In the United Kingdom newspapers tend to be associated with particular political parties. The Telegraph is so closely associated with the Conservative Party that it’s waggishly called the “Torygraph”. The Daily Mirror and the Financial Times have tended to support Labour. Recently, The Independent has oxymoronically tended to support the Lib-Dems.
Here in the United States we have notionally had a non-partisan press but that has become increasingly frayed over the years. The New York Times is pretty clearly the voice of the Democratic Party. The Wall Street Journal performs a similar function for Republicans. MSNBC and Fox News are notoriously pro-Democrat and pro-Republican, respectively.
The problem with that is illustrated in this Wall Street Journal editorial on the authoritarian impulse among some progressives, something that’s becoming increasingly worrying:
Elizabeth Warren recently drove out a think-tank scholar for having the nerve to report that a new federal regulation could cost billions, but the progressive censor movement is broad and growing. Advocates of climate regulation are urging the Obama Administration to investigate people who don’t share their views.
Last month George Mason Professor Jagadish Shukla and 19 others signed a letter to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and White House science adviser John Holdren urging punishment for climate dissenters. “One additional tool—recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse—is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change,†they wrote.
In other words, they want the feds to use a law created to prosecute the mafia against lawful businesses and scientists. In a May op-ed in the Washington Post, Mr. Whitehouse specifically cited Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who has published politically inconvenient research on changes in solar radiation.
These abuses of power are things that a genuinely non-partisan press would be trumpeting. That the stories are relegated to the Wall Street Journal or Fox News impels half the population to dismiss them, regardless of their merits. As Jefferson wrote “…whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.” There are times when I fear for the republic.
You are so right. Every outlet that purports to be news has the feel and smell of propaganda. And what are described as Liberals and Conservatives are so far apart in their world view that there is no room for discussion, only name calling. Each side thinks the other cannot really believe what they do and so attributes it to partisanship, or worse.
One of the luxuries of the wealthy is being able to re-write history, and the US has been fabulously wealth for several decades. The idea of an impartial press is an anomaly of recent memory. In New Orleans, I remember there were two newspapers, a morning and afternoon. One was Republican & conservative leaning, and the other was Democrat & liberal leaning.
I find most people who comment on Fox News have never watched it. With MSNBC, I suspect it is the same, but because it has become so cartoonish, it is difficult to tell. Fox is a mix of hard news, commentary/analysis, and opinion. MSNBC never had hard news. At one time, during the morning and daytime non-hard news programs, there was about a 60-40% mix of right/left or left/right, and the evening programing varied between 55-45% to 75-25%.
MSNBC at one time was the goto place for liberal thinking, and Morning Joe was probably the best morning show. Period. Hopefully, Brian Williams can drag them out of the gutter. (It is easy to parody them without ever watching because they are so over the top.)
If you are going to be informed about the other side, they are probably the best people to do the explaining, and an outlet like MSNBC with a 60-40% mix is important. It gives the left position but keeps it restrained.
(I used to watch Rachel Maddow. I really tried to like the show, but she is just so damned smug. I cannot stand Hannity because of his righteousness, and Bill O’Reilly’s crusade against marijuana turn me against him.)
The truth is that people do not want to be informed, and the news outlets are not in business to inform people. They are businesses, and they exist to make money. They make money depending upon how many people view their content, and they publish what sells.
There could be an NPR type media company with a left and right division, but I doubt there will be a very large audience. If the right division were philosophically sound, they would need to advocate they be defunded and shut down.
Query- Did these abuses of power actually happen? Senator Whitehouse made a proposal. Some professor I never heard of wrote a letter. I could write a letter to Congress making a lot of requests. Doesn’t mean it will happen.
On Willie Soon, the issue is not that he published politically inconvenient papers, but that he has deliberately obscured his funding sources. People are expected to reveal any potential conflict of interests. He has not done that.
Steve
I cannot tell from the responses if any of you are climate dissenters (too nuanced). But we ARE going to find you out.
@Gray Shambler
It depends upon what you mean by “climate dissenters”.
The earth is warming from the last ice age, and it will continue to warm until the onset of the next ice age. At that time, the earth will begin cooling, and this cycle will continue for some time. During this time, the sun will consume itself, and the earth’s orbit will decay.
If by climate dissenters you mean anybody who acknowledges the above as the scientific understanding today, guilty, but I admit I use the modern scientific method which is based upon objective evidence. I find the medieval scientific method of consensus to be rather distasteful, but I have been assured that I do not have the refined palate of a 21st Century man.
“I use the modern scientific method which is based upon objective evidence. I find the medieval scientific method of consensus to be rather distasteful”
Consensus is determined by looking at the best available evidence.
Steve
Consensus is determined by looking at the best available evidence.
As Galileo found out, the problem is when the scientists refuse to look through your telescope to obtain the objective evidence that refutes their theories, and instead, they whine to the Pope about you being a heretic.
The modern scientific method is objective to eliminate the heresy problem. With the modern scientific method, your favorite theory is not proven by the number of likes you can garner. Einstein was subjected to validation like all others, and he will be superseded when his time comes. Emotions have no place in science.