((Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
Ben Shapiro, a kid, basically, has clearer vision and better understanding of war, life and journalism than the old frauds like Dan Blather, Walter Crankcase, Perky Katie Couric, etc., etc. Young Mr. Shapiro is wise beyond his years and his columns not only reflect his wisdom, they are usually right on target.
It's a travesty that the target of this column, the drive-by media, won't read or take to heart Mr. Shapiro's words of wisdom. They could use the help.
But the problem is not that journalists are trying to present both sides and be objective. The problem is they are NOT being objective. They are taking sides and their choices are based on political viewpoints and shallowly analyzed rhetoric instead of objective facts. When they take sides in a domestic election, we call it "politics". When they take sides in a war, it needs to be called "treason", and they need to be called "enemy".
Tagline material. Just too long to include an attribution, though...
The fallacy in your case is the assumption that journalism's job is to tell you what is going on. You buy the newspaper, and you think that finding out what is happening is what journalism is about - but journalists have their own, quite different, idea of that.Everyone chooses their occupation or profession based on their ability and desire to satisfy themselves and the people they care about. Most simply take the first job that will pay enough money to keep the respect of their family. Professionals prepare systematically to do something more than that. Journalists go into journalism to be part of a profession which is at the top of the pecking order.
First and foremost, journalism promotes the idea that journalism is the most important profession. And that implies pecking at all the other chickens in the barnyard.
And so on. In general, anyone who aspires to respect based on doing things, and who is a natural for membership in the Republican Party, is a natural target of journalism.
- Water is so important that if somebody shuts someone else's operation down they are said to have "shut his water off." Does someone take their importance by providing good water to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the possibility of quality degradation in the water supply, and about how expensive water is. Peck.
- Everyone needs gasoline and electricity. Does someone take their importance by providing energy to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the environmental and international political impact of producing energy, and about how expensive energy is. Peck.
- Everyone needs, or will need, health care. Does someone take their importance by providing health care to the public? Journalism's reaction is to look for questions which can be raised about the reliability and expense of health care. Peck.
- The nation needs police and military. Does someone take their importance by providing security to the public and the nation? Journalism's reaction is to question whether they do their job adequately without brutality. Peck.
Who does journalism not peck? Only those who sell out any independence from the idea that journalism is the only thing that matters. Those people, it calls "liberals." Or "progressives." Or whatever high-sounding label they prefer. Which is why people who are rich enough, tend to buy off journalism by taking on journalism's political coloration. Especially, but far from exclusively, those who inherited their money.