[conservatism_IS_compassion]

No discussion of the public discourse is complete without reference to the fact that

1. the public discourse is dominated by Big Journalism, and

2. the defining quality of Big Journalism is the solidarity of its members around the conceit that journalism is objective and is the embodiment of the public interest. That implies
   • a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach to journalists and others who adhere to the code of the journalist, and
   • a see only evil, hear only evil, speak only evil approach to "the man who is actually in the arena" and to anyone who promotes "the man in the arena" over "the critic."

In short, journalism which claims to be objective is inherently incivil because sophistry is incivil, and "objective journalism" is pure sophistry.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

while, we're at it, why don't we get those nasty Tories to ban drugs, bank robberies and car thefts, too. And murder. Let's get them to ban murder, because murder is bad. And if all it takes to prevent bad things from happening are federal bans on them, well let's just ban lots of stuff--because then all sorts of crime and personal pain will just magically go away.

Oh, right: Ottawa has already banned drugs, murder and robbery. And despite those prohibitions, bad things continue to happen. In spite of laws making it a crime to murder, deal drugs and hold up credit unions, criminals still do it.

Transparently, passing new laws against things which are already illegal is simply elevating talk above action. Who talks the most, and does the least otherwise? Why, I believe that would be Big Journalism!

The elevation of talk over action is easy; nothing is easier than criticizing and second guessing because action always clarifies, and the second guesser has the advantage of seeing results - an advantage which the person who initially acted could only dream of when he made his decision to act.

It is natural for the journalist to second guess, and the natural implication of second guessing would be that the second guesser - who has no track record of ever having taken difficult decisions without full knowledge of the ultimate results, and followed through successfully - would obviously have done better than the person who was actually in charge. And the natural implication of that is that people with big mouths and no experience of actually doing anything should be put in charge.

And where better for such "geniuses" to be given in charge but in the government, where they can control everything! Leftism is simply the drive toward incompetent management, for the foolish separation of responsibility from authority. And leftism is the natural attitude for a journalist to have - and for a journalist to promote with favorable labels on leftist politicians.

Blame urban culture, not urban guns
National Post ^ | 2007-05-28 | Lorne Gunter