yes, this article is from May, but for some reason, it seems relevant for now.
I support the idea of aggressive efforts to dig into every aspect of the personal lives of publishers, reporters and opinion writers and publish every bit of their own habits, indiscretions and vices that can be found.
You have to expect propaganda from cynics. Journalists who know ("If it bleeds, it leads”) that journalism is negative yet claim that journalism is objective. Since “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is an excellent definition of “cynicism,” we know that journalists are cynics from whom a certain amount of propaganda is only to be expected.It follows that there cannot be conservative journalism. What there can be is philosophically grounded opposition to journalist propaganda. What would it look like? It would not arrogantly claim to be objective, but it would insist on the existence of objective reality, and on the pursuit of objective truth. The ancient Greeks had a word for that posture: philosophy (“philo” meaning “love of” and “soph” meaning “wisdom”). It would look like - it is called in fact - “conservative talk radio.”
Understand, it cannot claim to be objective, which would be arrogant like the propagandistic “Sophists” (those who argue from a claim of their own wisdom) in journalism. Accepting and embracing a label such as “conservative” is therefore an intrinsic part of the deal. To the argument that there can be openly “liberal” philosophers, my first reply is that all experience is to the contrary - “liberal” talk shows fail commercially, and they fail to persuade the public that they treasure the pursuit of truth. “Liberal” talk show hosts have to screen out conservative callers before they point out inconvenient facts on air, and it shows.
The fundamental reason for that phenomenon is that whereas “conservatism” is groundedly skeptical of both society and government, “liberalism” is cynical about society - and, concommitantly, naive about government.
Thus “liberalism” is selling an extreme position, ultimately demanding the extinction of liberty in favor of government as a (potentially unlimited) positive good. Whereas conservatism, while regretting the limitations on the trustworthiness of society which justify the existence of government, accepts the necessity of the existence of government. Albeit limited government, treated as an expense to society rather than as a positive good.