2017 Might Have Been Worst Year in U.S. History for Media Bias

Townhall.com ^ | January 20, 2018 | Justin Haskins

[EdnaMode]

It’s pathetic that the media would run a story like that.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

A cornerstone of a truly free society is the presence of a vigilant news media, one that is willing to hold powerful government officials accountable when they abuse their offices for their own personal gain or the advancement of corrupt special interests. A sign a society is on the path to tyranny is when the overwhelming majority of a nation’s journalists are committed to doing whatever they can to destroy one political group while they work feverishly to cover up the scandals of another.

The fundamental problem is the singular “a” “news media” “one”.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

The problem is that the only ideological competition the Associated Press and its membership collectively face is talk radio. Before the end of the “Fairness” Doctrine at the end of the Reagan Administration, we didn’t even have that. The reason is quite simple: that is what the “conspiracy against the public” resulting from a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets looks like. The meeting, furthermore, is not about “merriment and diversion” but precisely about their collective product. It is inevitable under the circumstances that the distinctives of commercially successful general interest journalism should metastasize into a political viewpoint which is a conspiracy against the public. Those distinctives include “If it bleeds, it leads,” “Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man,” “Stonewall any criticism of ‘bias in the media,’" and “always meet your deadline.”

Those distintives are not neutral - they imply negativity towards society and the people/institutions which make society work. And not merely negativity - they actually imply cynicism toward society. And since every complaint about society implies a “there oughta be a law” reaction, cynicism towards society implies naiveté towards government domination of society. And the combination of naiveté towards government and cynicism towards society is, IMHO, the very definition of socialism.

The ancient Greeks defined the response to unfair argumentation of the sort we see in modern journalism:

sophist

1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.

philosopher

O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."

"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]

The “lover of wisdom” (philosopher) takes the position that truth and wisdom exist, but refuses to claim any monopoly on either. Instead, the philosopher eschews ad hominem argumentation and other tricks of the sort the sophist uses to manipulate the debate. Journalists engage in sophistry - stonewalling discussion of inconvenient issues, for example - because they can. Conservative talk show hosts, OTOH, take on challenging callers and discuss any issue. And they openly admit to their conservatism, rather than claiming objectivity as the journalist does. The role of philosopher requires self discipline, but it is the only option one really has when faced with a disadvantage such as the immense propaganda power of MSM journalism.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is not only disheartening, it’s incredibly dangerous. The news media is losing whatever credibility it had left, making it harder than ever for the public to discover the truth about the nation’s most important issues.

That understates the case. “Liberal” journalism actively deceives the public, producing masses of people who “know” things which just ain’t so. And that is just plain dangerous.