How to seek truth in an era of journalistic activism

Back in the day when I studied journalism at Penn State, as far as I can recall, journalists were still expected to demonstrate some semblance of objectivity. Journalistic objectivity provided a check on politicians and government power and served the public by providing trustworthy information.

How many of us find the media reliable today? Not many, according to polling.

Over time, journalistic objectivity and fact-focus gave way to "interpreting the news for readers." This newfound power appealed to journalists' egos and sense of elitism: They could reform and advance society themselves, like "Philosopher Kings."

Meanwhile, the introduction of new technologies spurred an increase of and competition between media outlets. The pressure to grab market share accelerated a trend in journalism away from fact and evidence and toward emotion and conflict, which sell better among certain audiences.

 

What these changes leave us with today is no longer journalism but rather ideology wrapped up as news.  And if you don't recognize that fact, you will fall victim to media-fed propaganda.

 

So many journalists today are no more than activists with press passes, ideologues who see the profession not as fulfilling a duty to report the news, but as presenting an opportunity to shape the news in their own image.

 

They use their media platform to spread their ideology by killing stories that contradict their views and by rushing to rile the masses with unconfirmed stories shaped to conform to their own ideology.

 

Of course, facts are stubborn things, and courts or a barrage of undeniable evidence often expose such trumped-up narratives as shameless lies. 

 

But many journalists have no shame, and they have learned to obscure their failures by dangling the latest shiny object in front of their audiences--an emotion-grabbing storyline that stirs up division, conflict, outrage.

 

What to do? Work harder to find the truth. 

 

Instead of depending on media summaries, go to primary sources. 

• For legislative news, read the text of bills at Congress.gov. 
• For political debates, read transcripts or view the original events instead of media-selected excerpts. For public policy debates, watch events on C-SPAN. 
• For health-related news, the CDC and NIH still offer some good information, but they are headed by political appointees who can have an agenda, so check out their many critics as well.

As we do more of our own homework to get to the truth, we can still listen to media; we just have to recognize the agenda behind what we're hearing.

Why parents are revolting against school systems

 A USA article, "Moms for Liberty: An education army builds" focuses on finding funding sources for the group's modest $300,000 budget when the real story is why so many parents are doing so much with so little.

Parents are revolting against heavy-handed, ideologically driven governments that have used schools as social indoctrination vehicles and, during illogical lockdowns, turned their children into Zoom Zombies.

Weighing the interests of mother and baby

Justice Brett Kavanaugh (left) sworn in.

The Supreme Court of the United States held oral arguments on December 1 on a landmark case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health) that challenges the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Mississippi's Attorney General, defending that state's law that bans abortions after 15 weeks, argued that the states and the people--not the nine justices of the Supreme Court--should decide how to handle abortion, given that the US Constitution does not enumerate a right to abortion. The abortion industry and its allies in the Biden administration leaned heavily on the legal doctrine of stare decisis, arguing that women have come to depend on Roe and therefore the precedent cannot be overturned without decimating the Court's legitimacy. Mississippi countered that following the Constitution--and responsibly correcting an error such as Roe in interpreting the Constitution--preserves rather than destroys the Court's integrity.

Want to Win an Election? Protect and Empower the People

A Washington Times article, "Democrats’ struggles in Congress sap enthusiasm for McAuliffe in Virginia," highlights President Biden's and other radical Democrats' predictable unpopularity. A new Quinnipiac poll documents this discontent and also paints a partisan divide on issues.

Republicans worry that porous borders mean drug and human trafficking and MS-13 gang invasions and also that rising prices and drunken-sailor government spending are bankrupting America. Democrats, by contrast, focus on controlling the climate, mandating masks and vaccinations and getting the government to pay for (and thus dictate) your healthcare.

Virginia gubernatorial candidates seek to energize their respective bases by exploiting these issues while sprinkling in a few more. Democrat Terry McAuliffe is pounding on the abortion industry's drum while dissing parents who try to influence their children's education. Republican Glen Youngkin promises to protect children from harm in both abortion clinics and in leftist indoctrination classrooms.

Aside from the voter turnout factor, the winner in this and other competitive races likely will be those candidates who not only energize their base but also unite partisans on existential issues: protecting our nation with a national defense strong enough to prevent China and Russia from taking over the world; protecting personal and community safety through just and fair law enforcement; and protecting the vulnerable among us with compassionate government safety nets combined with the goal of maximum personal independence and responsibility.

Such priorities are perhaps too common-sense for the alarming number of partisans who appear to have lost their senses, but for those remaining rational voters who still have ears to hear, it will prove a formula for electoral victory and effective governance.

Visited a church today but apparently made a wrong turn into a rock concert featuring a stand-up comic.

Visited a church today but apparently made a wrong turn into a rock concert featuring a stand-up comic. It seemed that the people in the warehouse-style, blackened interior building love God and are doing good works. And the church reaches many people, including many who arguably might not attend a traditional church. But in the long run, and considering the universal mission of the Church for every believer, it seems a grave mistake to shed the inheritance of millennia of Christianity and instead adopt a contemporary culture-conforming style that smacks of niche marketing (i.e., to 18-35 y-o casuals raised on videos).