In that sense it pretty much implies that the claimant does not take the discipline of trying to be objective at all seriously. It seems that whatever effort they make towards assuring objectivity is strictly pro forma.Another way of looking at that is to say that the journalism cartel redefined the word “objective” to mean “in accord with the cartel’s political tendency” - no different from what they did to the word “liberal.”
IMHO, there is one specific reason for PC: The unanimous - unanimously wrong - 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision.In Sullivan, the Warren Court held that the First Amendment requires that politicians not be permitted to sue for libel except in egregious circumstances. Meaning, no one ever tries it.
But there are gaping holes in SCOTUS’ logic. First - a fact not raised in the Sullivan case - major journalism functions as a cartel. The wire services are continuous virtual meetings of all major journalism - and all major journalism behaves precisely as Adam Smith described in Wealth of Nations:
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.I identify Smith's predicted “conspiracy against the public” with the enormous, and by now traditionally believed (or at least believed to be right in principle) propaganda campaign to the effect that “journalists are objective.” Alexander Hamilton asserted that“The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.”And that precisely describes the MSM’s self-promoting propaganda. Three ways to think about the “journalists are objective” claim:
- Objectivity is a laudable goal, but not a state of being. It is hard to try to be objective, because the discipline forces you to seriously examine in what ways “where you stand depends on where you sit.” And the issue does not begin and end with taking care that the facts are right; what is, and what is not, a story is a hard issue if you actually desire to be objective.
- Precisely because it is so hard, the default for “journalists” assiduous to remain in good standing is to substitute for the true meaning of the word “objective” the much easier “journalists are unanimous.” "Ain’t nobody got time" to actually try to be objective - but any fool can go along and get along with all the others. Failure to go along can mean failure to get along: you can easily find yourself labeled “not a journalist, not objective.”
- ”If it bleeds, it leads.” All journalists know full well that they are systematically on the lookout for bad news and negativity about society. Death: Reality vs. Reported illustrates the point very nicely. In 2016 the three biggest causes of death in America were Heart Disease (30.2%), Cancer (29.5%), and “Road, Falls, and Accidents (7.6%). Deaths in those categories do not reflect particularly poorly on society. But the three leading cause of stories about death by- prominence in The New York Times and The Guardian - were Terrorism (>33%), Homicide (>22%), and Suicide (>10.6%). Deaths in those categories get almost 2/3 of the coverage, even though they represent <0.01%, 0.9%, and 1.8%, respectively, of actual deaths in 2016. Precisely because they reflect poorly on society. And, not coincidentally, suggest the need for government action.
Since journalists know that they are negative towards society, any claim that “journalists are objective” corresponds to a claim that “negativity is objectivity” - a claim that could only be made by a cynic. But if “A” and “B” be opposites, cynicism towards “A” corresponds logically not to cynicism, but to naiveté, towards “B.” Thus the internal logic of commercial journalism aligns with cynicism towards society and naiveté towards its near opposite, government. IOW, the internal logic of commercial, general circulation news reporting has a pro-socialism, anti-limited government, slant.
The plaintiff Mr. Sullivan in the 1964 case was a Democrat - but a Southern Democrat, in 1964 in bad odor in elite Democrat circles - not to mention, the type of people the Republicans fought the Civil War against. This made the Sullivan decision nominally bipartisan, ruling against someone neither “liberals” nor Republicans (in 1964 - see, Rockefeller, Nelson - there was a nontrivial overlap in those two categories) favored. Bipartisan coloration masks the fact that since 1930 “liberal” has been a euphemism meaning - but not vocalized - “the political perspective of the journalism cartel.”
“Liberals” systematically go along - and famously get along - with journalists. Liberals never get libeled, but conservatives routinely do. In the aftermath of the success of Republicans in recruiting the children of the Southern Democrats reified in the 1994 Republican “takeover” of the House after 40 years in the minority, the two parties are the (liberal) Democrat Party and the (conservative) Republican Party. And there is not now any bipartisan odor to a decision which assures that although Republicans get libeled routinely, they never get to have the facts (not opinions, facts) adjudicated.
The bottom line is that the Sullivan decision entitles the “liberals” not only to their own opinions but to their own facts. And that is Political Correctness.
But doesn’t the First Amendment require the Sullivan decision? No. The reason that pornography cases and apolitical libel cases have always been given a hearing in court is that the First Amendment does not actually grant journalists - or anyone - rights. 1A, and indeed the whole Bill of Rights, were crafted and adopted to conserve the status quo ante the adoption of the Constitution. The rights in Amendments 1 through 8 are, under Amendment 9, not superior to any other right recognized in law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Including the right to seek redress in court for libel.
The First Amendment does not give journalists a title of nobility or a confer priestly status on the profession. It does not require politicians to allow their reputations - and those of their adherents - to be sullied with falsehoods. Basically, the Warren Court made that part up.
The Sullivan decision is an engine for making it difficult for "those to whom [the people] intrust the management of their affairs” to resist "unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.” It must either be bypassed, or overturned.