A “Theoretical model of an anti-white media-social bias“ fitted to popularized media terms “in quotes.”
Discussion: The Liberal-Progressive view, as presented in Table 1, conceives of a moral universe in which good and moral (on top) is identified with being against White interest and being for Other interest; conversely, it identifies evil and immoral (on bottom) with being against other interest and for white interest. As such the moral universe is dichotic and inverted. A simplified version of this is presented in table 2.
Table 1. A Theoretical Model of The Liberal-progressive Bias
Being Against: Being For:
1. White propaganda Non-White propaganda
“White Pride” “Diversity studies/ Minority Pride”
2. Legal Quotas for Whites Legal Quotas for non-whites
3. Sympathetic views of Whites Sympathetic- views of nonwhites
“Implicit Racims” “Media sensitivity”
Being For: Being Against:
4. Critical views of non-whites Critical views of whites
5. White social norms/legacy Non-white social norms/legacy
“White Privilege,” “Implicit racims” “Multiculturalims”
6. White on nonwhite negative expressions Non- white on white negative expressions
Table 2. A simplified Theoretical Model of The Liberal-progressive Bias
Good: Anti-White Pro-Other
Evil: Pro-White Anti-other
The liberals and that ‘Liberal Media Bias’ argument. How we so love them both. How long I have stood in perplexed wonder at that apparent sincerity in which some can maintain the ‘not biased hypothesis’? And have wondered if a real question should be liberal insularity, disingenuity, or morality? Only finally to agree with them, but not exactly in the way they mean.
When people ask whether the Media is biased or not, they obviously presuppose a standard to judge this. They imagine the political spectrum in their heads and draw a line down the middle of the page, labeling one half liberal and the other conservative — usually without bothering to distinguish left and right from liberal and conservative, let alone considering the proper place of libertarian.
The problems with this method are multifold. You can read about them in academic discussions on the matter. When we ask, is the media liberal, we are really asking – is the Media liberal relative to something/someone? To affluent cosmopolitans (or ruralites), the current media norms often sent by the former (or average national opinion polls), or to international averages (or to the US historical average – assuming we could somehow extrapolate). To ask this question, requires one to make an operant definition of what constitutes liberal, which is obviously in debate from the start – since liberals are going to want to see the ‘status quo’ as conservative and conservatives are going to want to see it as liberal.
Further, the situation is much worse in average discourse; there, people do not even bother to try to tackle these issues. At best, they just substitute their limited perspective and at worse their desired goal. So a gay activist will end up claiming that the media is too conservative for even tolerating discussion on the acceptability of Gay Marriages and a (hypothetical) Fundamentalist will claim it is too liberal for tolerating discussions of Gays.
Another complicating factor is that norms naturally drift to the left. What was considered liberal in the 1900’s, was conservative in the 1950’s, and is considered rather reactionary today. On top of this, the media does not just act as a representation for public thought. It is not merely descriptive but prescriptive, so you have to decide on your version of the proper role for the media.
I try to skip this by using a different method. In short, I throw science out the window and approach the issue in the way the Vienna school approaches economics, that is, theoretically. As such there are three questions for me: 1) is the media descriptive or prescriptive. 2) In what way is society moving, given 3) what is the relation between 1 and 2. The answer I get is that the media is leftist not liberal. This is how:
a. My operant definition for a leftist media is a media that both resists against changes from and pushes for
changes to a leftist perspective. Vice versa for a rightist media.
b. My operant definition of a Liberal media is a media that challenges the status quo. Vice versa for a
c. My definition of left and right, is based on some tricky sociopolitical theory. It assumes that people have
group and individual needs relative to a give affluence level (there is research on this) and that stable
societies or philosophies tend to fill both of these. The first is often felt as meaning and the second as
freedom. It assumes that left and right tendencies represent two attempts to reconcile these needs. In the US,the right tries to fill the social needs from the bottom up with traditional ties (religion, ethnic affiliations,
nationalism as patriotism, ect) and the individual needs through market competition. The left tries to fill the
social needs from the top down with a large state (a giant ‘it takes a village’) and the individual needs through
liberation from traditional norms. In this system, at least in the US, libertarianism is neither left or right,
but represents a political theory without the group consideration. It’s proper converse is collectivism, which
can be both left (communism or a kibbutz ) or right (volkism or a tribe).
Now, as I was saying, I can prove that the media is prescriptive; this means that the media either resists against changes to the status quo or pushes for changes to it. And it is either pushing to the left or the right.
I can show that the media does guard a post liberation (liberal-progressive-multicultural) status quo. This should be obvious when you consider that the alternative is guarding the traditional status quo. This (as part of so-called ‘white privilege”) was mostly a Christian West Caucasian one.
Further, I can show that the media does not just guard liberation mores, but pushes for more liberation. The media’s position here is not should we maintain the status quo, let alone go back, but how fast should we change. This is why most of the media is left. It is not just the Nytimes, where David Brooks, the far left of the right, is considered the far right in counterbalance to the rest and where everyone right of him is unmentionable. It’s throughout the media.
I will admit, that the media is more balanced about capitalism. But even here, ‘deregulated capitalism’ and ‘the status quo’ is contrasted with ‘even more regulated’ and ‘re-distributional in the Rawlsian sense’ when the proper balance in discussion would include ‘classical liberal’ economics ahead of ‘deregulated’ and shift the ‘status quo’ into neutral ground – but given the social changes this is not feasible.
Finally, I argue that the liberation status quo and push for change is leftist. To do this I distinguish between explicit leftism and de facto leftism. Since this is a theoretical argument, I don’t even bother tallying the articles that fall left or right, and focus on the de facto aspect.
Since, for the most part, there is no meaningful alternative to leftist change – this change must be, de facto, to the left. There is no alternative because it is hard to maintain, even envision, a rightist philosophy in a multicultural society – bottom up emerges from some commonalities. Top down can be imposed.
A much simpler way of putting this is to say: “The media is open and balanced and doesn’t allow racist speech to protect this.” Then substitute: censorious for open, Leftist for balanced, and rightist interpretation for racist speech.
A counter argument to this, of course, is to argue that these changes were/are just the above mentioned natural drift to the left – that they are normal and due to affluence and prosperity when not a result of some type of multicultural-progressive social-moral evolution. And that they were/are not influenced by the media.
For the last point, it might be educational to read though the Tokyo Times and the Japanese coverage of, say, immigration crime and crime on immigrants, over the last 15 years and compare that the reportage in any of the major US papers. There is and has been quite a different take on it, which is not/ has not been incidental to public opinion and voting habits.