But they want a specific version of social justice
Media bias is an old story. But if it remains pervasive, and never recovers from how uncontrolled it got in this election year, we’d best learn how to read them.
Starting with their intentions, because that’s what determines the reporting.
Why can’t liberal news people report the news without any slant?
The answer is that for people on the left, all — I repeat, (set ital) all (end ital) — professions are a means to an end, not ends in themselves. That end is the social transformation of society, meaning the promoting of “social justice†as the left understands that term.
For most liberal news reporters, therefore, the purpose of news reporting is not to report news as objectively as possible. The purpose of the media in general and of reporting specifically is to promote social justice and the social transformation of society.
Same is true for judges.
Most liberal judges do not see their roles as merely adjudicating a dispute according to the law. They see their role primarily as using the law and their power to rule on the law to promote social justice.
And university professors.
History teachers who merely teach history are of little use to the left. History — and English and political science, and sociology and other liberal arts — teachers must use their classroom to produce young people who will wish to engage in society-transforming work for social justice.
And artists, and scientists…
But how can a system of social justice include the ‘right’ to end the life of a specific class of human beings?
It cannot, except in the minds of those who strip the language of all moral grammar and replace it with semantic engineering. Whoever controls words, controls ideas. At least as long as the public is willing to believe them.Â
Good to see some members of mainstream media concerned about this. Or at least the bias part.
0 Comment
This is exactly what Thomas Sowell describes in his book: a conflict of visions. The unconstrained vision focuses on the end result, where as the constrained vision is more concerned about the fairness of the process. The former looks for the panacea, the latter for the beneficial tradeoff. The former prizes the knowledge of the contemporary elite, the latter the knowledge of experience as accumulated by the masses in the prevalent culture.
This conflict applies to every conceivable domain: social justice, economic justice, conception of knowledge, etc. I found the book incredible to read, especially during this past election.