Journalism and Objectivity

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.

The whole point of Haidt’s thesis is the left is unbalanced, while conservatives value all the moral foundations.

Agreed.
Well, his whole point is more like, “I am am atheist who wants to explain the world via evolution. And although I am a liberal, I perceive that liberalism leaves too much off the moral landscape. It is too simple, and I find that conservatism has far more explanatory power than I was taught to believe."
This reply comes long after the start of the thread, because I saw a later thread on Haidt’s work and that mentioned The Righteous Mind and it sounded interesting. I finally got the chance to read it this past week. Haidt lists the moral foundations of conservatism (and their opposites) as
Care        Liberty      Fairness    Loyalty    Authority      Sanctity
harm     oppression     cheating    betrayal   subversion    degradation
Haidt suggests that Liberalism has two strains - now called “liberalism” and “libertarianism” - which split about a century ago. The commonality between them, he says, is that both liberals and libertarians drop “Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity” pretty much off the list. The difference between them being, in Haidt’s telling, that while Liberals emphasize care first and do not emphasize fairness, Libertarians emphasize Liberty uber alles, fairness second, and caring is no more on their radar screen than Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity are. My opinion is that Haidt’s characterization of the difference between conservatives and liberals is (never mind his reasons) spot on.
However - and note that this is my personal hobby horse - I have been calling attention to the fact that commercially successful journalism heavily emphasizes negativity. Call it “If it bleeds, it leads,” or call it “‘Man Bites Dog’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’” (and note that while the standard of living has been on an exponentially rising curve since the Industrial Revolution noteworthy short term changes in welfare overwhelmingly are negative. In journalist's terms, good news isn’t news - ordinarily, it’s advertising). And, I note, journalists and also others who also know that journalism is negative claim that journalism is objective. But I put it to you that “the conceit that negativity is objective” is very serviceable as a definition of cynicism.
Now look again at Haidt's description of the difference between “conservatism” and “liberalism.” A liberal is a conservative minus loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
IOW,
Any conservative has to consider any liberal a cynic.
And if you take my analysis of journalism seriously, you do not wonder that journalism and “liberalism” are simpatico.

"I can have an argument with somebody who doesn't think it's worthwhile for us to sacrifice economic growth in order to reduce carbon emissions. It's much harder to have a debate with somebody who doesn't believe that the planet is getting warmer despite the ~~fact~~ ^{published claim} that 99 out of 100 scientists say it is. … When you don’t have ~~a common set of facts~~ ^{absolute propaganda control of the political narrative,} it’s hard to ~~have, then, a basic democratic conversation~~ ^{railroad through your agenda without opposition.} ”

Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
That being the case, the fact that nobody tells “the whole truth” because they don’t have time (or space, in a newspaper) means that every report must be taken with a grain of salt:
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)
A similar lesson from the ancients can be found in the etymological dictionary: 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 “sophist” studies how to persuade at any cost; the philosopher studies what argumentation forms lead away from the truth and into emotional but specious results.
Journalists only tell the part of the story which most readily grips the attention of the public. And since the construction of a thousand houses may not grip the attention of the public as much as a fire burning down a single house, journalism is about bad news. The assumption that the supply must be dwindling because the only reports in the paper are of houses burning down and not of houses being built is the negative bias of journalism. Journalists are very aware of this bias, and yet journalists claim that journalism is objective. But the assumption that "negativity is objectivity” is cynicism.
Cynicism has religious and political implications. First and most obviously, “cynicism" is an antonym for “faith.” And
"Without faith it is impossible to please God.” — Hebrews 11:6
Journalists who assume that they themselves are objective cannot be assumed to have faith in God.
Secondly, the seminal writing which explained the American revolution starts out,
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. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
If "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them,” and if "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,” then
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! —Isaiah 5:20 King James Version (KJV)
seems clearly applicable.
Skepticism towards society implies acceptance of the necessity for government to "promote our happiness . . . NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.” But cynicism - the extreme case of skepticism - towards society leads to (or follows from) naiveté towards the possibility of “intolerable . . . evil" in government.
Cynicism towards society motivates “some writers” to advocate for government to absorb the positive roles of society. “Conservative” skepticism towards government argues that the positive roles of society are too subtle for “a punisher” to accomplish. And that in attempting the role of “patron” government all too readily becomes the problem rather than the solution.

