Derek Nelson responds to “Can the Media Keep Kosher?”

While it is undoubtedly easier to chisel away at an argument’s foundation than build it in the first instance, and while I greatly admire (as I always do) Mr. Stephens’ clarity of prose and thought, such caveats cannot obviate the duty to say when Mr. Stephens is wrong. And while he is not terminally wrong in this piece, he is wrong-ish.

Notwithstanding my micro-level quibbles with assertions that are not central to his argument, there are structural errors to be reckoned with — pillars without deductive or inductive support. There is much talk about truth in this piece, but it seems that Mr. Stephens’ ideology has hamstrung his ability to arrive at his own truth in a persuasive fashion. 

First, there are the claims that are syllogistically flawed. Mr. Stephens apologia seeking to absolve Fox News of its complicity in misleading the general public relies upon a faulty premise. According to Mr. Stephens, Fox News (and MSNBC, as Mr. Stephens mentions in a perfunctory manner) is honest: “Few people who faithfully tune in to Fox or MSNBC are under the illusion they are being served traditional straight news.” Leave alone the open question of how the general public’s awareness of a media platform’s bias somehow makes that platform itself “honest,” it is still not at all clear to me that the quantity of those who take Fox at their word is “few.” Fox News affirms its viewers’ worldview, yes. But it is a worldview that the average consumer of Fox is decidedly certain is the truth, and not in the caveated, nuanced, and high-minded sense of truth which Mr. Stephens naively believes the average Fox viewer can appreciate. Not to say that some viewers don’t overcome this, but Mr. Stephens’ argument here is quantitative and in that sense it misses the mark. Furthermore, his assertion that consumers of news media have a responsibility to understand the nature of the content they imbibe fails to harmonize with the thrust of his argument on this point. That may be so, but unless that responsibility is exercised, these forms of neo-activist journalism remain profoundly dangerous. There is far too much hand-waving here.

Then there are those claims which simply lack evidence. Mr. Stephens is less concerned with Fox News and is more concerned with those stalwarts of objective journalism now tainted with the irradiated glow of subjectivity. It is a fear I myself have acknowledged and expressed to others. But I will concede what Mr. Stephens does not: This fear lacks empirical support. 

Has “blue-collar journalism” mostly disappeared? Maybe, but I would admonish Mr. Stephens with an old adage of persuasive writing; show, don’t tell. 

The same can be said for assertions that certitude has replaced intellectual humility, “bothsidesism” has come to be considered a cardinal journalistic sin, and that many newsrooms no longer value viewpoint diversity. Preach, brother! But also show your work. Mr. Stephens’ words embrace me in a warm sense of comfort, as they affirm my own worldview. And the irony here should not be lost.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The erosion of the American newsroom’s position as the fourth check on power is deeply troubling for those of us who continue to believe that there is objective truth in the world and that such truth should guide political and economic decision-making. And I think Mr. Stephens is largely correct in his solution. But those tasked with reading his argument must deal with the incessant headwinds of Mr. Stephens’ partisanship. This is a needless distraction.