of the black community in the U.S.”nWith a new and growing conservativenintellectual movement in the blackncommunity, the monolithic stereotypesnof the past have become irrelevant as,nin reality, they always were. Subscriptionsnto the Lincoln Review are $12.00nannually. The address is: 1735 De SalesnStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C.n20036. DnAntitoxinnAccuracy In Media, Inc. is a socialnbody of whose existence most Americansnare unaware. History books, however,nmay reserve a spot for it as the firstnsign of national awakening from thatnpernicious nightmare which many todayncall the media age. The truth is that thenfree press has been transformed duringnthe last half-century from a vital andnhealthy agent of American democracy,nonce seen by Jefferson as the guardian ofnall freedoms, into a monstrously manipulative,nquasi-totalitarian ingredient ofnour culture. Its impact on public life,nindeed, on all of Western civilization,nhas become negative, often disastrous.nThus, it was inevitable that societynwould develop an antitoxin, and AIMnseems to fit the role. Its leaders, Messrs.nMurray Baron and Reed Irvine, are redoubtablenpolemicists whose talents exceedntheir recognition—thanks to thenblackout imposed on their names andnachievements by the liberal media establishment.nBut their message, slowly butnsteadily, is seeping through the journalisticncensorship.nIn November 1979, AIM held annational conference on the roles and responsibilitiesnof the media in a freensociety. Many resounding names fromnthe world of journalism and its criticsnwere at hand, and it could be observednthat many of the latter had been recruitednfrom the ranks of the former—anphenomenon known to students ofnmoral reform as the primary substancenof human progress. Two of them deservennotice. Mr. Uwe Siemon-Netto, an4SinChronicles of CulturenGerman journalist, social democrat, editor,nand former war correspondent innVietnam, represented uncompromisingnverity, penitence, remorse. In a highlynemotional address, he stunned his audiencenby putting into frightful perspectiveneverything he knew about the Americannand Western press’s cheating, lyingnabout, and misconstruing of events innorder to assure the victory of ruthless,ncriminal, totalitarian communism. Hisnimpassioned pessimism about our future,nif we continue to tolerate this kindnof sociopolitical disease within ourndemocratic organism, made everybodynin the room feel gloomy and helpless.nHe failed, though, to explain, why thenAmerican press desired the triumph ofnantihuman red despotism, but he wasnamply aided in this respect by a previousnpresentation by Mr. Seymour Hersh, thennotorious (or infamous) New YorknTimes reporter who first broke the storynof the My Lai massacre and muckrakednthe CIA. If Mr. Siemon-Netto reflectednevil which had seen through itself, experiencedncontrition, and become lightnand virtue, Mr. Hersh personified annevil which immensely enjoys its ownnPolemics & Exchangesnwickedness and ugliness and intends tonstay that way forever. He told his astonishednlisteners that the media he servesnlive only by “hell-of-a-story” ethics, andnthat he does not care about the consequences-amoral,nsocial, or political—nof this stance because, according to hisninterpretation of the First Amendment,nhe’s absolutely unpunishable, not responsiblenfor anything, and “the bottomnline is that it’s up to us. And that’s thenway it is. I’m sorry if you don’t like it…”nHe means that the system is all his andnwe can stuff ourselves with scruples, responsibilities,nideas of duty, integrity,nand fairness until we choke on them,nwhile he has a good time. Mr. Hershnthus became, unintentionally, the highlightnof the conference; rarely has therenbeen such a public display of the Americannpress’s self-admitted arrogance, iniquity,nrecklessness, and depravity. Tonan unprejudiced eye it seems as if thenentire heritage of Western thought isnwasted if, ultimately, it has produced thenbestiality of Mr. Hersh’s mind and hasnendowed him with the New York Timesnas a loudspeaker, fully protected by currentninterpretations of the Constitution.nThe ACLU and the Conservative Impulsenby Henry L. Mason IIInThe ACLU’s defense of a proposedndemonstration by a group of AmericannNazis in Skokie, Illinois, has producednan extraordinary amount of misunderstanding.nAlthough feverish diatribesncould have been expected from liberalsn(among whom confusion is pandemicnanyway), they are much less excusablenwhen the source is a conservative whonshould know better. A case in point isnDr. Clarence Carson, who in the September/Octobernissue of this journalnMr. Mason is Director, Vice President,nand General Counsel of the Illinois Divisionnof the ACLU.nnnaccused the ACLU of “twisting” thenConstitution in order to uphold an allegedn”right of groups to use intimidationnto get their way.” That no suchn”right” was asserted, much less upheld,nis obvious to anyone who will take thentrouble to read the opinions of the IllinoisnSupreme Court and the UnitednStates Court of Appeals for the SeventhnCircuit.nThe facts of the case were simplenenough. A small but provocativenChicago organization styling itself then”National Socialist Party of America”nannounced its intention to hold a publicndemonstration in “storm trooper” uniformnin front of the Village Hall in thenlargely Jewish suburb of Skokie. Then