Small Robots Are In Charge
By Sara Pentz
From the files of the
“On Tuesday night (September 20, 2005), without identifying the Union of Concerned Scientists as a far-left group, CBS's Bill Whitaker relayed how a spokesman for the group charged that damage to Louisiana's barrier islands is being "made worse...by global warming, as ice caps melt and oceans rise."
Robert Bazell on Wednesday's NBC Nightly News acknowledged,"...scientists say that one season, even like this one, cannot indicate anything about climate change."Yet he went on to showcase a fear mongering sound bite from a Stanford scientist: "At the moment, we've only warmed up one [degree]. What happens when we warm up three or five, which is projected in the next several decades to the end of the century?"
Bazell ominously concluded: "Warming that many experts say results partly from humans releasing greenhouse gases possibly creating even more violent storms in the future.”
In order to understand this paragraph from the
More importantly, these questions must occur to the viewing public if they are to be well informed. Furthermore, they must occur if we are to identify the wayward journalist and insist that they tell us the news in a fair and balanced manner.
But first…
The Questions: Why did CBS reporter Bill Whitaker fail to correctly identify the Union of Concerned Scientists as a far–left group? Why did he select only this group to feature as the major spokes group of this story? Why didn’t Whitaker quote those who disagree with the UCS group, i.e., the other side of the story? Why did NBC News’ Robert Bazell feature the ‘fear–mongering’ sound bite in his news the story? And why was Bazell allowed to editorialize as part of his news report? Aren’t editorials separate from news reports?
The Answers: If CBS and NBC were actually to ask and answer these questions they would be forced to admit their bias. They would be forced to admit that is was bad journalism to refrain from identifying the group as left wing. That it is a basic principle of journalism to identify the group’s entire position. Not to do so would be wrong. Next they would be forced to admit that there is another side of the story. NBC would be forced to admit that they had allowed the blatantly biased editorializing by newsman Bazell. And, they would have to acknowledge that there are many scientists and meteorologists who disagree with the UCS group. This chain of logic (basic Socratic thinking) would tie them in knots. These newsmen and their producers simply could not allow themselves to ask and answer these questions because, if they did, their motives and their agenda would be exposed. And they would be forced––by logical reasoning––to admit that this report is an example of their bias.
When news reporters tell us that they are not biased (as per Dan Rather), be sure to ask yourself if they are being honest.
The specific news segments are a blatant example of unfair and unbalanced reporting. It is therefore fundamentally an example of the elitist media’s brain washing machine––totally consistent with their left wing ideological agenda. At its roots, that ideology is both anti-American and anti-capitalist.
And that is the problem at the heart of the news media.
The Machinations of the Brain Washing Machine
Skewing news reports to fit a left wing agenda has become ‘normal’ in the elitist media––as well as in the universities and their journals; in TV shows, films, popular music, books and magazines.
Explains James Piereson of The Weekly Standard in a recent article on the “
“The left university, according to its self-understanding, is devoted to the exposure of the oppression of the various groups that have been the West's victims--women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and others that have been officially designated as oppressed groups--and to those groups' representation. This is the so-called "diversity" ideology to which every academic dean, provost, and president must pledge obedience and devotion.”
“The university, moreover, has formed an informal political alliance with the other liberal and left-wing institutions in our society:
Most reporters do not comprehend why they are criticized for this agenda. They do not view their thinking process as an agenda. In fact, since their thinking is skewed to the left and they are ingrained with this view of reality, they are left dismayed at the idea that they are criticized for not being factual in their reports.
They cannot and are unwilling to think outside that left wing box. For most of them, this is a frightening idea…to consider the ‘other’ side of the story. It is alien to them. It makes them feel uncomfortable and uncertain. It is inconsistent with their view of what is morally right and wrong.
If they were forced to ponder their bias they would have to see the ‘other’ side of the story. They call that other side ‘immoral’––no not blatantly, but that is what they feel. They consider their ideology as good for society. In other words, they see
Capitalism is by its nature judgmental. It rewards those who work and punishes those who do not. The original U.S. Constitution called on people to be responsible for their life and their happiness. Most journalists do not like that view of
They Call It News; It Is Not
They call their reporting ‘news.’ It is not. It is lopsided editorializing with the intent to indoctrinate. That is why they reports can be identified as a mechanical––because it is in lock step with their ideology.
Most reporters are not beholden to facts or critical analysis. They are like little robots that plod along without thinking capabilities. Since the l960s this plodding has become a stampede. And like any out–of–control behavior it must be stopped.
The next time you turn on your TV or pick up your newspaper, look for the obvious––the bias ingrained in those “news” reports. This is the first step in critical thinking about the bias in the left wing media.