That explains why ‘Air America’ failed and why FOX (wanting to be ‘fair and balanced’) doesn’t have any liberal talk show hosts…

Just so. Journalists claim to be objective; that is as arrogant as claiming to be wise, which places journalists in the category of sophists.
The big scandal of the moment in journalism is that Sinclair has been called out for calling out "the MSM” on its bias. But that is precisely what should be happening. There should be ideological competition in journalism, and there was ideological competition in journalism prior to the mid-Nineteenth Century advent of the Associated Press (which was the second “killer app” of the telegraph demonstrated by Morse in 1844 - the first being command-and-control of the railroads).
The AP long predates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890), and was aggressively monopolistic from early on. It lost a suit in 1945 on anti-trust grounds and, with the advent of the Internet, is no longer “too big to fail” and should be sued into oblivion.
But the problem is not that the AP crowds out other wire services but that any wire service tends to homogenize journalism. And,
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
Any wire service, but especially the AP, is a continuous virtual meeting of the journalism outlets associated with it. And the resulting “conspiracy against the public” is precisely the (tacit until violated) prohibition of any suggestion by any journalist that any other journalist is not objective. That is, the conspiracy against the public is ideological conformity within journalism.
The conspiracy against the public is ideological conformity to cynicism towards society. It is well known, not least by journalists, that commercially successful journalism follows the dictum, “If it bleeds, it leads.” That is, journalism is about bad news, and anyone considering the proposition that “journalists are objective” should consider that. If you know that journalism is negative but you accept the claim that journalism is objective, you in effect accept the proposition that “negativity is objectivity.” But that proposition is the essence of cynicism.
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 - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
. . . and if “society” and “government” be in a very real sense opposites, it follows to that extent that cynicism towards society is naiveté towards government. I put it to you that “the combination of cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government” is found in every journalist - and practically speaking, in every Democrat or Socialist of whatever stripe.

Even my husband is shocked when in his Sunday School class, so many Christian men are equally fooled. He counters their misconceptions with facts, and they appear shocked and in disbelief.

I just wonder what we (and DJT) can do about it, more than what is being done now.

That’s why, to me, there is only one issue - delegitimating “the media.” Without “the media” and its ability to propagandize ~~the masses~~ ^{we the people}, the Democrats would be dead in the water. I’ve been on that case since Carter was a president, and I have some conclusions/recommendations:

the issue is not the “media,” it is the specific format of "information” which the media are used to propagandize with. Namely, the “topical nonfiction” format known as “the news.” Journalism. If you are whining about “the media” and not laying a glove on journalists in particular, you are a loser. Granted that fiction can be effectively used against us, nobody is going to support censorship of nonfiction, so it is utterly useless to whine about it. But (as a mater of facts and logic, and hence of law) journalism has its vulnerabilities.

Journalism as we know it is wire service journalism, and all wire services - and most spectacularly, the Associated Press - have a powerful homogenizing tendency. That is, wire service journalism generates "a conspiracy against the public,” as Adam Smith predicted of any meeting of “people of the same trade.” (And the AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets in the US, ongoing since before the Civil War, which by Smith’s logic makes a conspiracy against the public inevitable).

Journalism is known (by journalists themselves, and anyone who cares to look) to be negative. And yet journalists claim that journalism is objective.

A claim that journalism - known to be negative - is objective is effectively a claim that “negativity is objectivity.” But that is a statement of pure cynicism.

The cynicism - the extreme skepticism - of journalism is directed at society rather than government. In fact, cynicism towards society cries out for unlimited government to save society from itself.

The combination of cynicism toward society and naive faith in government promoted by journalism is precisely what socialist propaganda wants to sell.

