I told my nephew, an editor for a local TV station, when he mocked what he thought I was saying, that there is a conspiracy among the media to help the Democrats. I told him that there is no conspiracy to help the Democrats, they ARE the Democrats.
” Breitbart said he hoped his battle against the liberal media could become “an international movement,” and likened the battle to the previous century’s battle against Communism. “
Breitbart is one smart dude.
I'd like to know who writes their lines...
Now that would be interesting.....
Very true, but the media will fall with the Democrats this November. I have never seen an industry actually go out to destroy themselves like the media is. You would think that the employees of the media would see that they are destroying their own jobs in the future.
It has been said the media is the PR arm of the Democrats. It think it's the other way around - the Democrats are the political arm of the media.
Of course - but it helps if you understand the homogenizing institution which causes political group-think in journalism. And that would be the Associated Press.Think about it: in the founding era, newspapers were fractiously independent of each other. Then along comes the telegraph and the AP newswire, and printers had a choice to make: remain independent and be marginalized, or join the AP and be prosperous and influential. Of course, if you join the AP then you pay big bucks for the service - but you can easily recoup that investment provided that you exploit it by promoting the AP. And promoting the AP means promoting the stories from reporters who don't work for you. IOW, you have to promote the conceit that journalism - all of journalism - is objective.
So what you have just done is to join the Borg. You can have a conservative editorial page if you want to, but that will be strictly a side show - the main event is the front page, and all the rest of the "editorial content" of the paper which will be scarcely distinguishable from one newspaper to the another. You will not be in the opinion business (as your predecessors in the founding era were), you will be in the news business.
You - all of AP journalism - will insist that "news" is objective. But is it? Can it possibly be so?
Claiming that journalism is objective is a self-negating prophecy. For if anyone attempts to be objective, the first thing they must do is to seek to identify and discount any reasons why they might not be objective. And claiming to be objective is the very antithesis of that.
What tendencies in journalism prevent the possibility of journalistic objectivity? First, journalism is inherently superficial - because of its deadlines, and for the reason that the news business is only about whatever the potential audience hasn't heard or read yet. So objectivity might, I would argue generally does, require depth of coverage of things with which reporters and editors - and readers - could be easily bored.
Second, journalism tends to accentuate the negative, in order to prevent the potential reader/hearer from feeling free to ignore the report.
And journalists are at heart cardboard heroes who pick fights with safe, nonthreatening targets such as Christians rather than, for instance, jihadists.
Exactly like "liberal" politicians. There is no difficulty is understanding why "objective journalists" agree with "liberals" - the causation works the other way. Journalists have their inherent biases, those biases create a natural propaganda wind - and politicians with no principles other than their own self-promotion must be expected to toady to the journalists' predilections.