Controlling the messages, controlling the minds
Do we have a free press? A la Bill Clinton, it all comes down to what you mean when you say “free press.”
But what good is nominal freedom—the government does not censor our newspapers—if the writers are liars, or are ill-educated, or feed the populace a lot of claptrap, or ignore important events because they don’t like the people involved or the cause?
In the case of the block quote above—which seems to be the standard of media behavior and not a departure from it—our “free press” is only free to promulgate its position within the dogma and ideology it already holds to be true. Or, as the saying goes, all writing is autobiographical. Unfortunately, most “straight reporting” by the free press is far more autobiographical than it warrants.
Our “free press” is actually self-constrained, incurious, self-censored, and massively left-leaning, and with malice and forethought based on the press’s worldview and preferred narratives.
But can’t the issue of worldview be subject to some scrutiny and discussion? After all, what is the true source of human morality, or of the mainstream media’s favored positions regarding (for example) abortion on demand, the inherent correctness (no, the goodness) of homosexuality, or the evil of guns, cars, coal, and Brad Pitt’s mother?
Why is Christianity to be denigrated while Islam is held in high regard? After all, Christianity is far more liberal than Islam regarding women, homosexuals, crime and punishment, freedom of speech, etc.
Most of the press doesn’t, won’t, or can’t explain the source of their personal values and morality, but chances are those ideals were developed via assimilating into the worldview of other right-minded liberals, often insidiously (at school), within government, and certainly at work. (Either that or the press was dropped on its collective head an infant.)
The position of the “free press” seems to be based on the human need to be right (as well as the need for belonging), even when “being right” means self-deception.
The implications on society are profound: an ideological media means an idiotic citizenry. Consider, if you will, the results of the 2012 presidential election.
The only way to defeat today’s “free press” is in the marketplace of ideas. This means having ideas (and ways of presenting those ideas) that are winsome, non-threatening, interesting, explainable, and with their own explanatory power.
Yes, it’s far easier said than done.