The planted axiom in the“Fact Reporting/Original Fact Reporting” = "Neutral +/- a ‘skew’”categorization is the assumption that journalism is objective. Whereas in fact every journalist, and any journalism consumer who pays attention, knows that “If it bleeds, it leads.” That is, journalism is slanted to the negative. Unless of course you count the advertisements, which only proves the point - you have to pay journalists to report good news.But note, Dear Reader, that the assumption of journalistic objectivity is therefore an assumption that “negativity = objectivity.” And that “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is a very serviceable definition of cynicism.
Cynicism is the opposite of faith, and as Thomas Paine pointed out in Common Sense, there is a very significant sense in which “government” and “society” are opposites. “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . .” It follows that cynicism towards society corresponds to faith in government. And that is precisely the combination which is observed in “objective, Original Fact Reporting.”
And the combination of cynicism towards society (a.k.a., “the market”) and naive faith in government is the defining characteristic of “liberalism.” Conservatism, OTOH, is skeptical - not cynical, but skeptical - of both society and government. Conservatism’s skepticism of government demands limits on government - but conservatism’s skepticism of society demands some government. It is conservatism which is moderate, and “liberalism” which is extreme.
I agree that Journalism has been allowed to evoke an (unwarranted) assumption that it is objective—as if by default, barring some concerted effort, journalists (and the human organizations bundling and wrapping them) are naturally unbiased, objective reporters of universal fact and truth.
Thank you greatly for your excellent response and addition to the topic. This is environment you used to find much more on FR (”Come let us reason together”).
Ping.