One of the worst side effects of the media's ideological diversity problem is their often flagrant double standards. Over at Slate, Ron Rosenbaum looks at how Columbia Journalism Review urges journalists to be more willing to cover unpopular views but later in the very same issue article patronizingly lectures reporters to stop letting global warming skeptics trick the public.
Things are made worse by the fact that in the magazine's dissent editorial, CJR puts forward Jeremiah Wright as a figure who should not be shunted to the sidelines. In other words, Jeremiah Wright and his brand of smarmy pseudo-Marxist racial diatribes are more legitimate than disspasionate scientists who are urging us to be cautious about jumping to conclusions that humans can effect the entire world's temperature. Astonishing. An excerpt from Rosenbaum below the fold:
The issue leads off with a strong, sharply worded editorial called "The Dissent Deficit." (It's not online, but it should be.) In it, the magazine, a publication of the Columbia School of Journalism—and thus a semi-official upholder of standards in the semi-official profession of journalism—argues clearly and unequivocally that allowing dissent to be heard and understood is part of a journalist's mission.
The editorial contends that doing so sometimes requires looking beyond the majority consensus as defined by the media on the basis of a few sound bites and paying extra attention to dissenting views, because they often present important challenges to conventional wisdom on urgent issues that deserve a hearing.
The editorial deplores the way that journalism has lately been failing in this mission: "Rather than engage speech that strays too far from the dangerously narrow borders of our public discourse, the gatekeepers of that discourse—our mass media—tend to effectively shout it down, marginalize it, or ignore it."
So true. The editorial offers the media's treatment of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a dissident whose views, particularly on American foreign policy's responsibility for 9/11, have gotten no more than sound-bite treatment, as an example. [...]
It was troubling, then, to find, in an article in the very same issue of CJR, an argument that seems to me to unmistakably marginalize certain kinds of dissent.
The contention appears in an article called, with deceptive blandness, "Climate Change: What's Next?" The article doesn't present itself as a marginalizer of dissent. It rather presents itself as a guide for "green journalists" on what aspects of climate change should be covered now that the Truth about "global warming"—whether it's real, and whether it's mainly caused by humans—is known. [...]
The first problem in the evaluation of what dissent should be heard is how certain we are about the truth. If we know the truth, why allow dissent from it into journalism? But who decides when we've reached that point of certainty? [...]
She's [Cristine Russell] correct in saying that this is the consensus, that most journalists now accept what's known as the "anthropogenic theory" of global warming: that it is our carbon footprint that is the key cause of global warming, rather than—as a few scientists still argue—changes in solar activity, slight changes in the tilt of the earth's axis, the kinds of climate change that the earth constantly experienced long before man lit the first coal-burning plant.
But here lies danger, "a danger that the subtleties of the science, and its uncertainty, might be missed by reporters unfamiliar with the territory," especially when confronted with "studies that contradict one another." Faced with conflicting studies, she tells us, "scientists look for consistency among several reports before concluding something is true." This is, frankly, a misunderstanding or misstating of the way science works.
She seems to be confusing consensus among scientists and scientific truth. They are two different things. The history of science repeatedly shows a "consensus" being overturned by an unexpected truth that dissents from the consensus. Scientific truth has continued to evolve, often in unexpected ways, and scientific consensus always remains "falsifiable," to use Karl Popper's phrase, one any science reporter should be familiar with. All the more reason for reporting on scientific dissent, one would think. Yet when I read her description of how science proceeds, it seems to me she is suggesting science proceeds by a vote: Whoever who has the greatest number of consistent papers—papers that agree with him or her—"wins." As in, has the Truth.
In fact, the history of science frequently demonstrates that science proceeds when contradictory—dissenting—studies provoke more studies, encourage rethinking rather than being marginalized by "the consensus" or the "consistency" of previous reports.
Read the whole article. It's worth the time.
As great as Rosenbaum's piece is, however, he misses one crucial point. The reason that CJR engages in such obvious hypocrisy is that its staff is ideologically uniform. The journalism department at Columbia is filled to the brim with far left professors. This severe lack of diversity is what creates bias, not some nefarious conspiracy. Liberal bias comes from liberal groupthink.
(Cristine Russell is certainly wrong in her statements about Jeremiah Wright receiving just sound bites. As you can see from reviewing NB's past coverage of the controversial religious leftist, his views have been granted wide circulation.)
