Recently during a lively discussion in the comments section of an article on the Huffington Post, one commentator said (paraphrasing) that NPR is perceived to have a liberal bias because "they're reality based" and reality has a liberal bias. I had one of those moments when something is explained so succinctly that if someone had been looking at me at that moment I think a light would have appeared to have gone on over my head.
True fair-and-balanced (to coin a phrase) journalism presents facts concerning news stories and all opposing angles when the story in question might have more than one side. I believe most legitimate news organizations strive for this, and after being a daily listener of NPR for over 20 years I know for a fact that NPR consistently accomplishes it (to the degree that sometimes I'm annoyed at frequently having to hear the opposite of my own, liberal opinion).
The reason almost all news outlets other than the most right-wing (you know who you are) can readily be accused of having a liberal bias regardless of how diligently they try to stay in the middle of the road is this simple explanation. Reality has a liberal bias.
So who would be against reality? How does it even make sense that the right-wing/conservative agenda would be against reality? Why would the "most watched" cable news network want to create a different reality?
A few examples (there are dozens more):
Climate change. Long accepted by most people on the left and in the middle and many, many on the right as part of our current reality. The evidence is overwhelming. But someone somewhere doesn't like that reality and it's beyond "inconvenient" as Al put it. It's expensive. For who? Maybe oil companies and investors in big oil. Politicians who were put in office by those same companies and investors. Coal companies. The nuclear power industry. Any company that has significant revenues generated by what we now consider the sources of global warming. Just like when doctors and researchers told us that cigarettes cause cancer, the only voice refuting that claim was the tobacco industry. So "going green" becomes "job killing" and lobbyists for those companies that must conform to expensive environmental regulations call for "reigning in" the EPA. (The EPA definitely has a liberal bias.)
Health care reform. Considered such a liberal issue now that anyone who supports it is a socialist according to Michele Bachmann and her kind. The reality is that the most important aspects of the bill will benefit most people at an individual and personal level. But on the right this reality is considered very dangerous, so a new reality must be constructed and sold. That reality gives us Big Brother and [gasp!] Canadian socialized medicine. Who would want to create that reality? Just about every company involved in the health care industry in this country including doctors. Health care reform hits the bottom line for all of them. Hard.
Taxing the wealthy. Do I even need to elaborate?
The reality is that we don't want to kill our planet, no one wants to see anyone else suffer if it can be avoided, and those who benefit most should give back at least to the same degree that their less-fortunate counterparts do. But as much as the far-right fronts for corporate and wealthy interests would like to create a different one, there is such a thing as reality and it always has and likely always will have a liberal bias.
Me: Like the health care law?
Mom: No, they are going to put me in front of a death panel.
Me: Mom, there aren't any death panels. In fact, it will help your daughter find insurance, who was born with a birth defect, and she has always had trouble getting insurance all her life because of her condition.
Mom: OK that part is good but I still hate Obama and the death panels and we've got to stop immigration and get rid of unions.
Me: OK time to go.
Right wingers are so entrenched in their ideas that they can't hear the facts. Its not what you don't know that hurts you its what you know for sure that just ain't true. They know a lot of that kind of stuff.
Whoever you are, wherever you may be, Oh Anonymous Sage Commenter, thank you. A shrine in your honor will be erected.
Since THAT story is not covered here, let's go to the place where it is covered:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/huffington-post-yanks-breitbart-from-front-page/2011/03/03/ABRXMPQB_blog.html
enjoy reality!
Have a great weekend my dear.
But the premise is true: Conservatives have a vested interest in throwing as much sand into the face of the American people to obscure the actual truth and facts for one reason - MONEY. Greed is what drives all this, and any time a study or facts or evidence come to light that threaten the VERY wealthy in America, they are right there to pay someone to "counter" the facts with "asking for more debate" or simply sliming the person / entity proving their case in the first place.
This is not to say that scientists haven't ever been wrong. Certainly they've made mistakes. But following the scientific method, they arrive at conclusions based on what they can see. Conservatives do the opposite: The conclusion is modified to fit the facts. Remember how they originally said the Earth wasn't even warming? "It's cold out today - where's global warming?" Now that it's been proven, demonstrably, they say, "Oh, well, of course it's warming - but it's not man made."
They NEVER ever have a solid base upon which to base their garbage, but there are enough anti-science, anti-intellectual Americans that if they repeat their nonsense, enough people either start to believe it or are unsure of what's true.
And then the greedy rich people laugh and laugh making billions more.
There's an interesting article in Harper's from a few months back about the history of conservatism as an idea or movement. Conservatism originated as a response to the French Revolution and from the beginning it suffered from a reality deficit because it had to justify the inequalities of the old regime and retroactively construct a morally defensible coherent ideology, or give the facade of a coherent ideology, around the old institutions that evolved through generations of synergy between inherited power and religious dogma. They had to build a justification based on reason where none existed, where the previous (discredited) justification was divine right. Even back then, they tried to put a populist spin on a feudal power structure. So while the argument can be made that today's conservatives have reached a new extreme of historical revisionism and willful ignorance of contemporary matters, this reliance on unreality has been with conservatism from the beginning. Each time a "revolution" occurs (broadly speaking), the conservative must justify the old regime (also broadly speaking) whose aims and basis of authority have just been delegitimized. This requires constructing an alternate reality.
-Evolution is a myth
-The Birthers
-George Bush invasion or Iraq is responsible for the uprisings in the middle east
-Any kind of gun regulation means you're trying to take everyone's guns away
To the author: You should have given the person who made the comment credit. You should have given him a shout out
I am astounded by the lack of critical thinking in the discussions that could generate so much more light than heat... But I will continue on my quest and hope for some sense of reality to set in.
There is no actual argument against gay marriage other than "The bible says gays are evil" and "Gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage." But that's not the mainstream Christian position, most American Christians don't think gay people are evil. And hardly anyone thinks gay people getting married could damage the institution of marriage more than the serial monogamy of celebrities already had.
You can't have a serious debate on gay marriage without the conservative side looking ignorant, hateful and unreasonable...because the conservative position ACTUALLY IS ignorant, hateful and unreasonable.