Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News explains why there aren’t many conservative journalists. Hilarity ensues.
I’ve written several posts over the years about why more conservatives aren’t in journalism (at least on the basic reporting side — there’s a fair number of conservative opinion writers, even in a Commie hotbed like Philadelphia). I wish there were more, frankly — it would make life easier for everyone. But the basic things that get reporters amped up to come intro work in the morning (at least before then becoming jaded or high-paid Beltway stenographers) — questioning a certain kind of authority, challenging the established version of events — aren’t part of the conservative mindset. That’s not intended as an indictment of the right — it just means that logically there have to be differences in human nature that makes some people more liberal and others more conservative, and there’s an overlap between liberal traits and journalist traits.
Then, amazingly in the same piece in which he criticizes conservatives for their inability to question authority or challenge the established version of events he criticizes them for…questioning authority and challenging the established version of events.
If you question what journalists like me write…well, good for you. On some level, that’s also true with science; that is, it’s certainly good when people question individual cases of junk science. But when people distrust a broad scientific consensus on a critical issue, that’s a problem for society, and it doesn’t have an easy answer. But when it comes to not enough Republicans in science or the media, conservatives have largely themselves — and human nature — to blame.
So isn’t a “broad consensus” something like an “established version?” But Will Bunch doesn’t mean questioning things he believes. He means bravely believing in what nearly every single person around him believes.
Here’s the thing -conservatives question global warming, they challenge the culture of death, they question skyrocketing entitlement spending, and they challenge the know-it all government bureaucracies. But, you see, according to journalists like Will Bunch those kinds of things aren’t open to questioning or challenging. That’s racist.
May 10, 2011 at 3:58 pm
It's like "tolerance" and "accept everyone as they are," right?
May 10, 2011 at 4:34 pm
I apologize in advance for quibbling but it should be "Why There Are No Conservative Journalists". Kudos, however, for the rest of the article. You hit the mark with this one (as usual).
May 10, 2011 at 4:42 pm
And Americans hold not just lawyers but politicians as well in higher esteem than journalists because…? Maybe because they so often, just like this guy, wax rhapsodic about themselves and how great they are?
May 10, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Those who make the biggest difference in the culture are the ones who roll up their sleeves and actually do things instead of just talking about them and being critical of them. There are so many more liberal journalists because liberals are not having children, not working for charitable organizations (because they expect the government to take care of the poor)and not spending much time in church.
It's much easier to stand back, whine and throw other people's money at the problems than it is to authentically contribute to the building up of the society.
May 10, 2011 at 10:33 pm
"But, you see, according to journalists like Will Bunch those kinds of things aren't open to questioning or challenging. That's racist."
This does not seem racist to me. Just bigoted.
May 11, 2011 at 2:42 am
And, um, if they identify as conservative, they don't get hired. Or they get fired (see NPR). Yep. Definitely a fair estimation of truth by an unbiased….what do you call that?….journalist.
May 11, 2011 at 5:40 am
Just wait till the guy he's carrying water for gets hauled off into prison for not coming clean on his nativity story, misuse of Social Security numbers, falsification of his selective registration and other fraudulent acts that he and his ilk like to pretend just aren't happening.
May 12, 2011 at 2:18 am
As far as the farce of global warming is concerned I don't think anyone has said it better than Michael Crichton:
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
We all know what happened to Galileo when he broke with the "broad scientific consensus on a critical issue" of his time…. he was right!