Last week, after seeing a quote from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) during what seemed like her millionth appearance on Stephen Colbert’s program, I asked whether anyone actually enjoys seeing Democratic elected officials, candidates, and other political figures on those late-night talk shows. Even if you agree with the views of those figures . . . is watching them offer their usual talking points and memorized one-liners to a fawning Colbert actually fun for anyone? Is there anyone who looks at the announced guest list and gets giddy with anticipation, knowing that tonight New Jersey senator Cory Booker will talk about gun control?
Stephen L. Miller — a.k.a. RedSteeze — has argued for a while now that the late-night talk shows aren’t meant to be entertainment or comedy anymore; they are now, functionally, late-night “group therapy for libs.” And that description, while harsh, seems pretty accurate — the constant sneering and ridicule at figures on the right, the warm welcome for celebrities on the left, the obsessive focus on whatever is outraging the Twitter Left at that moment, the reassurance that every good and right-thinking American thinks the same way. . . .
And maybe despite their seeming triumphs and power, the modern urban progressive Left needs that reassuring group therapy. If you’re a progressive, it can often feel like the world is always giving you some sort of bad news: Republicans oppose the bills you want to see passed. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema won’t get on board. The Supreme Court keeps ruling against your side. The polling for the midterms looks terrible. Despite mass shootings, Congress and states won’t just ban guns the way you wish. Trump won’t go away. Tucker Carlson and other figures on Fox News keep saying things that outrage you. People still listen to and watch Joe Rogan. Elon Musk might buy Twitter.
In fact, it might be time to ask if a lot of modern journalism is meant to serve as a form of group therapy for liberals, too. Think about how much print, television, and web journalism features the subtext, “You are right, and your uncle who votes for Republicans is wrong. In fact, he’s racist. And sexist. And homophobic and transphobic. And selfish. And doesn’t care about the earth. You are the good and righteous one, and you were right to scream at him and storm away from the Thanksgiving table.”
Ari Fleischer, the former Bush-era White House press secretary and a current contributor to Fox News, has a new book out titled Suppression, Deception, Snobbery and Bias: Why the Press Gets So Much Wrong, and Just Doesn’t Care. What separates this book from a lot of other books by conservatives ripping into the media is how much Fleischer emphasizes that he wants the media to do better work and put out a better product, and the way he lays out how biased media exacerbates American divisions. Fleischer contends that liberal groupthink in the ranks of the media outrages the Right and encourages the Left to embrace its fringe and lose touch with the rest of the country:
If you are conservative or independent in America, you know the media is not fair. However, conservatives often get this conflict wrong. We misread what they media is trying to do, and we misinterpret why they are doing it. There is no secret meeting where liberals decide how to pervert the news. There is no central source of propaganda. It comes naturally to the media because they’re too much alike. They have a diversity problem. . . .
Journalism has a great weakness, an original sin. The people who go into journalism do not represent the breadth and depth of the United States of America. They don’t look like America, nor do they sound or think like America. They are overwhelmingly cut from the same cloth, a fabric that is largely liberal, like-minded, and way too unfamiliar with the circumstances and needs of many Americans, especially those without college degrees, those who come from rural areas, and those who are conservative or Republican. It’s no wonder the media has a hard time understanding 74 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection.
(I’d like to think I would like this book even if Ari hadn’t offered kind words about my reporting on the lab-leak theory in one of the later chapters.)
What is the purpose of journalism? Is it to make you feel good? No doubt, feel-good stories can be a healthy part of a news diet. Political red meat can be in the mix, too. But on any given day, the biggest news stories are often messages, that may or may not be an accurate representation of reality, meant to reassure liberals. “The walls are closing in on Donald Trump.” “The issue of abortion could be a game-changer in the midterm elections.” “The GOP is being reduced to a rump regional party.” “A recession may be inevitable, but it may not be that bad.”
Are these sorts of headlines and stories really news? Or just another form of group therapy?