New York Times’ coverage of Mueller is peak liberal bias

A friend likens The New York Times to a 1960s adolescent who refuses to grow up. In a perpetual state of outrage, it is a newspaper of college snowflakes who embrace all forms of diversity except thought.

It sees its liberal politics not as a point of view, but as received wisdom that cannot be legitimately disputed.

The fixation on conformity reached a new low last week when the paper rolled out a coordinated attack on those of us who believe special counsel Robert Mueller ought to resign. I say coordinated because the newsroom and the opinion page produced similar pieces on the same day, showing again how Executive Editor Dean Baquet has erased the barrier between news and opinion and turned every page into an opinion page.

In the Times’ view, there are only two reasons to question Mueller’s credibility: insanity or treason. And so we detractors stand accused of engaging in a conspiracy that will embolden adversaries like Russia and produce a “constitutional crisis.”

The animating impulse for the assault is obvious — the Times is locked into its mission of destroying President Trump, and, like Hillary Clinton, still cannot accept Trump’s election as legitimate.

Consider that the paper’s dozen Op-Ed columnists are all Never-Trumpers. That’s either a remarkable coincidence or a litmus test for hiring.

But the paper, following a bad habit it developed during Barack Obama’s presidency, is not content with advocating its positions. Behaving like a party propaganda outlet, it takes a coercive approach to anyone with a different view. Objections are demonized as heretical.

Executive Editor Dean Baquet has erased the barrier between news and opinion and turned every page into an opinion page.

. . . and we are supposed to be surprised?
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
The reality is that it is only necessary to follow the standard rules of journalism to produce a front page which is an exemplar of extreme “liberalism”:

Follow the dictum that “If it bleeds, it leads,” and also the “‘Man Bites Dog,’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’” rules of story selection and emphasis. Any society will always, by its own standards, cause ‘Man Bites Dog’ to imply “Man we count on fails to deliver for us.” IOW, all negativity, all the time. And,

Claim to be objective. How else to maximize your influence? Standard journalistic practice, right?

The claim of actual objectivity - not a claim to be trying to be objective, which is perfectly unobjectionable if true - is inherently arrogant, and actually stands as proof that you are not even trying to be objective (for why would have to “try” to do something you are already sure you are?).
Worse, to claim objectivity knowing that you are in fact negative is to indict yourself of believing that “negativity is objectivity.” And I submit that if “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is a Jeopardy® answer, the corresponding Jeopardy® question is, “What is the definition of ‘cynicism’?”
Journalism, under normal operating rules, is cynical. But nobody, and no institution, can be cynical about everything. For if “B” be the antithesis of “A”, you cannot express cynicism toward “A” without insinuating faith in, or naiveté toward, “B.”
In reality journalism is cynical about society. Thomas Paine explains the relation between society and government:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Common Sense (1776)
Journalism is cynical about society, and implies faith in, or naiveté about, government. And again, if “cynicism toward society and naiveté toward government” is a Jeopardy® answer, the corresponding Jeopardy® question is, “What is the definition of ’socialism’ (or 'Progressivism’ or ‘liberalism’)?” This analysis does not imply that the opposite posture - that of cynicism toward government and naiveté toward society - is ideal. Rather, as Adam Smith’s dictum above suggests, we are well advised to apply “incredulity” - skepticism - both toward government and society. Not no government at all, but limited - and, as Paine would have it, cost-efficient - government is the counsel of prudence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.