The promotion of socialist propaganda is the “conspiracy against the public” which a reading of Smith requires us to expect from wire service, and especially AP, journalism.

The upshot is that the AP and its membership should be sued under Anti-Trust legislation, and the AP itself destroyed. Because the mission of the AP - the conservation of scarce, expensive bandwidth in the propagation of news - is anachronism in the era of plentiful, inexpensive data transmission bandwidth.

Campaign Finance regulation either has to directly regulate journalism, or it has to carve out exceptions for the membership of the AP to putatively avoid violation of 1A. But freedom of the press must mean that the government cannot regulate journalism and it cannot prevent anyone from being a journalist. The FEC is unconstitutional, root and branch. And the justification of the FCC is very sketchy.

If you whine about “the media” but cannot call out journalism, you can never make progress. The issue is not that journalism is not objective - of course it isn’t, and cannot be - but that the people are indoctrinated with the propaganda that journalism (somehow) is objective. And that the bias inherent in journalism is toward pro-socialist, anti-freedom, propaganda.

The Commerce Clause established uniform rules for producers from different states for the purpose of preventing states from levying unjust taxes and fees on out-of-state products. To govern interstate commerce, the UCC was established and one idea is for information and digital content to be considered as products subject to the UCC. The UCC is tried and true whereas Net Neutrality is susceptible to political whim.

Regulation of commerce among the several states is one thing, and - IMHO - regulation of communication has to be seen in a different light. Namely,
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
does not establish a ceiling over the rights of the people. Rather, as
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
makes plain, it is to be understood only as a floor under our rights.
The First Amendment could not list all the communication technologies of the future, of course - that would be an anachronism which would prove that it was written much later than the Eighteenth Century. But
Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
clearly establishes that such advances were anticipated in principle by the same people who ratified the First Amendment. Hence, although “speech” does not cost money, the fact that printing presses, ink, and paper were not a free good establishes the principle that Freedom of the Press is freedom to spend your own money to use any legal (legal for anyone, not merely for those favored - i.e., licensed by - the government) means of promoting your own opinions is an inalienable right.
I interpret that to mean that the Federal Election Commission, and its very mission, are unconstitutional root and branch. The FCC stands as a difficult case only in the sense that licensed FM, AM, and TV bands are by now traditional. Otherwise they constitute clear violations of the First Amendment. The Internet (and FTM the cell phone) represents technology which transcends the rationale of the “scarce” bandwidth rationale on which the FCC edifice was erected.
Although the FCC stands as an illegitimate decider of who gets to broadcast on the AM, FM, and TV bands, it is far from the only offender - the chief offender is not even (officially) part of the government. I refer to the news wire services generally and the Associated Press in particular.
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 AP and its membership constitute all of major American journalism, and the AP “wire” constitutes a continuous, unending, virtual meeting of them all. Consequently we have nothing to expect from the AP but "a conspiracy against the public.” And that is precisely what we observe. This “conspiracy” enables/requires its membership to make the fatuous claim that “all journalists (in good standing with the membership of the AP) are objective.” How is that claim defective? Let me count the ways:

in their field - hyper topical nonfiction - there is always room for legitimate controversy due to the “fog” of conflicting early reports of any major event - the “fog of war” being merely the most excruciating example.

given the above, any claim of actual objectivity - not a claim, laudable if true, to be trying to be objective - implies that the arrogant believer of such self-praise actually is not even trying to be objective, because such a person takes his own objectivity for granted.
because journalists have rules of operation which include “If it bleeds, it leads,” which are unrelated to the public interest but intimately linked to the journalist’s ability to interest the public (a very different thing), journalism is negative. Journalists are knowingly negative, and yet they claim that journalists are objective. This amounts to suggesting that negativity is objectivity - a conceit which can be considered the very definition of “cynicism.”

