One of the best aspects of the insoluble self-destruction of the collectivist pop news monolith is that their over-paid, baby-screaming, cringe-inducing stars are so desperate to push their agenda they seem to neither see their own stunning biases nor recognize their towering hypocrisy.
And Paul Bedard, of the Washington Examiner, just shed light on a new study by the generally left-leaning Pew Research Center, that reiterates this ongoing hypocritical behavior. It’s almost comical, yet something we all pretty much suspected.
The “Diversity Cult” of pop media news that bangs the drums of “equality” so much they could be clones drawn from Rousseau is, in fact, not practicing what its members preach.
As Bedard explains:
In not taking a page from their own headlines, the news industry is 77 percent white and 61 percent male, according to the latest report from the Pew Research Center. Overall, the U.S. workforce is 65 percent white, 53 percent male.
For those of us who could care less about skin color, religious belief, ethnicity, sexual orientation, so-called “class”, or gender, but focus on ideas and honesty, the fact that the pop media news industry are less diverse than the general population might be a matter of less import than whether the reporters are trying to be fair to the subjects and people they cover. But this news is, in fact, significant for a number of reasons.
First, as Bedard mentions, this isn’t the first time the pop media have been exposed as less diverse than the rest of American culture.
(A)ccording to Pew, “the American Society of News Editors in 2012-2015 estimated that newspaper employees were 87 percent-88 percent white, 63 percent-64 percent male, and 56 percent-57 percent white and male. Surveys by the Radio Television Digital News Association in 2012-2016 estimated that television newsroom staff were 77 percent-79 percent white and 56 percent-60 percent male, while radio newsroom staff were 87 percent-91 percent white and 61 percent-69 percent male.
Yet, despite this long-standing lack of diversity in their own offices, CNNMSNBCNBCCBSABCPBSSNYTHUFFPOWAPO bloviators tell us in a seemingly unending litany that one side is “for diversity” and the other is “systemically racist, homophobic, and patriarchal”. The childish display is so desperate it’s almost sad, offering a the false choice of polarized “Dems v GOP” in which the latter is painted as evil and terms such as “states rights”, or “make America great again” are depicted as racist code, fronts for ingrates who must be led kicking and screaming to the nirvana of diversity and equality of outcome.
But it’s not nirvana in their own glass houses, because the architects are hypocrites.
Theirs is the kind of hypocrisy one often sees within the circles of consequentialist collectivists, people for whom the individual is either unimportant, or less important than the outcome. This is the poisonous font from which the “Identity Politics” movement springs, the world where collectivists will routinely employ racial and sexual stereotypes and toss about baseless accusations, a-la Michael Eric Dyson’s disgusting and insipid claim in a 2017 “debate” that Jordan Peterson was a “mean, mad, white man”, in attempts to silence dissent and gain political power.
This is the kind of hypocrisy that sees politically hungry, ego-dripping politicians claiming they’re “sticking up for the worker” as they push to force employers (and, by association, customers) to pay what the politicians want them to pay, rather than seeing the politicians enter the market and offer jobs themselves, to compete, and do things the peaceful way.
It is the kind of pathological mentality that sees a blowhard like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) claim to support “working people” with her unconstitutional demands that employers (and customers) pay workers at least $15 per hour, even as she not only carries on the debased tradition of paying Senate interns a big fat zilch, and adds to it her own twist of paying her campaign interns nothing as well.
It is the arrogant assumption that a political elitist or a philosophical snob who is well-ensconced in the media and well connected with that political elite can besmirch and unfairly deem someone as “lacking virtue” because that target happens to hold an opinion contrary to the preferred collectivist plan.
Hence, this study from Pew is nothing new. After all, it’s never been about principle for the consequentialist collectivists.
It’s been about power.
It will always be about power. Because they believe that, with such power, they can remake the world, and make it “fair”, the way they see “fairness”.
Mirrors be damned.