Earlier I noted an example of liberal bias in the Toledo Blade, which recently published a column decrying media bias (in favor of Barack Obama at the expense of Hillary Rodham Clinton; Republicans did not figure in that discussion). A significant part of the problem is that reporters see their calling as a romantic one, a quest to make the world a better place (as envisioned by the lattes-and-Volvos set) rather than to simply inform people about important events–a job hard enough itself.
That attitude is perfectly captured in this quote from a retiring environmental reporter, Charles Alexander of Time magazine: ““It’s time for the mainstream media to ignore the perennial charges of liberal bias and tell the truth about the environmental crisis, giving it the splash and urgency it deserves.” Nevermind addressing problems of bias–we must ignore them, because … there’s a crisis! There’s always a crisis. Toledo Bladester Tom Henry utterly rejected the idea of maintaining an even tone when it comes to covering the environmental “crisis”: “… [W]have an awesome responsibility, and we have the power to inflame a community or put it to sleep.” Both of those quotes come from the report “Environmental Reporting: Exploring the Beat,” a product of Harvard’s Nieman Foundation and its longstanding efforts to fortify journalism with progressive advocacy.
Jonah Goldberg has done a fine job of documenting the environmentalists’ habit of “lying for justice.” And this Stephen Schneider quote, published in Discover and highlighted by Jonah, cannot be publicized too much:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
The leap from unchecked bias to outright dishonest is not a long one.