The opposite of scientism and of mysticism is candor. Rush Limbaugh is candid - he expresses himself openly, and continuously for hours at a time daily. Contrast that with the constricted "news" report which is scripted in advance (if it's not "breaking news") and which in any case is about a defined subject on which the reporter is, putatively, the expert and you and I are presumed to be ignorant. The reporter is always in a race to stay ahead of the rest of us in his knowledge of the story - and when that is no longer possible, the reporter drops the story as "old news" and moves on to another story in which the reporter has the advantage over the audience.
Don't we wish! I had the experience of being "outted" as a conservative in a setting where I thought it inappropriate to start a loud political discussion, and the "outter" said, "You probably thing that the media isn't objective." I thought that hilarious, since I of all people consider myself expert on "Bias in the media." But in the event, I allowed myself to be bogged down in the usual minutia arguments which seem, at least, to boil down to "He said, she said."I put "Bias in the media" in scare quotes because IMHO that is our opponent's preferred formulation. It isn't focused enough, and it has false assumptions embedded in it.
So I find that "bias in the media" is an unhelpful formulation of the problem. The actual problem is the extent to which the people believe things which are not so:
- First, "the media" includes not only journalism but fiction entertainment such as movies and TV. If you are going to attack "bias," you should IMHO limit your attack to putative nonfiction - to so-called "objective" journalism.
- Second, "media" is a plural noun. If we are able to speak of the question of bias in "the media," the very question implies that "the media" is not plural but a single entity. Just as the Red Sox and the Yankees are plural if considered as two individual teams but singular if understood as representing major league baseball.
- Third, "bias" implies that something is wrong with "the media" having a perspective. The First Amendment does not say that journalism is objective, it says that people can print whatever they wanna.
The plain fact is that journalism is criticism, in that journalism is simply talk, not action, and is free to second guess those who have to take responsibility for their actions or inactions. - Theodore Roosevelt's critique
- that journalism is plural because there are competitive outlets like ABC and CBS, when in fact journalists function in a guild mentality and refuse to criticize each other. For example, other journalists did not declare the obvious fact that Dan Rather and 60 Minutes jumped the shark with the "Killian memo" fraud. So much for "competitiveness" in reporting.
- that journalism is, and of right ought to be, objective. As noted, the Constitution does not suggest that at all - and no other authoritative source such as the Bible will suggest it, either.
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arenais opposite to journalism.Another plain fact is that journalism promotes journalism. And journalism promotes those who help journalism promote itself - and that includes all "liberals." In fact, as used by journalism the words "liberal" and "progressive" are simply positive labels intended to promote people who promote the hypercritical perspective of journalism. Just as "conservative" and "right wing" are simply negative labels intended to denigrate people who are skeptical of journalism's presumptuous second guessing.
It is difficult to define "objectivity," because de facto it is a synonym for wisdom - and it is arrogant to claim wisdom. But it is fair to say, I think, that objectivity is detachment from one's own interest - and thus that preoccupation with one's own interest, or subjectivity, is the opposite of objectivity. And to the extent that journalism blows its own horn and promotes those who criticize everyone except journalists and those who do likewise, journalism is the most subjective and least objective of professions.