The Liberal Media
It has always struck me as odd...
There are people who spend their whole lives studying cars, working on cars, fixing cars, evaluating cars, diagnosing cars, and educating themselves about cars in every possible way that they can using all five senses. They are called mechanics. And because they dedicate their lives to the study of cars, most people value and respect their opinions about cars, and many people seek out a mechanic's opinion when selecting a car so that the mechanic's lifetime of industry observation can be leveraged to help the buyer make a good decision. Most experienced mechanics around the globe tend to agree on which cars are the best, in general terms, and which cars are the worst, in general terms. There are always differences of opinion on subtleties and details, and even philosophical differences that factor in. But it is a universally accepted idea, as an example, that a BMW is fundamentally "good" in all the ways that a car should be and at the other end of the scale it is universally accepted that a Yugo is "bad". Not every BMW model ever made was a success, and probably not every single Yugo was a failure, but it's a generalization on which all mechanics can agree. The public at large accepts and relies on generalizations made by mechanics because the mechanics have the most information and they have dedicated their lives to studying the industry. What the mechanics report based on their observations and interactions with the cars and the companies and the customers that experience the cars and companies is considered reliable and the mechanics are considered experts.
People that work in the journalism and news industry spend their entire lives studying public figures, politicians, public employees, political parties, political policies, and the public at large. The journalists observe and document the decisions that public servants (and the public) make and they keep track of the results of those decisions and report on the relative success or failure of those decisions and policies. Over time, like any other expert in a given field they start to see patterns emerge and they start to make generalizations about what works and what doesn't. For example I think that most journalists would agree that a free and democratic government is one that is "good" while a government that is oppressive and abusive is "bad". There are always differences of opinion on subtleties and details, and even philosophical differences that factor in. But in broad terms the idea that democracy is better than an oppressive dictatorships is a generalization on which all journalists can agree. What the journalists report based on their observations and interactions with the politicians and the political parties and the public that experiences the effects of their policies is considered biased and the journalists are considered liberals.
I guess there will always be people out there that deliberately choose things that are in direct opposition to their own well being and best interests because they just really want their beliefs to be true, in spite of experts reporting all evidence to the contrary. And it can happen to a car buyer as easily as a voter (let's face it - people did buy the Yugo).
But I have never understood why some people choose to vilify journalists, disregard what the journalists report, and categorically discount bad news because the news is not what they wished was true. Even when a car buyer asks a mechanic for their opinion, and then the car buyer does something contrary to the mechanic's suggestions, you rarely hear the car buyer follow it up by discrediting all mechanics. But for some reason journalists get labeled and categorically discounted as biased when the news they report is bad, and it coincidentally happens to always be bad when a particular group of people are making the decisions.
There are people who spend their whole lives studying cars, working on cars, fixing cars, evaluating cars, diagnosing cars, and educating themselves about cars in every possible way that they can using all five senses. They are called mechanics. And because they dedicate their lives to the study of cars, most people value and respect their opinions about cars, and many people seek out a mechanic's opinion when selecting a car so that the mechanic's lifetime of industry observation can be leveraged to help the buyer make a good decision. Most experienced mechanics around the globe tend to agree on which cars are the best, in general terms, and which cars are the worst, in general terms. There are always differences of opinion on subtleties and details, and even philosophical differences that factor in. But it is a universally accepted idea, as an example, that a BMW is fundamentally "good" in all the ways that a car should be and at the other end of the scale it is universally accepted that a Yugo is "bad". Not every BMW model ever made was a success, and probably not every single Yugo was a failure, but it's a generalization on which all mechanics can agree. The public at large accepts and relies on generalizations made by mechanics because the mechanics have the most information and they have dedicated their lives to studying the industry. What the mechanics report based on their observations and interactions with the cars and the companies and the customers that experience the cars and companies is considered reliable and the mechanics are considered experts.
People that work in the journalism and news industry spend their entire lives studying public figures, politicians, public employees, political parties, political policies, and the public at large. The journalists observe and document the decisions that public servants (and the public) make and they keep track of the results of those decisions and report on the relative success or failure of those decisions and policies. Over time, like any other expert in a given field they start to see patterns emerge and they start to make generalizations about what works and what doesn't. For example I think that most journalists would agree that a free and democratic government is one that is "good" while a government that is oppressive and abusive is "bad". There are always differences of opinion on subtleties and details, and even philosophical differences that factor in. But in broad terms the idea that democracy is better than an oppressive dictatorships is a generalization on which all journalists can agree. What the journalists report based on their observations and interactions with the politicians and the political parties and the public that experiences the effects of their policies is considered biased and the journalists are considered liberals.
I guess there will always be people out there that deliberately choose things that are in direct opposition to their own well being and best interests because they just really want their beliefs to be true, in spite of experts reporting all evidence to the contrary. And it can happen to a car buyer as easily as a voter (let's face it - people did buy the Yugo).
But I have never understood why some people choose to vilify journalists, disregard what the journalists report, and categorically discount bad news because the news is not what they wished was true. Even when a car buyer asks a mechanic for their opinion, and then the car buyer does something contrary to the mechanic's suggestions, you rarely hear the car buyer follow it up by discrediting all mechanics. But for some reason journalists get labeled and categorically discounted as biased when the news they report is bad, and it coincidentally happens to always be bad when a particular group of people are making the decisions.
Labels: bias, conservative, democrat, independent, liberal, media, politics, republican
posted by spacemonkey at 1:38 PM
0 comments