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Leftocrisy not exactly a melting pot
August 11, 2008 - 12:03 ET by SickofLibsThese journalism professors are more homogeneous than Japan.
What gets me is that with all their doctorates and advanced degrees the obvious still is not obvious.
This all stems from the same cause
August 11, 2008 - 12:05 ET by c5thenThe leftist liberal socialist way of thinking. That all 'majorities' are correct simply because they are the majority. That all the masses must be educated and lead by 'great thinkers' who will help to form the 'majority' opinion.
It is also exacerbated by a fundimental misunderstanding of 'science' and how it works.
Remember that the 'consensus' was once that the earth was flat, that the sun and planets revolved around the earth, that illnesses were cause by bad humors and vapors in the air, that bleeding helped the ill get the 'bad stuff' out, that The Consumption (later tuberculosis) might be caused by vampires, etc., etc.
The 'consensus' is just the currently held opinion of the 'majority' which may be correct, or it may be wrong.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
My favorite new quote ever!
August 11, 2008 - 12:21 ET by tnculpFrom the global warming piece mentioned in the article:
"a decade from now, Abu Dhabi hopes to have the first city in the world with zero carbon emissions."
http://www.cjr.org/feature/climate_change_now_what.php
Seriously, these folks are clueless. Zero carbon emissions = no humans, no plants, no earth. So where exactly are they building this new Abu Dhabi?
They Live! a really fun
August 11, 2008 - 12:27 ET by Dan The Man 2They Live! a really fun movie where the hero's die and the fate of the earth is in limbo. But, the part that really makes sense is the mind control exerted by the aliens and the complicity of som of our citizens. I tried to read the exerpt but found my mind wandering frequently. Reminded me of what the head guy in Men In Black said about the finest examples of what the government produces.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan you
August 12, 2008 - 01:37 ET by HillbillyKingneed the sunglasses Roddy and his crew used to filter the mind control signals.
This is from the movie;
Television Host:
The feeling is definitely there. It's a new morning in America...
fresh, vital. The old cynasism is gone. We have faith in our leaders.
We're optimistic as to what becomes of it all. It really boils down to
our ability to accept. We don't need pessimism. There are no limits.
Doesn't THAT sound familiar?
H/O to NB for the choice of graphic. One of the best ones I've seen here. Very appropriate.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
On GW/MSM - Consensus - consensus of what?
August 11, 2008 - 12:39 ET by Gary HallGood stuff, this: "She seems to be confusing consensus among scientists and scientific truth. They are two different things."
Of course there is much more confusion amongst the MSM here; there is not a consensus among scientists that man is the driving factor behind global warming. There may be a consensus, that man's greenhouse gas emissions are playing a role in GW; whether it's 1% or 10% or 55% or most (the driving factor), is where the MSM has really lost credibiltiy. (;~> gh
Matt, You simply cannot
August 11, 2008 - 12:51 ET by NL207Matt, You simply cannot expect anyone at Columbia University to question the 'official line' on Anthropogenic Global Warming. one of their most celebrated faculty, Dr. James E. Hansen, is the dean of AGW alarmists. I do not believe the University will condone any attacks or criticism on the Hansen position from within its own walls.
Right Matthew - Lack of Diversity and group think are the
August 11, 2008 - 12:58 ET by Dee Bunkthe major problems along with non critical thinking and bandwagon following. The media adores and looks up to Hollywood and other celebrity figures and much of their group think comes from them.
David Letterman did a thing a couple of weeks ago on the most annoying word of the day or something. It was Veepstakes. A totally made up unnatural and stupid word but it was repeated by just about every News outlet. A made up word like this really draws attention to the problem. Usually it's not as noticeable, but if people really pay attention they will notice that the MSM uses the same adjectives to describe stuff all the time. Independent people would rarely come up with the same adjectives.
If you had a diverse and independent media, you would see much more individuality in the stories, but as it is - they all sound pretty much the same when reporting a major story. It's not just the words used but the overall theme and spin that is the same. Even an organization that sets out to be different still gets caught in it. Fox News says Veepsteaks and many of their stories still follow the crowd despite their concerted efforts not to.
Some of it is also laziness and some due to the national wire services. Liberals love to act like we think there is some meticulously planned conspiracy only because they can't comprehend what we are really saying. They have no reason to because it benefits them.
When we want your opinion...
August 11, 2008 - 13:13 ET by goldenthroat...we'll give it to you!
