Some taxpayers may object to a print journalism bailout on the

Listen now to the words of P. J. O'Rourke, whose sharp wit and keen observations on the complexities of modern life ring with a deeper truth: "Some taxpayers may object to a print journalism bailout on the grounds that it mostly benefits the liberal elite. And we can't blame taxpayers for being reluctant to subsidize the reportorial careers of J-school twerps who should have joined the Peace Corps and gone to Africa to 'speak truth to power' to Robert Mugabe." With these words, O'Rourke critiques the intertwining of media, politics, and government subsidies, revealing his skepticism toward the media's role in shaping public opinion and the way it interacts with power. He brings to light the contentious debate over the value of journalism in its modern form—whether it serves the elite or the people. It is a statement filled with humor, yet it stirs a serious conversation about how media, government, and society interact in the modern world.

In the ancient world, the Greeks were keenly aware of the power of communication in shaping the public. The philosopher Socrates, for example, placed great importance on dialogue and truth-telling, yet he was deeply suspicious of how public discourse could be manipulated by those in positions of power. Socrates believed that the pursuit of wisdom should not serve the interests of the elite, but rather, it should empower the common people to question their leaders and make decisions based on reason, not rhetoric. This idea of speaking truth to power, as O'Rourke sarcastically references, has its roots in these ancient teachings—though Socrates might have considered journalism or public communication a higher calling than the often self-serving narratives of today’s media landscape.

The Romans, too, understood the influence of words in shaping both politics and society. Cicero, one of the most celebrated orators and statesmen, often wrote about the duty of those who speak in public to serve the public good rather than the interests of the powerful. He spoke of the dangers of corruption and how rhetoric could be turned into a weapon for personal gain. For Cicero, the voice of the public speaker, whether in politics or journalism, should never become a tool for manipulation. He would have likely sided with O'Rourke's sentiments, recognizing that a media that caters only to the elite or those with the most power does a disservice to truth and justice. The ancient philosophers and statesmen warned against the manipulation of public discourse, something that O'Rourke observes in his critique of modern journalism.

O'Rourke's words evoke a modern frustration with what has been described as the rise of a liberal elite in journalism—a group that many feel speaks for a narrow, often politically charged segment of society. The issue that O'Rourke highlights—the reluctance to fund a media that serves a specific political agenda—mirrors the frustrations of many throughout history who have viewed those in media as disconnected from the struggles of the common people. Throughout history, media—whether in the form of pamphlets, plays, or written works—has often been a tool used by the powerful to either maintain or challenge the status quo. The story of Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense, is a prime example. His pamphlets stirred the American colonies to action, not by appealing to the elite, but by speaking to the common people, urging them to rise up against British rule. Paine’s impact came from his ability to communicate in a way that resonated with the masses, not the powerful, and his words helped spark a revolution.

Yet, O'Rourke's critique also reminds us of the necessity of a free press in any society. The ancient Athenians, who invented democracy, saw their public forums and agoras as the places where truth was debated, where citizens could challenge authority and speak freely. Even though their society was imperfect, the Athenian commitment to open dialogue laid the foundation for modern democratic societies. But even in Athens, the orators were sometimes seen as manipulating the truth for their own purposes. O'Rourke's jest about the “J-school twerps” who might have served better in the Peace Corps underscores a perennial tension in the public sphere—the role of journalists and their responsibility to speak not for personal gain or political influence, but for the public good. This tension, which has existed for millennia, highlights the difficulty of maintaining a media that serves the truth when its practitioners are often beholden to their own biases or the whims of those who fund them.

The lesson O'Rourke imparts, while wrapped in sarcasm, is profound: media and journalism must be held accountable to the public they serve. We must recognize that true truth-telling does not serve the interests of a specific class or group but is rooted in integrity and fairness. The media's responsibility is not to perpetuate the ideas of the elite but to ensure that all voices are heard and that power is consistently challenged. In a world where the media can influence perceptions of reality, we must be vigilant in holding journalists accountable and in fostering a culture of truth and justice.

In your own life, remember that the truth is not always the narrative that those in power wish to propagate. Just as Socrates challenged the status quo in his time, so must you challenge the narratives that do not serve the common good. Seek out sources of information that value integrity over influence, that prioritize fairness over partisanship. Just as Cicero taught the value of speaking for the public good, strive to engage in conversations that uplift truth, not the interests of a few. By doing so, you contribute to a world where power is always subject to scrutiny, and the voices of the people remain loud, clear, and true.