Church Of The Poison Journalistic Mind

Bradley J. Fikes Bradley J. Fikes 2 Comments

Share

“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”
— Jill Abramson, new executive editor of the New York Times

Of course, that quote was too provocative to remain in the New York Times’ story about Abramson’s appointment. So like a good disposer of inconvenient facts, the paper flushed the quote down the memory hole.

Another Church of the Poison Mind

A quite different Church of the Poison Mind - click to see the video. Special thanks to EMI Music for legally posting this on YouTube.

With the click of a mouse, the Grey Lady eliminated an embarrassing revelation about the practitioners of The Church of Faith-Based Journalism.

Except, of course, that sort of  memory-holing is not possible on the Internet, the Internet that Abramson’s Luddite predecessor, Bill Keller, stupidly kept picking fights with.

As Michael Medved wrote of the Times’ post-self-censorship: “When a journalist makes a concerted attempt to edit provocative comments out of the public record, it’s usually an indication that the remarks in question count as uncomfortably revealing.”

A lot of journalists take this view of a self-aggrandizing mission to change the world, based on the conceit that they are uniquely qualified to shine the light of True Knowledge upon an ignorant populace. But few would be so crass or careless to spell it out like that in public.

Medved goes on to say that the:  “creedal references suffusing Abramson’s exultations suggested a sense of purpose—of ‘her deep belief in the mission’ —that fits uncomfortably with the preening pose of scrupulous objectivity that the Gray Lady strikes for a wondering world . . . Abramson’s suggestion of journalists ‘held together’ by some shared faith echoes the charges of a shared ideology—confirming the core conservative critique of the organizations so lovingly described by Sarah Palin as the ‘lamestream media.’ “

Sadly, how true that is. And such a faith-based approach to journalism explains how its believers are so hostile to any critiques of their bias: that’s heresy! And religions are not known for their tolerance of heresy or heretics. (Just try to correct media-spread falsehoods about Sarah Palin and you’ll see what I mean).

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto describes how this self-righteous belief in their own infallibility leads the New York Times writers to recite bald-faced falsehoods as if they were divine truths. For example:

“In January, the Times responded to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by instigating a witch hunt against ‘Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media,’ as an editorial put it–even though by the time the editorial was published, it was clear that suspect Jared Loughner was not motivated by politics.”

Maybe Pope Jill will renounce the NYT’s dogmatic certitude and lead a journalistic Reformation. But I doubt it.

——————————————————-

(DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, and not necessarily that of the North County Times, my employer.)

Share

Comments 2

  1. Former Associated Press correspondent Alan Drury wrote a series of best-selling political novels in the 1960s, starting with the famous, “Advise and Consent.”

    The novels often feature conversations between reporters, rendered as The Washington Post said to UPI, for example. Drury refers to another influential outlet as, “The Greatest Publication That Absolutely Ever Was”. That exact odd name appears dozens of times per book, and is Drury’s sardonic verdict on the historic self-importance of the NYT. It also means this attitude has been there for a LONG time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.