Mainstream media, while partisan (The New York Times hasn’t endorsed a Republican candidate for president in 50 years), used to take seriously its responsibility to inform its audience, to be professional, and to check its facts.
Another journalist, working for the leftist magazine New Statesman, had more success in getting his man. He got the distinguished philosopher Sir Roger Scruton fired from his honorary position advising the government on architecture. The purpose of the bad-faith interview wasn’t to elicit information about Scruton’s views but, as the author’s subsequent behavior made clear, to get him fired.
There are countless cases of this kind, where the point of an interview is for the interviewer to make news, to smear, and take down someone whose views he opposes.
Trump Derangement Syndrome and Corruption of Journalism
This kind of gotcha! journalism and extreme bias masquerading as analysis are part of a larger problem, in which every aspect of life, every public health challenge, even the most basic matters concerning parents and children or sex and marriage, becomes almost instantly a matter of “hyperpartisanship,” of a “cold civil war“ that goes far beyond the normal and inevitable partisanship in any era of politics and journalism.We see this most obviously in the obsessive preoccupation of the mainstream media with Trump-bashing—the so-called Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
As I was driving the other day, NPR was running a report on President Donald Trump’s triumphant welcome by a huge crowd of well-wishers in India. The rally was duly documented in an audio recording, followed, however, by the anti-Trump NPR interviewer’s questioning of an anti-Trump expert.
The lead line of questioning—as much as I could stand to listen to—had nothing to do with the size or importance of the mass welcome, the political significance of the visit for U.S.–India relations, or the relations between the two leaders, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump. Instead, the interview began with a question about the damage resulting from Trump’s mispronunciation of Indian names.
This isn’t an exception for NPR. I don’t recall any discussion on NPR of any of the president’s many achievements, economic, social, or in foreign policy, where the emphasis wasn’t on belittling those achievements or denying them outright.
Debasing Discourse and Building Bad Habits of Mind
We’re all prone to looking for what confirms our stances and badmouthing those who hold opposing opinions. Most of us don’t appreciate a “news” source that consistently trashes our views, day after day, and deplores those of us who hold them.We may listen to or read what is available without charge as long as it provides at least some information and is free, but are unlikely to donate to NPR or subscribe to the newspapers and magazines that treat us with contempt.
But it’s a loss to all of us that once highly regarded sources of news and opinion have largely lost their own capacity for critical thinking—for fairmindedness and charity in interpreting in the best, not worst light, statements of those they oppose, looking for evidence that undermines, as well as buttresses, conventional wisdom and the author’s preconceptions.
It’s a loss of professionalism among those on whom others once relied for honest and impartial reporting and discussion.
The habits of mind so evident on campuses and in the media, that become vehicles for propaganda and indoctrination rather than information and education, debase public discourse and private conversation alike.
When those who should be professionally committed to truth and objectivity renounce such concerns in practice and often deny their possibility in theory, they reinforce the bad habits of the rest of us.
Has this become the standard to which the mainstream media itself has now sunk?