Moral relativism in journalism

Click the picture to check out the source.

In my last post I was ranting about CNN. King Shamus made an excellent comment about how CNN is made to look moderate by the outlandish liberalism from the likes of MSNBC. Rather than respond in the comments section, I thought the discussion deserved its own post because moral relativism does exist in journalism.

What is moral relativism?  Moral relativism claims  morality isn't based on any absolute standard. According to that line of thinking, ethical 'truths' depend on things like specific situations, culture, feelings, etc.  What's wrong with that?

The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist's view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly—but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.

The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.

Moral relativism exists in journalism.  To King Shamus' point, MSNBC is so liberal, CNN looks moderate, they can get away with relativistic positions because it so much less obvious than it is at MSNBC, where the leftward drift continues unabated.  By MSNBC's (and others') constantly shifting the far left edge, further to the left, for CNN to continue look moderate, it has to shift left as well.  It was always liberal but it was more factually driven in the past than it is now. It is being dragged to the left by the 'journalistic' current.

The same cannot be said for the right - conservatism is more about moral absolutism which maintains that what is right and just, never changes.  For example, murder is bad, period. Therefore the right side of the political spectrum is not driving further 'rightward' on its own or in reaction to a changing society.  Simple absolute truths like life, liberty, justice, and others like fiscal responsibility do not change over time.  Granted some who adhere to conservative principles do go off the rails at times, but overall, the principles of the conservative movement are sound and the right side of the political spectrum is quite stable in terms of position.

If the right is constant and the left edge is drifting leftward, the center must by mathematical definition be moving leftward was well.  At its root is the real question - is the moral relativism causing the leftward drift, or are those on the far left using that as a tool to drag the country leftward as far as they possibly can? I don't have an answer for that. But it doesn't matter.  When fighting off an influenza, the body doesn't ask it for its motivation, it simple tries to eradicate the virus.  Moral relativism and progressivism are not compatible with the principles of America, as aptly put by The Heritage Foundation;

An unrestricted government—such Britain’s harsh rule over the American colonies—endangers rights. Hence, the first Americans designed the Constitution to restrict the powers of the government and reserve all unspecified powers to the states and the people. Only when the government’s role is limited and prevented from exercising total control can self-government flourish. Government ought to act vigorously, but only within a set scope...

Progressives, however, want to dismantle that frame. They reject Lincoln’s understanding and want to unshackle the Constitution from the dead ideas of the American Revolution, releasing it to grow and evolve with changing times.

Unlike the American founders, Progressives believe that rights come by active government decree. For them, the Constitution—which limits government—is a hindrance to creating rights (and entitlements) as they see fit. Thus they also misunderstand the Declaration. The founders made clear that rights proceed from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” For Progressives, however, rights flow from the government. This idea stifles liberty and is antithetical to self-government.