Why conservatives, notwithstanding all their fulminating on the subject, still don’t understand the liberal media

Noel Shephard at Newsbusters writes:

It was another embarrassing election night for the mainstream media that once again badly misinterpreted exit polls.

A conservative writer who believes that the major media are embarrassed by their mistaken election call (a “mistake” driven by their overweening pro-Democratic bias) is still in conservative kindergarten. Given that they are not embarrassed by their non-stop open cheerleading for Democrats (e.g., the clearly expressed joy of the supposedly objective CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Monday night over the report that the race was 50-50 instead of a Walker victory, and over his conclusion that this spelled trouble for Romney in November), why would they be embarrassed by their mistaken predictions, which are simply a function of that cheerleading? Being pro-Democratic liars is simply what they are. Is a hyena embarrassed at being a hyena?

Mainstream conservatives thus continue in their naive pretense that Democrats share the same basic moral framework and loyalties as normal Americans, when the truth is that the Democrats and their liberal media henchmen are a revolutionary criminal gang. The conservatives can’t afford to recognize this truth. Why? Because the truth is so extreme and terrible that for a conservative to speak the truth plainly would make him look extreme. He would be discredited, rather than the criminal Democrats and liberals of whom he is speaking. Thus, ironically, the Democrats and liberals continue to be protected, by their own wicked and criminal character, from the exposure and condemnation they so richly deserve.

- end of initial entry -

Paul K. writes:

You wrote:

Thus, ironically, the Democrats and liberals continue to be protected, by their own wicked and criminal character, from the exposure and condemnation they so richly deserve.

Is this a corollary of Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society? It seems to me that it is. Just as acknowledging the truth about the behavior of designated minorities is forbidden, as its implications are too terrible, so is acknowledging the truth about Democrats and liberals. I think there is a large truth in Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations that has wide application.

LA replies:

Yes, I became aware of the parallel with the First Law as soon as I wrote the entry.

But I’m almost thinking that the First Law is a subset of this idea, rather than this idea being a subset of the First Law.

The “master” idea being: in liberal society, the worse something is (that is, the worse it is from a normal or traditional perspective), the more it is protected, and the more objectionable a person is for speaking the truth about it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 07, 2012 01:27 PM | Send