Journalists are cynical about society, but since the rationale of government is precisely to constrain the failings of society, cynicism towards society inherently corresponds to faith in, even naiveté towards, government. And the combination of cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government is the defining quality of socialism. Via the medium of the AP wire, journalists conspire against society by promoting socialism.
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 . . . were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no [government] - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

As long as conservatives ignore the power of language, they lose. In God’s name....QUIT CALLING THEM PROGRESSIVES!!!!

It’s as bad as calling them “liberals.” According to Safire’s New Political Dictionary) American socialists misappropriated that term in the 1920s.
It’s easy to criticize our own people for accepting the socialists’ self-designations, but it is very difficult to get around the roadblock to rational thought which those self-designations represent. Given that socialists control both academia and big journalism, that control of language is pretty much inevitable.
I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of that mess for many decades, and I feel that I have peeled a layer or two off of the onion. The first thing to understand about “the media” is that the central problem is journalism. Granted that fictional movies tend to project socialist assumptions, as long as there is a First Amendment (please God, “forever”) nobody is going to outlaw storytelling any time soon.
Why is journalism such a problem? IMHO: because journalism is in the business of interesting the public as well as that of gaining influence. It is natural for people to want influence:
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)
But the business of interesting the public implies following the rules for doing it - and “If it bleeds, it leads” is one of those rules for commercial success. Has nothing to do with “the public interest,” mind - only with the journalist’s gaining money and influence.
Another rule for journalist to gain money and influence is to promote the idea that journalism is objective. You might expect that journalists would compete with each other for the respect of the audience by claiming to be more objective than the competition, but that is not what we observe. Instead,
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
seems to be the order of the day. Do journalists “meet together?” The Associated Press was founded in the 1840s, and the AP newswire is nothing other than a continuous virtual meeting of all major American journalists. If there is anything at all to Adam Smith’s prediction, then, we must expect that journalists in America should be tight as ticks. And they are. They never promote their own objectivity above that of any other journalist who is in good standing with wire service journalism as a whole. Let anyone outside the club (Sean Hannity, say) suggest that any such member of the club is anything other than pure as the wind-driven snow, and suddenly he “is not a journalist, not objective.”
The major flaws in the assumption by journalists that journalists are objective include

in their field - hyper topical nonfiction - there is always room for legitimate controversy due to the “fog” of conflicting early reports of any major event - the “fog of war” being merely the most excruciating example.

given the above, any claim of actual objectivity - not a claim, laudable if true, to be trying to be objective - implies that the arrogant believer of such self-praise actually is not even trying to be objective, because such a person takes his own objectivity for granted.

“If it bleeds, it leads,” makes journalism knowingly negative, and yet they claim that journalists are objective. This amounts to suggesting that negativity is objectivity - a conceit which can be considered the very definition of “cynicism.”
Journalists are cynical about society, but since the rationale of government is precisely to constrain the failings of society, cynicism towards society inherently corresponds to faith in, even naiveté towards, government. And the combination of cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government is the defining quality of socialism. Via the medium of the AP wire, journalists conspire against society by promoting socialism.
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 . . . were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no [government] - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
So, IMHO, the correct line of attack against socialism, and against its pillars of support in journalism and academia, is to accuse them of cynicism. And point out such things as

From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne:
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

The interest of journalists is pretty well summarized by Adam Smith:
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. - Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Journalists attract attention and gain credence by telling people Interesting things that they don’t know. There are many things ordinary lay people don’t know, most of which journalists don’t know either. Journalists have a system for acquiring, selecting, and telling attention-grabbing stories which are simple enough for ordinary people - including journalists - to understand. For those simple things to be equally understandable by journalists and other ordinary people - yet not already known by people other than journalists, those “simple things” must be recent enough that journalists know them before ordinary people do. Hence, the journalist’s continual propaganda campaign to the effect that the “breaking news” is important. But in reality, ”breaking news” is important only in a crisis.
Crisis mentality is fed by bad news, and interesting (and thus persuading) the public by an emphasis on bad news is a staple of journalism. The system by which journalists select their stories is quite simple: “If it bleeds, it leads.” The worse the news, the harder it is for the public to ignore it. Obviously the crisis mentality that breaking news is important is antithetical to caution and thus to wisdom. Hence, the routine promotion of crisis mentality in the general public is directly counter to the public interest.
“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.” ― Alexander Hamilton

