Replies

Thanks for the link to the article! I appreciate your keeping me in mind...

My impression is that most thinking people would have far less of an issue with the media if it would be honest about its biases, rather than continually presenting themselves as "middle of the road", just as many conservatives have less of an issue with liberals who are up front about their goals, rather than liberals who must hide their real predilections, lest they be thrown out of office by their constituencies who would certainly not agree with them.

most thinking people would have far less of an issue with the media if it would be honest about its biases, rather than continually presenting themselves as "middle of the road"

Yes, of course. I say "of course," and am reminded of the sign an engineer had on his wall,
This problem, when solved, will be simple.
Because after all my labors in this thread to hash out the reasons for "bias in the media" it now seems simple to me. The reason Big Journalism exists as the establishment in America is because it can exist as such. That the First Amendment butresses the position of Big Journalism to exist as an establishment is obvious. But once accept that, and the question becomes not "why?" but "Why not?"
And the answers one might propose to "Why not?" turn out to be risable. Let's see . . . how about, "Because not being objective would violate the code of ethics up there on the wall?" Snicker. How about, "Because The New York Times says the Washington Post is objective, and the Washington Post says The New York Times is objective? Snort.
The existence of those "codes of ethics" is testimony to the incentives and motives journalists have to violate them. The propaganda power of the Washington Post is ample reason for The New York Times to avoid any flame war with the Washington Post - and vice versa. So they just go along and get along. Within the constraints of that imperative to go along and get along within Big Journalism, each outlet of Big Journalism is free to promote itself - and does so with abandon.
The net effect is that in seeking to exalt its own reputation, Big Journalism pushes down on the reputations of everyone in society who, because of the constraints of reality - a.k.a., "the bottom line" - must do unpopular things. Industry must modify nature, at least to some extent, and must charge for its products and cannot pay unlimited wages. To accomplish its mission the military must kill people and break things, and so on.
The State Department, the UN, teachers, unions, and advocates of minorities - all are professional complainers who talk much but ultimately do not work to a bottom line and have no responsibility. They are therefore free to go along and get along with Big Journalism - and that is precisely what they do. Big Journalism flatters itself with the label "objective," and flatters its sycophants with positive labels such as "progressive" or "moderate" or "liberal."
The entire project is little else but arrogance.

Editorial writers at The New York Times and The Washington Post, ever eager to regulate political advocacy not done by newspaper editorial writers, approved, although the Times thought the fines insufficient, and although the Post, calling the current law ``murky,'' thought the FEC should have enforced the murkiness quicker.

This sounds hard-hitting to some, I'm sure. But to me it is soft compared to what it should have said. The distinction between "news" and "editorial opinion" is artificial; it has no basis in the Constitution. It is boob bait for suckers.
In actual fact the First Amendment protects the expression of political (or other) viewpoint without regard to positioning, be it on the front page or the editorial page (if any) of a newspaper. And that is essential to freedom of the press, because it would be impossible ever to prove that story selection did not reflect an agenda (in fact, story selection inevitably relflects an agenda).
The truth is that journalism inherently promotes journalism - meaning that journalism promotes the idea that criticizing those who provide our food, clothing, shelter, and security is more important than those necessities. And that explains why Big Journalism (a.k.a, "the MSM) promotes socialism. And, under the First Amendment, newspapers are entitled to do so freely. But so are you and I, and the NRA and the ACLU.

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin

Political speech makes a comeback
Townhall ^ | 12/31/06 | George Will