I think that most on the right side of the political spectrum will agree with the statement that during Democrat administrations, our major news media has failed to perform the same watchdog functions with the same investigative zeal that it does when a Republican administration is in control of our government.
There is ample evidence of a distinct lack of interest in the scandals of the Obama administration. The media was briefly interested when it was reported that reporters from the AP and James Rosen of Fox News were being watched and their personal data was being collected (I’m sure that Fox being involved tempered their outrage because they probably thought that Rosen deserved to have his phone tapped). One would think that such a direct attack on the freedom of the press by the DOJ would have initiated an all-out war but this, like the other major scandals, was simply rationalized away and seemingly consigned to the dust bin of history.
This rationalization is what made me think that it is not so much a shared ideology; rather it is a shared philosophy that is at play here. Various studies over time have shown that the media in America overwhelmingly agrees with the “progressive” agenda – not really a surprise. I think that journalists can have a “progressive” bent and still deliver basically honest reportage even if it is tinged with a leftist perspective – but what this doesn’t explain is the complete disinterest in reporting stories that are Pulitzer quality stuff.
There are significant and important stories that have disappeared from the pages and screens of the major media as quickly and completely as Jimmy Hoffa did in July of 1975.
There is an answer, a unified theory of wormhole journalism of sorts and it is that the media has adopted the same postmodernist philosophy as the American “progressives”.
Even as many postmodernists reject a relativist label, many of the characteristic doctrines of postmodernism do constitute or imply some form of metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical relativism. Postmodernists deny that there are aspects of reality that are objective and they reject the notion that there are statements about reality that are objectively true or false; that it is possible to have knowledge of such statements (objective knowledge); that it is possible for human beings to know some things with certainty; and that there are objective, or absolute, moral values.
Postmodernists posit that reality, knowledge, and value are constructed by discourses; hence reality can vary with them. History has no value as the only thing that matters is what happens today. Since it has no relevance or usefulness, why bother? Every time a Democrat or the media says “Dude, that was like two years ago”, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” or “the American people want us to move on”, this is what they are saying and they are confirming themselves as postmodernists.
This even explains the vehement adherence to “climate disruption” (or whatever it is called this week) because a postmodernist view means that the discourse of modern science, when considered apart from the standards of evidence internal to it, has no greater purchase on the truth than do alternative perspectives, including astrology and witchcraft. Postmodernism allows political motives to be treated as equal to scientific method – remember, it doesn’t matter what the data says – the important thing is how we feel about it today.
Karl Marx theorized that the proletariat had no objective reality of its own, that it was a slave to the reality created for them by the bourgeois who had power over them. As a capitalist, I disagree with this because when the individual is free to reason for himself, natural law and true inquiry can strip away the constructions of any group or class. Truth and reason are not exclusive properties of any class. What Marx endeavored to do was to create a collective reality where people like him were in charge.
In true Marxist tradition, the “progressive” forces understand that collective reality means centralized power. They have grasped this idea and are leveraging the useful idiots and fellow travelers in the media to create such a reality for the sole purpose of supporting their process of accumulating and expanding their power over the individual.
In the American Spectator, James Taranto writes of “explanatory journalism” sites like Ezra Klein’s Vox (unfortunately behind the paywall):
“A few years ago the Associated Press introduced ‘accountability journalism,’ which turned out to be a fancy term for opinion masquerading as straight news (see Presswatch, TAS, September 2007). ‘Fact checking’ used to mean reportorial due diligence, but now refers to opinion pieces with a pretense of objective authority (see Presswatch, TAS, December 2008/January 2009). ‘Explanatory journalism’ looks to be more of the same — a new package containing the same old liberal product.”
The only way this is even remotely possible is if the press rejects their role as objective observers and adopts a relativistic postmodernist philosophy. When they do this, they become nothing but propagandists for the powerful, attempting to create their own reality for their own purposes.