On liberal bias

In our culture, as I noted in my introductory post, it was 50 years ago when we moved from conservatism being politically correct toward and now into an opposite state of liberal political correctness. This has become especially obvious in our media and higher education.

A number of polls taken by institutions such as Pew since the 1990's have invariably shown professors and teachers to identify themselves as liberals and democrats at rates from 60 - 90 per cent. On our college campuses conservatives invited to speak have been shouted down, hit with pies and even refused the right to appear. Though some have protested the speaking appearances of those on the left, this level of censorship of their speaking engagements has not occurred.

The overall status of the media bias has been similar, with polled journalists considering themselves liberals and democrats by wide margins. Studies of the reporting done on politics in the media have also reflected this bias.

Bernard Goldberg has written a couple good books on the subject. Like myself, he states that 50 years ago he considered himself a liberal and has changed his point of view over time. He also shares my concerns over the danger this bias poses. Repeatedly over time I have read headlines on news stories which have a left tilt. In addition, Associated Press and New York Times articles not identified as opinion pieces are loaded with the reporter's opinions.

This is just bad journalism, inserting opinions when the who, what, when, why and how are called for and some believe this shabby approach accounts for a lot of the loss of newspaper circulation. The editorial and opinion pages are fair game, as are talk and opinion shows on television. But TV news reporters are more and more frequently inserting their opinions into their reports.

I had so much respect for Tim Russert, because he resisted the urge to wear his opinions on his sleeve. Instead he thought about what were the best questions to ask each guest and was widely respected as a result. This seems even more important in the classroom, where facts and opinions should not be confused, especially considering the relationship teachers have with their less experienced students. We've objected when youth movements have been propagandized by evil regimes. We should not look the other way because we are sure the propaganda is benign.

A person whom I view in an opposite light from Russert is Keith Olbermann, who though he is exercising his right as a talk/opinion show host to give you his slant, insists he is only giving you the true facts, not opinions. In addition, each show he has a number of guests. I have never seen him have one guest on who was not in tune with his echo chamber. Al Gore's approach to global warming is the same. He only speaks at places friendly to his point of view, will not debate those opposed to his views and has frequently stated there is no debate, the science is settled.

I have noted my concern over echo chambers, where everyone agrees on the issues and no one dares to challenge the accepted mantra. Once you believe you know all you need to know, you will guarantee you learn nothing more and are frozen in time with your opinions. If that wasn't a good idea 50 or 100 years ago, why is it a good idea now?