Replies

Mark Steyn?

Where does he fit into your synopsis?
Or . . .

Not all writing is journalism. Journalism defines itself by its deadlines first of all, and secondly by its affectation of objectivity.
The deadline has the effect of demanding of the journalist that something which happened - or at least was learned about - since the last deadline shall be deemed to be "important." Significant enough to demand the public's attention. All very well, if the Titanic sank yesterday - but what are the odds that you would be able to recall any portion of the front page headline story of The New York Times ten years ago today? The deadline is simply, "The show must go on," applied to topical nonfiction entertainment.
The affectation of objectivity - the classic formulation of which is The Times' "All the news that's fit to print" - has an ironic effect. A serious reader will always discount statements of fact by the estimated effect of the reporter's own perspective. For example, you as the reader of this note understand that I am a conservative who wishes to inspire people to reevaluate the position journalism is accorded in America. You as the reader will naturally scrutinize my arguments for unstated assumptions which call my conclusions into question. And I want your feedback especially if you do find a flaw in my reasoning.
But the "objective" journalist lays down the word from on high, demanding with the force of journalism's PR power that the perspective of journalism be accepted as the perspective of society. The fallacy lies in the fact that journalism's perspective - which systematically focuses on the unusual and atypical rather than the ordinary and the representative event - is good for entertainment but filters out the work people do every day. It is a blinkered perspective which ignores most things that are really important.
Political leftism is a planted axiom of the "objective journalist" perspective. Frank opinion pieces such as those by Mark Steyn et al are entirely different because they do not implictly patronize the reader. Journalism does.

The fallacy lies in the fact that journalism's perspective - which systematically focuses on the unusual and atypical rather than the ordinary and the representative event - is good for entertainment but filters out the work people do every day. It is a blinkered perspective which ignores most things that are really important.

Generally agree with one caveat, journalistic given: liberalism, and what it stands for is normal, therefor good - conservativism, and what it stands for is abnormal; therefor, bad. The atypical events supporting this idealogy is, to them, newsworthy entertainment.

From your home page:

Such is the power and duration of the propaganda campaign which supports the fatuous idea that we are "entitled to the truth" that it took me well over 50 years to see through it.

I'm not sure I follow. Are we not entitled to "expect" the truth???

FGS

the decision to buy the paper at all is an entertainment decision - we buy the paper because we are bored.

There are many who don't.

Many, perhaps - but there is a crucial difference between "many" and "nearly all." If nearly all readers were actually interested in being informed rather than entertained, the newspapers could sensibly be expected to write to that audience. But since there is an ineluctable potential market of sheeple out there to appeal to, and because the last 10% of circulation tells the tale of how much profit or loss the paper will net (that's true of nearly all businesses), the pressure to entertain is unavoidable.

I used to buy (now I give my money to FR) news serivices to be informed. I used to buy The Economist and the Christian Science Monitor. Your projection of your values upon the purchase decision, in that respect, induces you to miss the purpose of the owners of the news and information service in biasing that material to the left.

From my #505:

Journalism defines itself by its deadlines first of all, and secondly by its affectation of objectivity.
The deadline has the effect of demanding of the journalist that something which happened - or at least was learned about - since the last deadline shall be deemed to be "important." Significant enough to demand the public's attention. All very well, if the Titanic sank yesterday - but what are the odds that you would be able to recall any portion of the front page headline story of The New York Times ten years ago today? The deadline is simply, "The show must go on," applied to topical nonfiction entertainment.