the news media were biased in the 2008 presidential election is now
acknowledged by fair-minded people, left or right.
Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin said this weekend at a Politico/USC
Conference on the 2008 election: “It's the most disgusting failure of people in
our business…It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."
how obvious this bias is, the question is not whether liberals in the media
tend to offer biased reporting. The question is why? Why can’t liberal news
people report the news without any slant?
answer is that for people on the left, all – I repeat, all – professions
are a means to an end, not ends in themselves. That end is the social
transformation of society, meaning the promoting of “social justice” as the
left understands that term.
most liberal news reporters, therefore, the purpose of news reporting is not to
report news as objectively as possible. The purpose of the media in general and
of reporting specifically is to promote social justice and the social
transformation of society.
most liberal judges, the primary purpose of being a judge is to promote social
justice and transform society. That is why liberal judges are so much more
likely to be judicial activists than conservative judges. Most liberal judges
do not see their roles as merely adjudicating a dispute according to the law.
They see their role primarily as using the law and their power to rule on the
law to promote social justice.
most university professors – and many high school teachers, as well – outside
of the natural sciences and math, the same holds true. The task of a teacher is
to teach, i.e., to convey the most important information as honestly as
possible. But, again, this conflicts with the social justice goal of the left.
History teachers who merely teach history are of little use to the left.
History – and English and political science, and sociology, and other liberal
arts – teachers must use their classroom to produce young people who will wish
to engage in society-transforming work for social justice.
most liberals in the arts (there are very few conservatives in the arts) there
is no denial of their having an agenda. They state quite candidly that the
purpose of the arts is to challenge the (conservative) status quo, to raise
political and social consciousness by advancing a “progressive” political and
social agenda. The artist whose agenda is merely to produce beautiful art is
looked upon as a reactionary buffoon, and is not likely to be taken seriously
-- no matter how talented -- in the worlds of music, dance, painting, and
the natural sciences are increasingly subject to being rendered a means to a
“progressive” end. There was the pseudo-threat of heterosexual AIDS in America –
science manipulated in order to de-stigmatize AIDS as primarily a gay man’s
disease and to increase funding for AIDS research. There are the exaggerated
secondhand smoke data popularized so as to decrease smoking and fight “Big
Tobacco.” And now we have the scientifically questionable belief in man-made
carbon emissions causing global warming leading to natural catastrophe – and
recommended “solutions” many of which, if adopted, will serve the goal of
undermining corporate capitalism.
best analogy of the directing of all human endeavors toward a left-wing purpose
would be those early medieval centuries of European life when just about
everything man made was supposed to reflect a religious consciousness. Virtually
nothing stood apart from the Church. The arts were religious, the sciences were
handmaidens of theology, and schools were religious in nature.
moderns look upon that period as a dark age – perhaps a bit unfairly at times.
But the people who most scorn what they deem the religious “Dark Ages” are
trying to building a secular-left dark age in our time. Because the left is a
religion, a substitute for the Christianity it seeks to displace.