Replies

IMHO Rush is not atypical of conservative talk hosts, and I think a legitimate case can be made that he is a philosopher. Philo = "love of" Sophy = "wisdom". He accepts that wisdom is the goal but does not argue from the assumption that he is wise. Oh, he engages in mock braggadocio about his great talent and keen intellect, but he never says "it's true because I say so and since I am wise that settles the matter." Nor any logical equivalent of it. He marshals facts and logic to make his point, and if he finally is grounded on Christian principles he will be open about that, too.
OTOH "liberals" routinely do the logical equivalent of the "I am wise so I am right and you are wrong" thing, which is sophistry. The root of the method they use for obscuring the fact that that is what they are doing is indirect self-congratulation - the old mutual admiration society routine. It starts with journalists, who label all journalists - not just those in their own organization but all journalists - as being "objective." Anyone not in that mutual admiration society is "not a journalist, not objective."
Journalists also positively label all like-minded people who are not journalists. Those who are not journalists are never to be labeled "objective," but they are given labels which are either classical virtues or specifically American virtues. "Moderate" is an example of a classical virtue, and "liberal" (as we have to remind ourselves) was an American virtue before the socialists ran the word into the ground. "Progressive" is an American virtue, since all Americans believe in progress (as why should we not? Today we all live better than Queen Victoria did, considering the health care we enjoy as well as our transportation and innumerable conveniences). And of course all the "moderate"/"liberal"/"progressive" paragons of virtue reciprocate by labeling journalists "objective."
A nice, tight argument - so tight it is in fact circular. "Liberals" have to engage in sophistry and circular logic because the facts and logic on their side just do not add up. And they do not add up because at root what they are selling is a cargo cult - the conceit that enough criticism of "the rich" will force them to disgorge untold wealth and shower it on the poor. In contrast to the reality that "the poor" of America are rich by historical standards, and "the rich" generally get well off by self discipline and effective leadership in society which accumulates wealth over time, and usually not without setbacks.

Why Journalists Are Not Above the Law
Commentary ^ | Feb. '07 | Gabriel Schoenfeld
Bookmarked. This entire article is dead on, and important.
Read it all. I picked this gem:
The claim that [Judith] Miller, or any other journalist in similar circumstances, had no choice but to go jail is, therefore, specious in the extreme, a rationalization put forward by spokesmen of the establishment media in their own effort to gain and maintain their privileges and powers. These they require not in order to report the news but rather, it would appear, to ratify their self-proclaimed position as the arbiters and shapers of American opinion. In the performance of that role, they fancy, their exalted position should place them beyond the reach of American law.
I would add that the broadcast licenses which empower CBS et al to report in a way that you and I are forbidden to are of a piece with the special priviledge after which journalists lust in their pleading for "shield laws" for reporters.

The first of the three parts of this multi-part series, Global Hot Air, was also excellent (well, it Thomas Sowell writing . . .).

Anyone who remembers the 1970s should remember the Club of Rome report that was supposed to be the last word on economic growth grinding to a halt, "overpopulation" and a rapidly approaching era of mass starvation in the 1980s. In reality, the 1980s saw increased economic growth around the world and, far from mass starvation, an increase in obesity and agricultural surpluses in many countries. But much of the media went for the Club of Rome report and hyped the hysteria.

Many in the media resent any suggestion that they are either shilling for an ideological agenda or hyping whatever will sell newspapers or get higher ratings on TV.

Clearly it's one or the other, or both.
IMHO it would only be logical to predict that Big Journalism would "hype whatever will sell newspapers or get higher ratings on TV" even if that did not imply "shilling for an ideological agenda" - which I also hold to be true.
Global Hot Air: Part III (Thomas Sowell)
GOPUSA ^ | February 15, 2007 | Thomas Sowell

"It's not that we bring an agenda to the table."

Yes you do.

Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
That being the case, it is not possible to prove the absence of an agenda unless you are telling the whole truth about everything. And since it is exceedingly improbable that you can prove that you are doing that, absence of an agenda cannot possibly be proved. So we are being ~~asked~~ told to take an exceedingly improbable and selfserving statement on faith.
What is the agenda of journalism? Simple. The one message that journalists want you to take away from listening to them is that journalism is more important than physical action. More important than providing food. More important than providing shelter, or fuel, or clothing, or security.
Journalists send that message by criticizing the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, the weaver, the policeman, the soldier, the woodchopper . . . to hear the journalist they are all venal, corrupt, greedy, selfserving. But not the journalist, kiddo! The journalist - all journalists - are pure as the driven snow. And people who support the thesis that the butcher and the baker are greedy gougers are OK people too. But as for those dastardly business-loving Republicans, well . . .
Public Radio Liberal? Well, Yes, Panel Says
Madison.com ^ | February 22, 2007 | Samara Kalk Derby