Why we don't believe you [excellent summary of recent mainstream press malfeasance]

Now, PART of leftism is reporting the bad, namely the "progressive" notion that since the world isn't perfect, the status quo is always the enemy, so you must always report negative stuff.

So it would seem. So, my tag for them as "utopian dreamers" is not far off the mark, eh? Crusaders on a mission but I daresay most of them aren't even sure of what they're crusading for or what their mission is. A vague notion "to make the world a better place" is an illusive target they will never hit, or even get near for that matter. That may be as far as the rank and file can see; however, it's a mindset put to good use by management that may have a more jaundiced or cynical view. An agenda even...

...but when the bad news is accelerated and enhanced by partisan reporting, then it becomes the drive-by media.

To be sure; see above ;^)

FGS

The press suffers from a similar problem of progressivism that has defined the history profession, namely, the notion that there is no such thing as absolute absence of bias. The mere selection of one fact over another is itself bias, and no one can include all facts in any story---news, or history.

In the 1800s, one school of thought was that you could separate "facts" from "values," and just report the "facts." This became the so-called "objective" school: be meticulous in research, get both sides, be fair, etc. The problem, of course, is that sometimes even just PRESENTING one side gives it a legitimacy it should not have (i.e., the Palestinians' "claims" vs. the Israelis' rights and realities). Ultimately, this school leads to the view that you must "get Hitler's side" to be fair.

The other group was the "value-laden" group that said since we cannot escape our biases, we must actively overcompensate by being "anti" whatever "we" are. So they became the anti-religion, anti-liberty, anti-American group. (William Appleman Williams and Howard Zinn).

But it's important to understand that BOTH groups deny the existence of a transcendent truth---that NEITHER accepts "God's version" of events, because He is a "value" and "values" are not tolerated, only "facts." Of course, they have never understood that their position itself is a "value-laden" position full of "values"---the wrong ones.

The problem, of course, is that sometimes even just PRESENTING one side gives it a legitimacy it should not have...

SO true! As an aside, you've probably made note of the problem of rebutting fasle or distorted claims, particularly during live broadcasts. Either side can present a "fact" that is difficult if not nearly impossible to refute in the time allowed, even though it may be false on its face. The information to refute any "facts" are rarely available on such short notice. The other problem of course is that rebuttals and refutations(when presented) hardly ever get the same "face time" or have the equivalent counter-effect as the original "fact". Liars and obfuscators(that may be a new word) tend to have the upper hand don't they? Particularly when people aren't really paying attention.

The other group was the "value-laden" group that said since we cannot escape our biases, we must actively overcompensate by being "anti" whatever "we" are.

Interesting point, and I suspect contains a good deal of truth. A cynical view of any values, most notably those held most dear by a society or culture. Where do they find these people???

Well said, and probably dead on! "The Church of Liberalism" spreading the seeds of discontent. God save us.

FGS

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.