Bias-Free Dennis Prager Sees Bias
[Note: This is actually part 2. You probably want to start with part 1, which is immediately below.]
It would be nice if we could just shut down idiocy that easily:
- See something stupid
- Prove that it is stupid
- It goes away
Sadly, my determination that Prager’s column is based on a false premise does not actually make that column disappear from the internet. For that reason, I should probably continue with the evisceration:
Given how obvious this bias is…
No, it’s not a given. We already established that.
…the question is not whether liberals in the media tend to offer biased reporting. The question is why? Why can’t liberal news people report the news without any slant?
First of all, it is very difficult to write an article completely free of bias. I recall seeing data somewhere that the majority of reporters are liberal. That right there will give you a bit of a natural liberal bias. However, if the reporters are doing a good job of trying to remain neutral, what you end up with is just a slight lean to the left.
Outweighing this is the fact that the news organizations themselves are part of giant corporations, and the news coverage overall actually has a strong corporate bias.
Furthermore, there are the overt propaganda outfits (chief among these is Fox News) that were expressly set up with the intention of presenting conservatively-biased news.
The answer is that for people on the left, all—I repeat, (set ital) all (end ital)—professions are a means to an end, not ends in themselves.
I guess that would include the profession of copy-editor. Prager’s was so busy pursuing a liberal agenda that he forgot to remove the typesetting cues.
But seriously, I find it amazing that Prager has such near-divine insight that he is able to determine that liberals think that every single profession is a means to achieving total cultural domination. Where is his proof? Did he find a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Pelosi somewhere?
How is an exterminator, by killing roaches, advancing the liberal agenda? And if a traffic cop tries to get everybody to move to the left, all he will do is cause an accident.
(Note: Those last two sentences really should be considered straw-man arguments, but Prager said all professions! Prager is forcing me into bad writing! He must view his profession as a means to achieving the conservative agenda. And he’s pretty good at it!)
For most liberal news reporters… [t]he purpose of the media in general and of reporting specifically is to promote social justice and the social transformation of society.
I don’t doubt that some liberal news reporters would like to use their position to that end. The reality, though, is that type of reporting is very difficult to do within the corporate media structure. Desire does not equal action.
For most liberal judges, the primary purpose of being a judge is to promote social justice and transform society. That is why liberal judges are so much more likely to be judicial activists than conservative judges.
No. “Judicial activism” is a term invented and defined by the right. Most conservative judges are excluded by definition. When a conservative judge does his job and rules against them, the conservatives just invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Avoid it at all costs.
The task of a teacher is to teach…. But, again, this conflicts with the social justice goal of the left.… History—and English and political science, and sociology and other liberal arts—teachers must use their classroom to produce young people who will wish to engage in society-transforming work for social justice.
That sure is a great story. Too bad it’s not true.
For most liberals in the arts (there are very few conservatives in the arts)…
That’s a really good point. Why is that?
…there is no denial of their having an agenda. They state quite candidly that the purpose of the arts is to challenge the (conservative) status quo, to raise political and social consciousness by advancing a “progressive” political and social agenda.
Historically, art has been one of the few avenues of anti-establishment expression, whether that establishment is left or right. If you look at totalitarian regimes throughout history—Nazi Germany, communist China, etc.—you find censorship of the arts as one of the means of controlling the masses. Is Prager now advocating a suppression of the arts? He keeps disturbing company.
Even the natural sciences are increasingly subject to being rendered a means to a “progressive” end.
It’s a good thing the Republicans didn’t manipulate science for their own benefit.
The best analogy of the directing of all human endeavors toward a left-wing purpose would be those early medieval centuries of European life when just about everything man made was supposed to reflect a religious consciousness.
Most moderns look upon that period as a dark age—perhaps a bit unfairly at times.
No. Quite fairly:
Prager finishes with a triple-stupid:
But the people who most scorn what they deem the religious “Dark Ages” are trying to building [sic] a secular-left dark age in our time.
1: He just contradicted his last sentence. Now he thinks the Dark Ages were bad.
Because the left is a religion, a substitute for the Christianity it seeks to displace.
2: Conservatives, at least those of Prager’s ilk, believe that if you replace one thing with another, the replacement must be similar to the original. If Christianity is replaced by secularism, then secularism must be a religion.
3: There’s no evidence that the “liberal agenda” even seeks to displace Christianity. This is the typical “Christians are being persecuted!” cry we hear over and over from these people.
I have news for you Prager. Most liberals are Christians, even if it’s a form you don’t recognize. You’re so busy trying to determine who the true Scotsmen are that you overlook that we’re all human, and that we just want what is best for all.