The ideology of journalists - progressivism

Arguably the most distinct and identifying feature of Progressivism is their complete faith and trust in bureaucratic despotism. One can say "the media are virtually never critical of the federal government's various departments" as an observation of reporting, but Walter Lippmann makes an interesting proposal in his book Public Opinion: (page 330)

The newspaper deals with a multitude of events beyond our experience. But it deals also with some events within our experience. And by its handling of those events we most frequently decide to like it or dislike it, to trust it or refuse to have the sheet in the house. If the newspaper gives a satisfactory account of that which we think we know, our business, our church, our party, it is fairly certain to be immune from violent criticism by us. What better criterion does the man at the breakfast table possess than that the newspaper version checks up with his own opinion? Therefore, most men tend to hold the newspaper most strictly accountable in their capacity, not of general readers, but of special pleaders on matters of their own experience.

Rarely is anyone but the interested party able to test the accuracy of a report. If the news is local, and if there is competition, the editor knows that he will probably hear from the man who thinks his portrait unfair and inaccurate. But if the news is not local, the corrective diminishes as the subject matter recedes into the distance. The only people who can correct what they think is a false picture of themselves printed in another city are members of groups well enough organized to hire publicity men. Now it is interesting to note that the general reader of a newspaper has no standing in law if he thinks he is being misled by the news. It is only the aggrieved party who can sue for slander or libel, and he has to prove a material injury to himself. The law embodies the tradition that general news is not a matter of common concern, 1 except as to matter which is vaguely described as immoral or seditious.

But the body of the news, though unchecked as a whole by the disinterested reader, consists of items about which some readers have very definite preconceptions. Those items are the data of his judgment, and news which men read without this personal criterion, they judge by some other standard than their standard of accuracy. They are dealing here with a subject matter which to them is indistinguishable from fiction. The canon of truth cannot be applied. They do not boggle over such news if it conforms to their stereotypes, and they continue to read it if it interests them.

Footnote 1 The reader will not mistake this as a plea for censorship. It might, however, be a good thing if there were competent tribunals, preferably not official ones, where charges of untruthfulness and unfairness in the general news could be sifted. Cf. Liberty and the News, pp. 73-76.

When progressives use the word "common", they traditionally mean government. Lippmann makes it clear that he means that here, and points out that he's not calling for censorship.

So what is a competent tribunal? Its a body of experts. It's progressivism. A group of unelected bureaucrats sitting around making decisions for someone else. He says he would prefer that they not be official(again, meaning government), but if it should be done by government, no big deal.

This isn't his only call for more unelected bureaucrats. Chapter 27 Intelligence Work is all about unelected bureaucrats. Some good, some bad. He's not blind about it being a silver bullet answer, but he clearly prefers a network of bureaucrats collecting information.

This is the Father of Modern Journalism. They love this guy. At Harvard, they have a monument to him. That's their journalism school. They know how important and influential he was.

http://tinyurl.com/cx5hsr6