I do think that different ideas should be presented. The problem is that only one side gets theirs out for the most part. It is not that conservatives have failed to get a foothold in the MSM, it is that the MSM and liberals have succeeded at keeping them out. It starts in the journalism classes, where it is made known that liberal members will fare much better as a whole than conservatives. There are many capable reporters who can deliver both sides, but getting the conservatve point of view to the public at large remains a battle. Too many editors with a liberal bent have the power as to what information is disseminated to the public.

ZS,

Interesting points all. Too much for me to tackle so late in the evening. If I remember tomorrow, I might make an Open Thread out of this.

That said, let me touch on a couple of theories I have that might answer some of your questions. In my view, modern journalism has been gravely impacted by a number of key historical events: Cronkite's views on Vietnam; Watergate; CNN's viewership spike after Desert Storm, and; the media's ability to convince Americans that the economy was doing poorly in 1992 thereby assisting Clinton to defeat Bush 41.

Without taking 3,000 words to fully explain these events, how they interrelate, and how they've led to our current deplorable state of journalism, let me simply state that from these events, media and the left in our nation learned how much power they had to control public opinion to such a degree that they could actually impact the course of future events.

To a certain extent, you could say that during these 25 some odd years, the media met Madison Avenue, and just as good marketers could dictate what Americans wore, drove, and listened to on their stereos, now press members were learning how they could control how citizens felt about current events, and, eventually, voted.

Let's face it: most thinking people now believe that the media forced us out of Vietnam, and convinced the citizenry that the whole debacle was Nixon's fault even though Kennedy and Johnson were the ones that got us there in the first place.

A handful of years later, Watergate represents the media bringing down a president, and, more important for our discussion, a Republican president.

When you consider both of these events, and how close in time they occurred, imagine how many of today's journalists were in college during this period, and imagined their role in the press as getting the nation out of war, or bringing down a Republican president. Maybe more important, how many people have gone to journalism school thinking that this was the role of the media?

I've read many recent questionnaires taken of people entering journalism schools today, and these folks believe that their future job is to change the world. Therein lies the problem, for journalists should be reporting events, not trying to alter them.

Sadly, this is no longer the case, for the overwhelmingly large percentage of today's press are advocates NOT journalists. JMHO. ns

I really enjoyed zeestephan’s comments. They make you think. However, I disagree with his major premise:
” one constant flaw I see in the reasoning around here is the idea that
something called "good" or "fair journalism" actually
exists or can be attained.”

The idea that it is a “flaw” to believe that there actually
exist objective standards by which journalism can be judged is postmodernism
and dangerous.

I love the statement: “I think every passionate human being
looks at the world through a lens constructed of basic principles and basic
assumptions.” This is absolutely true,
but it is ancient knowledge. Read
Proverbs 21:2, “Every man's way is right in his own eyes,”

That truth, however, does not rule out the need for or the
existence of some objective standards.

Zeestephan goes on to state: “As long as people remain open
to new facts, as long as there is a free and competitive market in the world of
ideas, I don't think that should be a problem.”

There is a huge logical problem with zeestephan’s
argument. How are ideas judged in a
“competitive market” unless there are objective standards by which to
judge? If there are no objective
standards, what is the possible mechanism by which ” ... people remain open to
new facts...”

And in fact, zeestephan, in good postmodern form, states his
own objective standard: “As long as people remain open to new facts, as long as
there is a free and competitive market in the world of ideas, I
don't think that should be a problem. “ What if people don’t remain open to new facts, or to old facts,
or to any facts? How do you convince
someone that they are not open to facts, if you don’t have any agreed upon
objective standards regarding facts?

One of the strengths of NB, to me, is the day-in, day-out
demonstration that they do recognize that there are objective standards
regarding journalism. I can certainly
name a few: 1) Lies should not be told for the truth, 2) Unintentional untruths
that are stated as truths should be acknowledged and corrected the author when
realized, 3) Information stated as fact should be thoroughly checked before
being stated as fact, 4) At least two sides of a controversial issue should be
presented, 5) ad hominem attacks
should not be substituted for a discussion of issues, 6) Obvious and known
bias, on the part of an author, should be identified and acknowledged,
7)Affiliations and funding that could cause serious bias should be identified
and acknowledged. No doubt there are
others, but these will do for a start.

The reason I continue to read NB is precisely because I can
see that they do not hesitate to challenge any organization, or writer, who
does NOT adhere to the simple standards that I have outlined above. This doesn’t seem to be too much to ask,
since these standards have been considered Gold Standards in matters of serious
publications for ages.

I completely agree with zeestephen that: “When I look at
individual news anchors or people like David Shuster, I don't see reporters, I
see "Highly Paid Political Lobbyists."

This is exactly why NB performs a critical function, and why
objective journalistic standards are needed.