Why Journalism is 'fake'

 Journalists of the Left  to stare with wonder and loathing at these singular specimens of human depravity who are united in being parsimonious with the truth and in being the object of some very good jokes.  But what of themselves?

 The  Enlightenment cconflation of truth, language, clarity and moral integrity may have involved some questionable epistemology but its legacy rests on the shoulder of those hunched over their 'typewriters'the journalism class.  Their mission, as if they were navy seals is to subvert what they have been ideologically educated to view as the enemy.

As a result they may see their talk is to write unintelligibly evasive abstraction and political ambiguity aided by  tendentious editing, glib generalization and manipulation of the evidence.

The must feel they are graphically illustrating truths for they believe, however unwittingly,  that their ' on the political landscape out there is realistic. However realism is itself a kind of rhetoric. Nothing is more artificial than plain speaking. For some they are  incapable of giving an oblique answer to a question, just as others are incapable of giving a straight one. One should be cautious of those who loudly insist on cutting the crap and telling it like it is, just as one should beware of those who find things too exquisitely complex for definitive judgment immediately enveloped its owner in a pair of spiritual plus-fours.

Challenge these wordsmiths and there is a kind perfunctory hat-tipping , however in the main such types  are too carried away by their own animosity to be judicious, they wear the badge of the Self-righteous’ as they indulge themselves in ‘righteous’ hatred.  in say Donald Trump on 'moral' grounds.

But can  a moral critic than as a constructive political thinker, their op-ed pieces are full of   tut-tuts,

or intemperate fury, in a kind of writing that  seem a bit blowsy or over-pleased with itself, certainly too prone to go for the cheap shot, which makes them come across as one of those saloon bar finality bores
with 'I told you so' gnomic certainties

They endeavour to make on think they has adopted a principled stance’, adopted it  - simply to claim the high moral ground. 

Yet in most cases they speak with a forked tongue without  any trouble speaking in both tongues, often at the same time.

 They claim  to have overthrown ‘the rival epistemology’, wiped out ‘foundationalism’, disposed once and for all of ‘essentialist’ thinking. for they have Deployed new rhetorical, deconstructive and semiological tools, they believe they have taken apart all the assumptions by which we – imagining ourselves to be independent, all done by  forensic argument (or so they believe)  with high-octane contempt

They have adopted a principled stance’, as though he had adopted it simply to claim the high moral ground yet they seem too carried away by their  own animosity to be judicious