The natural disposition is always to believe . . . 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. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments

There is a Constitution in this country, and part of it says

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It’s in there for a reason. That reason is not that "journalists are objective.” The reason is that Americans are free to think, and to express their thoughts.
And the reason for that is not that all Americans think well, but because the Americans do not accept the proposition that government think is trustworthy. It is not for the government to tell me that journalists are not objective and not always truthful - it is up to me to figure those things out for myself. And, having figured that out, to promote those ideas to the extent of my own desire and resources.
But there is something the government legitimately can do about Establishment journalism. Establishment journalism is wire service journalism, and the wire services only date back to the advent of the telegraph in 1844. The Associated Press was in being by about 1850. The Sherman AntiTrust Act only dates to 1890, and the AP was aggressively monopolistic before and after 1890. In fact it was successfully sued by another wire service under Sherman in 1945.
But even that is not the point. The point is that, according to Adam Smith
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. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
the fact that the AP “wire” is a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets in America which has been ongoing since before the Civil War implies that "a conspiracy against the public” among journalists is presumably in effect. And anyone who starts with the a priori assumption of independence among journalists is being naive.
But what would "a conspiracy against the public” by journalists look like? Put another way, “What motives do journalists have in common?” Adam Smith suggests an answer to that:
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)
But what good is it if you, as a journalist, simply tell people you agree with them? How does that cause them to see you as their “leader and director??” It may make people more disposed to listen to you, but it doesn’t change their mind about their default assumption that they know their own minds and anyone else need not assume that they know better. No, the motive is change the minds of the public and cause them to look up to you.
In addition, journalists need to attract attention by telling people things that the public does not know. The problem with that is, that journalists are not rocket scientists. And the public at large is not, either, and would not understand if told anything really subtle. The only way journalists can tell people things they don’t already know is to report news of things that just happened, which the public has not heard yet. And the news which is interesting is almost uniformly negative. The upshot is that journalists report bad news about American society, thereby attracting attention and casting American society in an unflattering light. And thereby promoting the idea that journalists are above and looking down on American society. Included in that is the conceit that “journalists are objective.”
The truth is that although everyone should try to be objective - and I hope you do - nobody can know that he, or anyone who agrees with him, is objective. To claim that you are (not are trying to but actually are) objective is effectively to admit that you are not even trying to be objective (what would “trying to be objective” look like if you think that you are objective?). Thinking that you are objective is the essence of subjectivity.
In the case of journalists, who are negative and know it and will tell you that “If it bleeds, it leads,” a journalist who claims that “journalists are objective” is claiming in effect that negativity is objectivity. And “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is hard to improve on as a definition of cynicism.
Journalists are cynical about society and - concomitantly - naive about 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 . . . were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no [government]; 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. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
The conclusion is that journalists’ “conspiracy against the public” is the promotion of the conceit that breaking news is important (in practically any situation other than a battle, that is untrue), the conceit that journalists are objective (and properly command respect as “leaders and directors”), and that cynicism towards society is justified, and properly justifies metastasized government.
Individual Americans are allowed to think that (within limits, considering that acting on such cynicism could easily turn antisocial), but a unified propaganda Establishment of any sort - let alone one promoting cynicism - is not legitimated by the First Amendment. The Associated Press destroys the ideological diversity of “the press,” and it is in violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. It was found so by SCOTUS in 1945, but the idea of breaking up the AP was not even sought, nor thought possible as a remedy, in that era. But this is the 21st Century, and as the Internet and FreeRepublic.com illustrate, the mission of conserving scarce expensive communications bandwidth in spreading the news nationwide is now obsolete. Communication bandwidth is now dirt cheap. The AP systematically libels American society, white Americans, and Republicans. Both as groups, and as individual members of those groups. It should be sued into oblivion.
In the meantime, we should take to heart another quote from Theory of Moral Sentiments:
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.
We pool our “incredulity” here on FR in order to limit our tendency to "give credit to stories which [we are] afterwards both ashamed and astonished that [we] could possibly think of believing."

