Liberal Bias

The recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Carole Simpson, formally of ABC News, has one again fanned the seemingly eternal embers of debate about press bias.  For conservatives there was hardly anything new or surprising that a former reporter, now college president would endorse Clinton.  That is about as dog-bites-man as you can get. The only surprise would have been if she had endorsed a conservative, but given the bias of her past reporting, that was not going to happen. 

But, while this was yet another piece of evidence for the liberal bias of the mainstream media, as if any more was actually needed, the utter denial of bias by liberals is yet another example of their near complete refusal or inability to deal with any facts that do not fit their view of reality.   Now we all do this to some degree, and in fact we are trained to do so.  We all have a mental picture of the reality around us. As we encounter something new it either fits our mental framework or is simply ignored as irrelevant.  This is how we form our perception of the world around us.

But perception is not always reality.  When I would train teachers on how to teach critical thinking, one of the things I would do is ask questions about some slides I would show.  The teachers knew we were talking about perception, and they knew the slides were to show how they missed things. So they were on their guard.   And yet almost all still failed to see what was obvious once it was pointed out and were puzzled as to how they could have missed it.

So that Liberals miss the overwhelmingly liberal bias of the news is not all that surprising. What is surprising is their steadfast denials; denials that are nearly complete immunity to contrary evidence no matter how much or how clear.  In the example above, while the teachers were amazed at what they had overlooked, none tried to maintain that it did not exist once it was pointed out.  And yet liberals continue to maintain the objectivity of the press despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This is because not only does liberal bias conflict with their world view, in many respects so does the evidence for it.   Liberalism is a form of existential narcissism.  It is existential in that it is primarily concerned with the here and now.  Previous failures are in the past, and thus do not matter.  Any consequences are in the future, and thus do not exist. The only thing that matter is the here and now.  It is narcissistic in that it focuses on the self and in particular one’s feelings.

Thus for global warming, the fact that such environmental scares have been a consistent feature of the left for the last 50 years and have all turned out to be wrong is not relevant to the current scare, that ‘s the past.  That the future consequences of their proposed actions would cause tremendous suffering and harm without actually do much to solve the problem, is not a factor.  We can’t really know the future. The only thing that matters is the current threat, and what “I” can do about it. “I” can change my light-blubs; “I”  can drive a hybrid;  “I” can by carbon credits; “I” can support  environmental  groups and candidates.  Even if this actually doesn’t really help the problem, “I” am at least trying to do something, and “I” can feel good about that. 

The narcissistic nature of liberalism also explains the emphasis on intentions for liberal.  What actually happened is not really under their control, but what they can control is their intentions.  For many intentions become primary, such as in hate-crime legislation.  

This emphasis on intentions, combined with the general narcissistic nature of liberalism, means that everything is judged by the self.  “I” want what is good, and if you do not want what “I” want, then you must not be good.  This is why, while most conservatives tend to think that liberals are mistaken in their policies and ideas, liberals tend to think that conservatives are bad people, greedy, selfish, etc.  In its extreme form this is currently expressed as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Since everything is judged by the self, how could a liberal be biased? Their views just are.  They are not really even liberal, they are just expression of reality.  Thus were conservatives see tremendous bias in the major news media, liberals see simply reporting that agrees with their view, and since their view is not really liberal, but rather an expression of reality, the reporting is therefore just reporting reality, and how can that be biased?  Reporting that differs from their view of reality, does not correct their view, but is dismissed as bias.  Thus Fox news is bias because it presents both sides.

This also explains the very strange belief among reporters that they are objective as long as they don’t tell you what they support. Bias is saying you biased.   If “I” don’t tell you, then you cannot know “I” have bias and therefore it does not exist.  The idea that bias might actually exist in the way they write the story, regardless of what they say, does not seem to even be within the realm of possibility. After all they are just reporting reality.

So that Simpson now is publically supporting Clinton, for the liberals, says nothing about her past reporting. In fact, it would seem that her biggest crime was that she said it.  But even here there is no big problem, for as one Liberal said in Simpson’s defense, supporting Clinton is not really an expression of liberalism.  I guess not, after all isn’t that what any objective person not tainted by greed or selfishness would do?