Zeig Hiel!
"I think we're all bozos on this bus!" - Firesign Theatre
Believe or die...
August 11, 2008 - 15:05 ET by Clear thinkerI am currently working on a project that will show how rediculous some of the leftist group-think has become, so this article comes at a great time for me.
The left does NOT want to see or hear any dissent concerning AGW (especially if the public might see it). This article is just another message for the 'message carriers'... ignore us at your own peril. They don't exactly threaten people directly as in face-to-face, but they are fond of using terms such as "end of the world", or "global catastrophic elimination of the human species", etc. And in some instances, there are people on the left that blame the media for allowing the skeptic point of view. As far as they are concerned, all media should tow the AGW line because only they know the 'science', and those that don't tow the line must be ignored because all deniers probably work for Big Oil.
Our job is to makes sure that the media tells both sides without prejudice.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Wrong assumptions
August 11, 2008 - 15:32 ET by KC MulvilleWe bump into a whole mess of assumptions here, don’t we? I’ll just go after a few of them. (Note: I also posted this at The Fray on the Slate website.)
If any reporters wonder whether they should smother alternative points of view, it just shows that they don’t respect the authority of the market. It would be like Microsoft demanding that Apple close shop and leave. That’s not a decision for each of the competing sellers to make. That’s for the market to make. If Apple goes out of business on its own, the market has decided. In the same way, the marketplace of ideas will decide which ideas deserve to stay and which can go.
obey
August 11, 2008 - 15:46 ET by be_objective"I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick @$$, and I'm almost out of bubble gum"
"In any compromise between good and evil, only evil can profit." Ayn Rand
Hey be,
August 12, 2008 - 01:43 ET by HillbillyKingif only it was this easy to make people see;
[Nada and Frank start fist-fighting]
Nada:
I'm giving you a choice: either put on these glasses or start eatin' that trash can.
Frank:
Not this year.
Nada:
OK. All right. OK.
[starts fighting with Frank]
(Nada is Roddys character and Frank is Keith Davids character.)
Then there would be a lot less gum chewin and alot more a$$ kickin.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Things have changed, Journalism better catch up
August 11, 2008 - 21:56 ET by JayTeeNot that long ago, if you read something in the Newspaper or Magazine you knew was wrong, or wanted to reply....you wrote a hand written note, or Typed a letter on your typewriter (if you had one) and put a 10 cent stamp on it, and 4 days later after the News was no longer news.......the Editor opened your Mail.
Journalism had no feedback mechanism, no instant messaging, no next day slap at the Journalist, no next day retraction to expose the Morning Lies by that same afternoon.
The Times they are a changing.
The Old Media can't keep up, they no longer have a strangle hold on the News you see, hear, watch, listen to.
The Journalism Dept. at Columbia better teach why Liberal "Radio America" Failed, they need a new course on the Shrinking Influence of the Alphabet Networks, They need to offer a computer Science Course on how to write a BLOG.
When BHO loses the Election in spite of the MSM's best Efforts to give FREE campaign Contributions via unlimited BHO coverage, they need to Teach a course on "WHY" Journalism Activism doesn't Work-ism.
They then need to understand that 20 Years of Rush Limbaugh and a Shrinking NY Times, are somehow connected.
Blogging lives, Journalism is MIA.
They won't be teaching how to Influence an Election, you can get that course for Free, watching TV.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
Cause and Effect
August 12, 2008 - 03:03 ET by HillbillyKingThanks Mr. Sheffield for posting this item. It was worth the time to read the whole thing.
One quick thought about what you wrote here:
As great as Rosenbaum's piece is, however, he misses one crucial point.
The reason that CJR engages in such obvious hypocrisy is that its staff
is ideologically uniform. The journalism department at Columbia is
filled to the brim with far left professors. This severe lack of
diversity is what creates bias, not some nefarious conspiracy. Liberal
bias comes from liberal groupthink.
I couldn't agree more. I think if one follows that thought a little farther, it explains the liberal bias in the media as a whole. Combine that with the points KC makes about a market place of ideas and it is evident where the leftist slant that permiates the opinion manufactured by the MSM comes from.
I also do not think that the bias is a "nefarious conspiracy". But the logical result of those that have been ideologically indoctrinated by leftist institutions attaining the power over the dissemnation of information.
For what it's worth, I for one would love to see more articles like this. Well done.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937