They can easily dismiss systems or goals that are imperfect because they see themselves as perfect. They are absolutists. The Truth has been revealed to them thru Critical Social Justice Theology and there is no doubt.
Here is the problem explained in a nutshell. Journalism as a profession, the hard work of it, was exactly the slog to plow through personal bias to get to the truth of the story. It was a profession for people wired that way, or else people that eventually learned that their opinion not only did not matter, if demonstrated it canceled their credibility as a journalist.
Today it is a much easier job to write your biased opinion into every bit of news and get the love of likes and followers. And the education system that mints new journalists has been corrupted by a feminist ideology that weaponizes against any criticism of people of certified victim groups. These kids come out of their campus experience entitled to a position high on the social dominance hierarchy failing to believe that their education was at best some help for the required climb, and at worst, a delay in their professional advancement compared to the kids that started working for a trade out of high school.
But Malcom Gladwell, a privileged child of a white upper class upbringing, is a multi-millionaire peddling his left-biased writing. There is a market for opinion junk. The problem is when it bleeds into what we expect to be news.
I subscribe to ground.news to see reports that indicate the bias of current news. It is rather alarming to see how many stories we are being fed coming from almost exclusive left-leaning or right-leaning sources.
My solution is that any writer that wants access as a professional news journalist must be certified, and we have an AI algorithm that scores them on bias. If they fall below the line, they lose their accreditation that gives them access. The AI algorithm would be a source of additional bias corruption, but the rules could be open source.
Thank you for this post. Yes, Tara I do expect the media to seek objectivity & truth.
I do not expect you to be perfect, which is why I do want different perspectives on things, and when appropriate provide multiple perspectives on the same event / subject so that I can make up my own mind. It used to be that every city had a "right wing" and a "left wing" newspaper so that you could read both. Now, we have ideologs screaming "don't listen to those people".
I would also at this point inject that different class, and educational back grounds in the media are required. For instance on climate change, the media completely misses it on just about every level. The reason they miss it, is that they only talk to the "experts" and never talk to tradesmen who work with energy systems every day. They never talk to organic farmers, or foresters. They never talk to mining engineers. If they talked to these people & others they would be singing a very different song.
Living in Europe, I watch CBC's "The National" on Youtube every morning for breakfast. Old habits die hard, and this is a convenient offering in one 45 minute video (processed from the 3-hour live feed). But I do find grating the wokish bias, not just for the topics chosen as the emphasis on feelings over facts. People get interviewed and asked about their emotional response to events, rather than the viewer getting as many facts as possible, the emotions being predictable and not informative.
It is time we started listening to the right. Names like "alt right" and "extreme right" are less than helpful, they are dismissive and inflammatory. People who identify as right of centre are right about some things, certainly in their own minds but also on the basis of evidence, just as those left-identifying are wrong on some issues. That said, I don't think objectivity is the ultimate goal either, or even possible for journalism. Objectively, Orlando is not better or worse than Tampa. You choose where you want to go, then go there.
Spoiler alert: People don't trust the CBC because they're not trustworthy.
Excellent overview and points.
They can easily dismiss systems or goals that are imperfect because they see themselves as perfect. They are absolutists. The Truth has been revealed to them thru Critical Social Justice Theology and there is no doubt.
Here is the problem explained in a nutshell. Journalism as a profession, the hard work of it, was exactly the slog to plow through personal bias to get to the truth of the story. It was a profession for people wired that way, or else people that eventually learned that their opinion not only did not matter, if demonstrated it canceled their credibility as a journalist.
Today it is a much easier job to write your biased opinion into every bit of news and get the love of likes and followers. And the education system that mints new journalists has been corrupted by a feminist ideology that weaponizes against any criticism of people of certified victim groups. These kids come out of their campus experience entitled to a position high on the social dominance hierarchy failing to believe that their education was at best some help for the required climb, and at worst, a delay in their professional advancement compared to the kids that started working for a trade out of high school.
But Malcom Gladwell, a privileged child of a white upper class upbringing, is a multi-millionaire peddling his left-biased writing. There is a market for opinion junk. The problem is when it bleeds into what we expect to be news.
I subscribe to ground.news to see reports that indicate the bias of current news. It is rather alarming to see how many stories we are being fed coming from almost exclusive left-leaning or right-leaning sources.
My solution is that any writer that wants access as a professional news journalist must be certified, and we have an AI algorithm that scores them on bias. If they fall below the line, they lose their accreditation that gives them access. The AI algorithm would be a source of additional bias corruption, but the rules could be open source.
Thank you for this post. Yes, Tara I do expect the media to seek objectivity & truth.
I do not expect you to be perfect, which is why I do want different perspectives on things, and when appropriate provide multiple perspectives on the same event / subject so that I can make up my own mind. It used to be that every city had a "right wing" and a "left wing" newspaper so that you could read both. Now, we have ideologs screaming "don't listen to those people".
I would also at this point inject that different class, and educational back grounds in the media are required. For instance on climate change, the media completely misses it on just about every level. The reason they miss it, is that they only talk to the "experts" and never talk to tradesmen who work with energy systems every day. They never talk to organic farmers, or foresters. They never talk to mining engineers. If they talked to these people & others they would be singing a very different song.
Living in Europe, I watch CBC's "The National" on Youtube every morning for breakfast. Old habits die hard, and this is a convenient offering in one 45 minute video (processed from the 3-hour live feed). But I do find grating the wokish bias, not just for the topics chosen as the emphasis on feelings over facts. People get interviewed and asked about their emotional response to events, rather than the viewer getting as many facts as possible, the emotions being predictable and not informative.
It is time we started listening to the right. Names like "alt right" and "extreme right" are less than helpful, they are dismissive and inflammatory. People who identify as right of centre are right about some things, certainly in their own minds but also on the basis of evidence, just as those left-identifying are wrong on some issues. That said, I don't think objectivity is the ultimate goal either, or even possible for journalism. Objectively, Orlando is not better or worse than Tampa. You choose where you want to go, then go there.