Liberals are providing a blueprint of just how everyone needs to treat the next Liberal Marxist RAT that gets elected.

The situation is very asymmetrical, because wire service journalism is inherently “liberal.”

Journalism is naturally negative for the commercial reason that “If it bleeds, it leads.”

Wire service journalism promotes the fatuous conceit that “journalists are objective” because(due to its propaganda power) it can. And because everyone wants to be believed, and be considered objective.

Given that journalists know that they are negative, their objectivity claim implies a cynical conceit that “negativity is objectivity.”

Journalism is cynical towards society - but the opposite side of that coin is naiveté towards the institution intended to control evil in society. Namely, government.

Cynicism towards society - and concomitant naiveté towards government - is what actually defines socialism.

Therefore, for “liberalism” to be delegitimated, the socialist propaganda organ which is wire service journalism must be delegitimated. And it truly is illegitimate because it is the result of an illegal conspiracy against the public:

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. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)

The Associated Press newswire is a continuous virtual meeting of all major US journalism which has been ongoing since before the Civil War.
It would be naive to assume that the AP did not produce “a conspiracy against the public” after all these years. And that conspiracy produces the socialist propaganda against society (often called “market”) which we see every day.

Not surprised that 99% negative US media coverage is not seeping into world coverage and views. It is problem here as well. - Reno89519

Exactly. My theory on that is that:

for commercial (not philosophically justified) reasons, journalism is about bad news - particularly, bad news about American society. Journalism is negative about society, knowingly.

Yet journalism claims to be objective, which logically could only be true if negativity is objectivity.

The conceit that “negativity is objectivity” is cynicism. Ergo, journalism is cynical about American society.

Cynicism towards “A” is naiveté towards “not A.” Thus, cynicism is not simply “extreme” skepticism, it is unbalanced skepticism.

As the first page of Paine’s Common Sense makes clear, the term “society” has been distorted into a synonym for “government” but that makes no more sense than, in Lincoln’s terms, calling a tail a leg and then claiming that a dog has 5 legs. In fact, they are near opposites - society being a blessing, and government being (at best) a necessary evil.

American mainstream journalism is cynical about American society and naive about government.

And so is any Democrat, or any other socialist.

America has "a free press” but - because in part of the Associated Press in particular and wire services generally - American presses are not independent. They admit they are “associated.” It is a massive violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. And also, arguably, RICO.

The First Amendment did not create freedom of the press, it merely reified, or fixed in place, the freedom that the press already enjoyed. That is - as Scalia noted - the press was subject to laws against libel before the enactment of the First Amendment, and it was still subject to those same laws afterward. So the press can be regulated - but only with a light hand and with the soundest of justifications.
For example, there is no reason why the public should accept a single monopoly press; journalists have no right to expect that the Sherman AntiTrust Act does not apply in their business. And the unifying principle of “the MSM” is the Associated Press. Essentially every major journalism outlet is a member. The very word “associated” in its name should make the AP suspect, and Adam Smith’s analysis of monopoly
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. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)
applies very directly, since the AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all its members which has been in continuous operation since before the Civil War. You have to be "naive as a babe to believe” that in over a century and a half journalists have never found common cause to the detriment of the public.
There is more than one analysis that suggests strongly that claiming objectivity for journalism is inappropriate. I put it to you that everyone knows that “If it bleeds, it leads” is sound advice for commercial viability in journalism. Certainly every journalist knows it. Journalism is negative - and any claim that "negativity is objectivity” should be dismissed out of hand as sheer cynicism. Another, more general and less pointed, argument is that no one can know that they are being objective. You can try to be objective. You can even say that you are trying to be objective - if indeed you are. But to claim that you actually are objective is to confess that you actually are not even trying to be objective. Because the effort to try must start from the assumption that might not be objective. Certainly it is arrogant to claim to possess a virtue, and claiming objectivity is no different from claiming wisdom or any classical virtue.
Journalism is negative towards society, but not towards government. In fact, anyone who is negative towards society must think “there oughta be a law” whenever they seen a failing of society. Thus, journalism inherently tends to cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine asserted that society and government are often conflated but are in fact near opposites:
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 . . . - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
I put it to you that "cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government” describes socialism to a tee. Whereas American conservatism holds, with the founders of the Constitution, that

