Right vs. Left Reporting

Jonathan Martin writes a really interesting article on the discrepancy in terms of reporting in the right leaning blogosphere, as opposed to the left. Generally speaking, I think the explanation for this is pretty self-evident; right leaning types are much less interested in actual, fact-based, reporting and logical processes of obtaining hard information to form opinions than they are in formulating externally true doctrines first and then ranting at reality when these don’t line up. That’s why the right-wing blogosphere must treat every conceivable source of dispositive, researched information; the media, universities, government agencies, and so on, as inherently biased in favor of the left. This, in particular, stands out to me:

“In the past 60 years, only one employee of the National Review, Weekly Standard or any conservative magazine has actually been hired as a reporter for a newspaper,” says Brooks, who researched the question a few years ago.

At the same time, scores of young reporters from liberal-leaning journals such as The New Republic or The Washington Monthly have been called up to the journalistic big leagues by general interest newspapers and magazines.

“There is just no career line for a conservative reporter,” observes Brooks.

It seems extremely counter-intuitive that there is just “no career line for a conservative reporter,” and indeed Brooks seems to take his own argument apart earlier when he submits that aspiring conservative writers generally look up to people like William F. Buckley and George Will, who were/are not reporters, but opinion meisters. Indeed, he manifests the problem even more by limiting his focus to The Weekly Standard and National Review. If I were an editor at, say, The Washington Post, I wouldn’t hire a writer from National Review to be a reporter either, because National Review is not about reporting fact, it’s about disseminating conservative viewpoints. In other words, it’s a propaganda outfit. The Weekly Standard is even worse. If The New Republic and Washington Monthly have a definite liberal slant to them, they still have a focus on research and reporting that is simply non-existant on the right. So it’s not that editors are fundamentally liberally biased, it simply means that there is no committment to reporting anywhere on the right that would tend to lead to the creation of good reporters, as opposed to the excellent propagandists on the payroll of National Review and The Weekly Standard.