John Henke puts together a finely researched exposé on the routine and automatic lying engaged in by the New York Times Editorial Board.
It doesn’t surprise me at all, for I’ve known all about this dynamic since I first became politically aware in my early teens. Big media understands that sensation and controversy is what drives ratings and thus, the bottom line. In fact, we don’t have "The News" because it was ordained somewhere. We have "The News" because some people with the necessary capital got together and realized that there was a lot of money to be made in controlling, sensationalizing, manipulating and outright fabricating information.
The country — moreso back then when I put this together — is predominately to the more socially conservative side, and I include many democrats in that group. These are people of a deep sense of values, and they don’t toss out or adopt new values willy-nilly. They’re salt-of-the-earth types, even when they’re playing useful idiot by going to the polls every two years to have their 1/270,000,000th say in how their own lives and affairs ought to be arranged.
If you want to make money as a media mogul, you don’t give these people what they already know and cherish. They get that in church every week, and certainly in communion with family and friends of like values. What you do is agitate them to no end. You lay assault to their values from one end to the other, and you’ll make millions.
Of course, the best way to effect such an agitation strategy is to hire yourself a bunch of lefty ideologues who want to save the world. Eh voilà, you have yourself a team of automatic liars for whom it becomes so routine that they’re numb to it.
I can’t honestly say that I put all of this together in such detail back when I was twelve. I can say that when I began listening to news, I immediately and without question knew that I was being manipulated. I’m not sure how or why I knew it, but it was as clear to me as anything I can remember.
So the question is not really why the media is so far to the left and unrepresentative of the average person’s values. That’s just about money. The question is why the average journalist is so to the left, and that’s a question that may be tougher to figure out, though some people certainly touch on it from time-to-time.
If you attempted to point out the long history of the murder of fact and the egalitarian elevation of everyone’s opinion
to that place where reality had once been the referent of reason, the
shrugging ennui would be enough to blow your socks off. And, so; now
we’re at the point where manifest lunatics — like Jesse
Jackson, for only one example — need only open their mouths and whole
institutions rush to park microphones in front of them and they are taken seriously — institutionally — while they spout their bloody delusions. People actually accord them respect,
and this is the natural heritage of Pragmatism, ladies and gentlemen:
there is no such thing as reality, truth is a fantasy, and, therefore,
every spoonful of drivel must be heard and entertained because without
it there will be no valid "consensus" in the "national dialog".