The unasked question of Journolist

The Journolist scandal, wherein a group of “journalists” were caught conspiring to influence the media in a way that would help liberal politicians and liberal causes, has almost run its course. But there is one crucial and obvious question that should be explored. And after exploring it, I want to provide a chance at some healing.

Most journalist and editors are liberal, and when hiring new journalists they hire other liberals. They do not hire conservatives. This has been going on for at least 50 years.

This is an obvious point. But how did it get that way?

Recently Jack Shafer, the author of the media column “Press Box” on Slate, tweeted a link that he claimed “puts Journolist into perspective.” He linked to a 1997 article in Slate by Jacob Weisberg. “The Conintern” explores how conservative journalists are punished if they stray from the right-wing line.

Weisberg cited several cases.

One involved Tucker Carlson – the same man who broke the Journolist story. In 1997 Carlson wrote an unflattering profile of conservative Grover Norquist. The piece was rejected by the Weekly Standard, but was published by the New Republic. A second case involved David Brock, who was then a conservative journalist. In Esquire magazine, Brock claimed he was driven out of conservative circles for writing too sympathetically about Hillary Clinton. Another example was Laura Ingraham, who got scolded by Norquist when she wrote something critical about a Republican congressman.

According to Weisberg, “this kind of treatment has no parallel among liberals.”

Forget for a moment the case of Nat Hentoff, the veteran journalist who became pro-life and recently wrote, in the Human Life Review, about his blackballing among journalists and activists (and the only reason the New Republic published a piece by him about abortion was as kind of a freak show – hey, a New York liberal and jazz critic who is pro life!). Forget about David Horowitz. We won’t get into Bernie Goldberg. Weisberg is right – it’s largely true that liberal journalists don’t get banished for criticizing other liberals. But it’s only true because liberals do not hire potential apostates in the first place.

There is no one to drive out because everyone tugs in the same direction.  What is disgraceful about this is not necessarily the partisanship. In a recent piece for the Daily Caller, I noted that too many liberal journalists are not only ideologues, but more importantly, they have no sense of honor. Too many will not listen to their conscience and challenge their own side the way Tucker Carlson and David Brock and Laura Ingraham did. Would E.J. Dionne, a Catholic, write a strong pro-life column? Would Slate publish a series on AIDS and promiscuity?  An interview with George Weigel? Hadley Arkes? Jonah Goldberg?

No, the disgrace about all this is not as much the partisanship, but the lying about it. Liberal journalists continue to claim that they are not partisan, which is like claiming it is not hot in Washington in the summer. Or perhaps Bernie Goldberg is right, that these people don’t consider liberalism an ideology, but just common sense. I mean, come on – who in their right mind is pro-life or supports Sarah Palin?