skepticism towards society is sufficiently justified to be an adequate rationale for having a government, but

skepticism towards people in government is even more justified than skepticism towards people in society outside of government.

The conclusion of the matter is that journalists tend to “conspire against the public” by promoting socialism. And that the wire services generally, and the AP in particular, are the nexus of their conspiracy. And, I note, the raison d'être of the wire services was the conservation of expensive telegraphy bandwidth in the wide dissemination of the news. And in the 21^st Century, telegraphy bandwidth is dirt cheap.
There is such a thing as the AP Stylebook, which establishes standards for journalism. Some, perhaps most, of it is unexceptionable - for example, the “pyramid organization” of articles which demands that the most salient points of the article be articulated in the opening part of the article. But if the Stylebook proscriptions prevent the articulation of a particular political viewpoint - if for example it proscribes the term “illegal alien” to describe foreign citizens in the US without proper authorization - that is “a conspiracy against the public.” I doubt that the Stylebook explicitly proscribes the identification of the political party of a Democrat politician caught with his hands in the till, and requires it when a Republican is so charged - but “the MSM is notorious for exactly that sort of thing.
The AP should be prosecuted (or sued civilly) - and ruined. We don’t need it, and it is anticompetitive in the one industry - discussion of current events and politics - in which competition is most significant and necessary. The NY Times v. Sullivan ruling - in which SCOTUS made it very difficult for “public figures” to sue for libel - must be overturned. It is famously said that a law against sleeping under bridges is not neutral because it forbids both rich and poor from doing it. Just so, a ruling which makes it extremely difficult for Democrats - who essentially are never libeled - to sue, while doing “the same thing” to Republicans, who get libeled continually, is utterly unfair.

I'm sure (though I haven't looked) that the venerable AP would disagree.

I make no doubt. What has to happen in America is a lawsuit demanding that the NY Times v. Sullivan rule be overturned.
It makes it hard for public figures to sue for libel. But that the ruling is “fair” is predicated on the assumption that there is ideological competition in journalism. Critics of “the MSM” know that to be untrue, but have had a hard time articulating an irrefutable argument against it. The answer is IMHO bound and gagged and lying on our doorstep. The Associated Press (and its membership, taken together) constitute a monopoly in blatant violation of The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890).
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. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)
The AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all major US journalism - and it has been in continuous operation since before the Civil War.
The “conspiracy against the public” is the promotion of the fatuous conceit that journalism (AP journalism) is objective. Nobody can know that they are unbiased, whether or not they are in a mutual admiration society which assures them that they are. It takes effort even to attempt objectivity - and that effort must start from the assumption that you might likely be biased. Starting from the contrary assumption that you are unbiased simply proves that you are not even trying to be objective.
Worse, journalists are negative and they know it. They are all taught that , for commercial reasons, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Thus, the idea that journalism is objective amounts to the conceit that negativity is objectivity - amounts, IOW, to cynicism. Journalism is cynical about society, but naive towards government (after all, any criticism of society naturally raises the idea that “there oughta be a law”). That combination of cynicism and naiveté contrasts with the attitude of the conservative, who is skeptical enough of society to accept the (regretable) need for government - and skeptical of government because it is expensive and dangerous. It is for that reason that journalists are, to a conservative, indistinguishable from other socialists.
But to the point of the Stylebook, any politically tendentious rule in it (such as requiring that illegal aliens not be called “illegal aliens”) can be called an element of “conspiracy against the public” because after all, illegal aliens are illegal aliens.

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.