Inside the Mind of the Liberal Media

It is a given that the general news media is biased towards the left.  What other explanation can there be for the consistently favorable coverage received by candidates of liberal persuasion (President Obama on down) along with their policies (increased taxation on the top 2% and Obamacare, for instance)?

But why is this so?  Journalists are the products, mostly, of journalism schools with the faculty tilting leftward like academia in general.  But I suggest that the typical student entering a journalism curriculum is already imbued with liberal inclinations.  Certainly the motivation is not financial.  Except for the few who do national TV news or are prominent reporters with large newspaper organizations, a journalism career does not offer the prospect of riches. 

But, of course, the potential to influence the public – to affect (and possess) power – has an allure all its own.

So those motivated thusly are attracted to media careers.  Of course,  in a general sense, there is nothing wrong with that.  Wanting to make a contribution to society is quite commendable. 

But such motivations can be very corrupting when one is surrounded by those who share the same political perspective.  Doing right is not necessarily the same as doing what one perceives as good.  

Journalism schools, despite the prevalence of the leftward bent of its faculties and students, mostly still preach the importance of objective reporting -  fairly covering the various sides of an issue.  To do so is treated as a cardinal virtue for a journalist. 

In practice, though, that prescription for fairness is ignored if the journalist believes that a particular point of view is illegitimate.  That’s understandable and even appropriate if the subject is ethnic genocide in Rwanda, for instance (how can one support one tribe slaughtering those of another?).

However, what if the subject is one that is not so black and white to many members of the community served by the media?

Consider the issue of “gay marriage”.  It is controversial, with intelligent arguments to be found on both sides that, I suggest, a fair observer would recognize. 

But to many on the left, opposition to state-sanctioned homosexual unions is akin to racism and, hence, illegitimate.  In many newsrooms, such an attitude is a given.  So the obligation to be fair is overridden by the desire to do good.  A conscious desire to promote that which is deemed good becomes the media’s objective. 

The media’s insularity and self-righteousness can cause it considerable embarrassment, however.

A Washington Post reporter was recently quoted as saying that favorable media coverage of gay marriage was entirely justified:

“The reason media outlets routinely cover gays is because it is the civil rights issue of our time.  Journalism, at its core, is about justice and fairness and that’s the view of the world that we espouse.  Therefore journalists are going to cover the segment of society that is not being treated equally under the law.”

That’s interesting. 

Our black President recently was against same-sex marriage before he was for it. 

And a higher percentage of black voters in a Maryland referendum on gay marriage cast ballots against it than did whites.

Wouldn’t you think they’d have been especially receptive to a civil rights’ issue?

But what did they know?  The liberal media had already settled the matter.