyond polities. The erosion of the strong public opinion,rnon which any republic rests, is serious enough, but moral andrnintellectual liberty can survive and even flourish under tyranny.rnWhy have they been so successfully repressed in the benignrndespotism of consumer-socialism? One answer, perhaps notrnthe whole answer but one part of it, is to be found in the casernwith which we have been persuaded to concern ourselves withrnstrangers: movie stars, overnight criminal sensations, patheticrnFEBRUARY 1996/9rnrnrn