By Dave Andrusko
Malcolm Gladwell is the author of many best sellers, “The Tipping Point” perhaps the best known. A one-sentence grabber on Amazon reads “The tipping point is that magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a threshold, tips, and spreads like wildfire.”
Wikipedia provides a more technical definition:”In sociology, a tipping point is a point in time when a group—or many group members—rapidly and dramatically changes its behavior by widely adopting a previously rare practice.”
However, we understand the idea, Van Gordon Sauter, former president of CBS News, believes the media’s long-standing “liberal tilt” has moved to a dangerous new posture.
Writing this week in the Wall Street Journal, Sauter argues, “Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the ‘resistance’ dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters.”
A news industry stocked with pro-abortionists who are liberal on a host of issues is nothing new. Nor is the willingness to toss overboard standards of journalistic integrity that would been unthinkable not so long ago unique.
What is different is that much of the prestige media—such as the New York Times—has so thrown their lot in with “the resistance,” they couldn’t draw back even if they wanted to. Their audience would rebel.
But that’s not in the cards anyway. “The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it,” Sauter writes.
(BTW, a quasi-prominent MSNBC host actually had the courage to ask that the same standards be applied to pro-abortion former vice president Joe Biden as are used when the person is not in favor with the cable network. A flood of Fire “X” tweets immediately washed over the Internet.)
Two other points. First, Sauter writes
News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.
Put another way, it is acceptable to lace even the straightest of straight news story with heaps of the reporter’s hostility to President Trump. No surprise, perhaps, when that same reporter will vent his or her spleen all day long on their twitter feeds.
It is one thing to have a bias. Acknowledging that and working to eliminate it from your reporting is praiseworthy–and formerly was the norm.
It is, however, quite another thing to have an agenda which, in this case, is to defeat President Trump at all costs, including (unacknowledged) damage to the media. Forwarding that mission, alas, merits a badge of honor.
Second, “Journalism affects social cohesion. Convinced of its role and its legitimacy, however, the media doesn’t seem to much care.”
The irony here is almost enough to choke you.
The same reporters/columnists/editorial page writers who will thrash Americans for opting out of reading The Times and the Washington Post or watching the three major networks and CNN cannot see what countless millions of us see. They live in a different world.
Or, as Sauter observes, “Ultimately, the media finds the ‘deplorables’ deplorable.”