|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
http://www.rageagainstthemedia.org/evan-sayet-todays-modern-liberal-journalists-objective-reporting-act-bigotry/
Evan Sayet: To Today’s Modern Liberal Journalists, Objective Reporting is an Act of Bigotry March 18, 2014
(snip)
The short answer to the question about the media’s utter, complete and total failure, Sayet claims, is that to today’s “journalists,” “It’s an act of bigotry, to be an objective reporter.”
(snip)
Using Bret Stevens’ 2005 Wall Street Journal article “A First Draft of History?” as a point of departure, Sayet goes through a list of major stories of recent decades, noting how the media got each of them wrong, “not just wrong, but as wrong as wrong can be.” He starts with global stories such as how our media was caught utterly off-guard at the falling of Communism. . . then continues with more recent, domestic stories – the exactly false, and doctored, reporting on the Martin-Zimmerman case as a prime example. No doubt about it, but the media’s reporting on these was wholly inaccurate, to the point where, as Sayet points out, if you rely on the news media as your “intelligence service,” which of course is its purpose, then you would be operating under completely false information, and your worldview would be not based in reality in the slightest.
[I wonder what an author, relying only on published news accounts of the lax case as the "first draft of history", might come up with by way of conclusions?]
Are there major stories in recent decades the media hasn’t gotten completely wrong?
(snip)
This is a betrayal of the most specious, dangerous and depraved kind. To create for those who depend on the news a completely, utterly false narrative about the world around them, around US, is “as wrong as wrong can be,” frankly.
So Sayet’s claim that they have gotten not just most, but every major story of recent decades completely wrong, holds up to scrutiny. And note that these are not just stories that are classified as “political.” Not at all. To the left, every aspect of our lives is political, every choice we make is rooted in a political framework, every move we make is an opportunity for political action on their part, and an argument for inserting government into our lives.
We also know that without the media as its sales force, leftist ideas don’t stand a chance. Frankly, if the truth were reported about any of this, it is clear which way voters would vote, and we would of course reject these absurd policies, right after we stopped laughing at their creativity, temerity and just plain ludicrousness.
[How long would the lax case have lasted if the media had been as skeptical of Nifong as it was of the players; and if it had done any research, or even been simply neutral and objective in its reporting?]
Generally, the reason for this acknowledged media “bias” is that they will do whatever it takes to advance the leftist narrative, that it is just that simple. Journalism 101 in today’s America: If there is a way to spin a story in a way that will further the leftist cause, do so. . . . Advance one side, silence the other, BOOM. Congratulations, you are now qualified to be a “news” reporter.
[How else can one explain the doctored coverage of the lax case, by the Times and Newsweek (imho)? Duff Wilson? Certainly they had nothing to gain or fear from favoring Duke's interpretation.]
Sayet doesn’t dispute this, but goes further.
Given that they have distorted everything to their advantage and to silence any dissenting voice, he asks: WHY. It is that exploration that renders his talk, and the book that builds on his answers, unique.
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
And the answer lies in his “Unified Field Theory of Modern Liberalism” outlined in his book, The Kindergarden of Eden, and in his talk. This theory describes “How the Modern Liberal thinks,” and goes like this.
Since we are subject to biases due to various accidents of our birth and other factors – gender, race, height, nationality, experiences, birth order (OK, I threw that in there) – any judgment we make about anything will be tainted by these biases, therefore, in short, to judge is inherently wrong. Any act of discriminatory thinking, that is, determining that any one thing is better than another, is wrong, because this kind of discrimination or discernment is solely due to our own personal biases and prejudices.
[privilege!]
In fact, this is moral relativism on an individual scale rather than a cultural one. Moral relativism operates from a stance that there can be no such thing as universal values, there can be no objective “good” or “bad” because any such valuation is based on our cultural prejudices. . . This Modern Liberal perspective leads directly to the rejection of judgment, and voilà, what we have is the “not that there’s anything wrong with that” belief system, one that is characterized by utter amorality and valuelessness.
So any judgment, therefore, is deemed bigotry; only indiscriminateness is permissible, as discrimination is, of course, wrong. No one thing can be any better than any other and to think otherwise is to impose one’s own bigotry into such judgment. This is the logical consequence of embracing moral relativism, as Modern Liberals have.
But how, then, to explain that some religions, nations, entrepreneurs, are more successful than others, if one is to consider that all religions, nations, entrepreneurs are equal? The explanation, contends Sayet, is that to the Modern Liberal constrained by this false premise, is that the successful somehow cheated and victimized those that failed. And therefore to consider that success might be due to some inherent characteristic or hard work or better ideology – is to be a bigot. To evaluate objectively, then, is to be a bigot.
So, is it true? Do journalists operate in fear of being bigoted, and is it this fear that impels them to contortionist efforts to avoid being seen as bigoted? . . . Was it brain-crunching mental gymnastics to not be bigoted, to not be objective, that kept reporters from telling the truth about the Zimmerman trial, or about Israel, or about Katrina?
[What kept the media from telling the truth about the lax accusations?]
Not only does Sayet make a compelling case for this, but he points out it’s even worse.
The logical and unintended consequence of reporting from a stance of moral relativism is that rather these contorted effort to be “fair,” non-judgmental and not discriminatory in fact, lead to stories that are utterly and completely wrong. By these gyrations, they elevate the evil, failed and wrong, while of necessity denigrating the good, right and successful. . .
As Sayet would say: “folks, this was not just a little bit off, but it’s 180 degrees from the truth,” as well as turning the blame back to one of the hallmarks of America’s exceptional greatness: our constitutionally-protected right to free speech.
[Ditto about the reporting on the lax case, which was not just a little bit off, but 180 degrees off.]
What we have then, most ironically, is that these gyrations intended to avoid bigotry lead, in fact, to bigotry of an even worse kind. The bigotry that comes out of elevating the evil and denigrating the good is far, far worse than bigotry that comes from objective, thoughtful, considered evaluations. Reviling Israel because they must have done something to warrant having their children murdered by those raised from birth to hate Jews is bigotry rooted in twisted irrationality. The bigotry that leads one to blame the American creator of a youtube video for the massacre is infinitely worse that the recognition of Islamic extremism as a very real and legitimate danger. The bigotry that is the natural consequence of the Modern Liberals’ lies, deceptions, contortions to avoid “bigotry” by eschewing objectivity is far more pernicious than that which it seeks to avoid.
[Might we yet see an example of blaming the lax players for Mangum's accusations? Or blaming their "culture"--be it that of Wall St., or college youth, or athletics--for her accusations?]
Do they lie, distort, mislead, because they will do anything to advance the leftist agenda? Yes indeed. But the leftist agenda is born out of the “not that there’s anything wrong with that” moral relativist mind-set, which leads, as Sayet says, to denigrating the good and elevating the evil, failed and wrong, and the majority of today’s “mainstream media” reporters are no exception.
The danger is that we trust them as our “intelligence service,” to provide us with accurate, objective information, and every day, with every report, they betray us.
Is Sayet right in saying that to todays’ journalist, objective reporting is an act of bigotry? Yes, indeed. But their brand of “reporting” is, in fact, far more bigoted than objective journalism could ever be.
|