Posted on 08/26/2004 6:01:38 PM PDT by yatros from flatwater
When Bob Edwards, the former host of National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" program, visited our city several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to ask him why he thought so many conservatives see NPR as a voice for liberalism.
Mr. Edwards was promoting his new book, Edward R. Murrow and the Birth of Broadcast Journalism. Mr. Edwards has a good sense of humor, often at his own expense, but much more often that day at the expense of the Bush administration or of Fox News. He knew his audience—a group of about 120 people gathered for a fundraising luncheon for the local NPR station—and he was right to assume that virtually everyone there would happily call himself or herself at least moderately liberal.
And indeed, that's exactly how Mr. Edwards described himself that day as he responded to my question. "I like to think of myself more as a moderate than as a liberal," he said, with a pleasant touch of only slight defensiveness.
But don't they all? And even while they scurry from that awful L-word, they highlight one of the key differences between a liberal and a conservative outlook on life. Liberals don't like being pinned down on much of anything. Conservatives relish it. To make that point is to say that the arguments between liberals and conservatives don't usually have much to do with the rightness or the wrongness of the position itself; they have to do instead with whether someone should even take a position on the issue.
For example, in the current setting a conservative will argue that marriage should be a relationship only between a man and a woman. But a liberal, instead of arguing for some other specific relationship, is more likely to say that it doesn't really matter, and that the issue should be left to be decided by the various individuals concerned. Such rising above the fray is, of course, portrayed as the moral high ground. And it conveniently spares the one who holds it any responsibility for defending the other side of the argument.
All of this has just taken on new significance because of a vigorous discussion about bias taking place within the journalistic community in our country. Editor & Publisher, which calls itself "America's oldest journal covering the newspaper industry," this month featured a blockbuster article—"The Bias Wars"—but fell into a bad trap in the process. The article, quoting several dozen journalists and journalism professors, spends most of its time worrying whether there are equal numbers of liberals and conservatives in America's newsrooms, and—if there aren't—whether those who are there are professional enough in their reporting to make the difference unimportant.
Carrying such a perspective to a remarkable extreme is Leonard Downie Jr. of The Washington Post, who told Editor & Publisher that since becoming the Post's managing editor 20 years ago, he has refused to vote. He also encourages his staff to back off in similar fashion. But why is it so hard for folks like Mr. Downie to see how such forms of noncommitment simply become a profound commitment of another kind? Bob Zelnick of Boston University's journalism department claims that the students he knows today don't care much about politics (is he saying that therefore we shouldn't really call them liberals?)—but that there are some values they hold dear, like environmental protection, gay rights, and a woman's right to an abortion. Some detachment from ideology!
But whether the two sides in any debate are equally represented in the pages of a newspaper is hardly the point. Far more important is what the reporters and editors think about truth itself, about reality itself.
In his revealing column last month—"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?"—Times public editor Daniel Okrent answers right up front: "Of course it is." But he quotes his publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., as denying that "liberal" is the right term. Mr. Sulzberger prefers the word "urban," claiming that New Yorkers are "less easily shocked."
So Mr. Sulzberger, like Bob Edwards, chooses not to engage the specific, individual issues and arguments. They both scuttle sideways and change the subject to the matter of how many different points of view we are able to accommodate.
That's something a good conservative—particularly one grounded in the truth of God's Word—will never do. —•
Good post. Thanks.
The left - I won't call them liberals when they're communists - needs a good dose of reality. I don't mean death as in 9/11, but maybe just a really intense stint becoming educated in our nation's founding, and why we are a republic and not a democracy.
On the other hand, a few years spent in camps might be fun for them......(Joking. Maybe.)
That urbanites are "less easily shocked" is an urban myth, in my opinion. People who live closer to the elements and deal with the realities of nature -- farmers, ranchers, commercial fishermen, rural folks -- are much closer to reality. Children raised away from rural realities think milk and eggs come from cartons. They think they can go up to sea lion sunning himself on the beach and pet him. They are shocked when they realize that the milk comes from the teats of cows, that eggs come from the hindparts of chickens, and that the sea lion will bite them.
How many city people are vegetarians because they are shocked at the realities of livestock and livestock harvesting? They are shocked that livestock is kept in "inhumane" conditions -- they perceive it as inhumane because they don't know that poultry and cattle are dimmer than 25 watt bulbs.
I once had a "sophisticated" (i.e., not easily shocked) sailboat-buff urbanite tell me in all seriousness that commercial fishermen should be required to wear life jackets. He was rather shocked that, unlike him on his sailboat (he was a day sailor, of course), they did not. He was naive enough not to consider that a) the fishermen are out for weeks at a time in b) water so cold that they would not survive for long, c) that a bulky lifejacket would seriously and potentially fatally interfere with the work they do on the boat and d) that insurance companies insuring the boat require captains and crew to have far more elaborate and effective safety measures on board (such as covered lifeboats and full-body survival suits) than a day sailor has ever even heard of.
Rural people aren't shocked when a bobcat eats alive rabbits in a pen by chewing off their feet through the bottom of the cage, or when a mountain lion attacks a bicyclist. Rural people aren't shocked when a cat abandons her kittens to die because they are diseased. Working fishermen aren't shocked at the sight of a killer whale playing toss-the-baby-seal until the seal is way dead.
Rural people aren't shocked by gun ownership, or firearms education for kids. Rural people aren't shocked by religion or the practice thereof.
Urbanites, on the other hand ...
The sticker serves 2 purposes:
1 - Shows visible support for "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" to passing motorists
2 - Gets the swiftvets.com website visible to the public, so they can and find out more about 'Hanoi John' Kerry
Made by fellow FReeper disabled vet who has a bone to pick with Kerry, like we all do!
Large (24" Wide 12" Tall) like mine
Small (12" Wide 6" Tall)
Profits go to SwiftVets.com
FReep mail for details.
You might also like this one.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/
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.
