{"id":37086,"date":"2017-01-31T02:00:41","date_gmt":"2017-01-31T07:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=37086"},"modified":"2017-01-29T13:00:41","modified_gmt":"2017-01-29T18:00:41","slug":"msm-bias-is-baked-in-and-has-been-for-generations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2017\/01\/31\/msm-bias-is-baked-in-and-has-been-for-generations\/","title":{"rendered":"MSM bias is baked-in, and has been for generations"},"content":{"rendered":"

In last week’s Goldberg File<\/em>, Jonah Goldberg<\/a> talked about the default left-leaning mainstream media (that’s most of the media):<\/p>\n

I agree with pretty much all of the right-wing criticism of the mainstream media these days, or at least the intelligent stuff<\/a>, of which there has been plenty<\/a>. What the MSM still fails to appreciate is the degree to which they\u2019ve spent the last 40 years \u2014 at least<\/em> \u2014 presenting news as unbiased and objective when it was in fact coated with, saturated in, and bent by all manner of confirmation biases, self-serving narratives, assumptions, and ideological priorities that leaned left. No, it wasn\u2019t all \u201cfake news\u201d (man, am I exhausted by the ridiculous misuse of that term), at least not most of the time [insert outrage over Duranty\u2019s Pulitzer, Janet Cooke\u2019s and Steve Glass\u2019s fabulations, and of course that time Dan Rather climbed the jackass tree only to hurl himself down, hitting every branch].<\/p>\n

I would even go so far as to argue that most of the time liberal bias isn\u2019t even deliberate. Maybe because I\u2019ve been reading so much public-choice theory and psychology stuff of late, I tend to credit conspiracy theories less and groupthink more for the wayward state of the mainstream media (though Mark Hemingway makes a good point about Plowshares\u2019 sub rosa<\/em> complicity in pushing the Iran deal<\/a>). Still, the more you get to know elite \u201cobjective\u201d journalists, the more you can appreciate that they are trying to do it right. But it also becomes all the more obvious that they live in a social milieu where the borders between the Democratic party, liberal activism, and liberal experts are very, very fuzzy.<\/p>\n

For instance, last week I wrote about that ridiculous article in the Washington Post<\/em> accusing David Gelernter<\/a> of being \u201canti-intellectual.\u201d Much of the Post<\/em>\u2019s \u201creporting\u201d hinged on a lengthy, catty quote from a member of the Union of Concern Scientists. As I noted, the Union of Concerned Scientists has always been a political operation. It\u2019s a classic example of an outfit that liberal journalists invest with non-partisan authority so they can pass off partisan views as \u201cscience\u201d or some other objective expertise.<\/p>\n

In 1985, the editors of National Review wrote: <\/p>\n