askchapo

I find there’s this strong instinct with liberals to treat the establishment, legacy press and institutions as sacrosanct. Sure, they’ll acknowledge that those can make mistakes on a technical level, but this is only as a nod to the logic of fallibility. Practically, though, what’s printed and disseminated from them is considered the honest reflection of reality.

So when they see some nonsensical take from the NY Times about how Marx was wrong because he failed to consider the advent of ordering Chinese food delivery through a phone app, there’s no consideration about what Marx actually said about labor and technology. There’s no pause to wonder why the NY Times didn’t have a Marxist counter perspective. And certainly not a trace of concern that who owns the NY Times would play any part in why there would be a take dismissive of Marx in the “paper of record.” No, to them, a bad take on Marx wouldn’t make into the pages of the NY Times because the editors couldn’t possibly allow it.

And thus when someone disagrees with the worldview put forth by the establishment organs, this is not regarded as a difference of opinion or perspective. No, that is misinformation, and you? You’re the rube that fell for misinformation. To them, disagreeing with the NY Times’ take on Marx is no different than believing in chemtrails.

Of course, this get socially reinforced. They don’t want to come off as being the rube, and sticking to the establishment organ lines is what will earn them the praise of the Very Qualified People in the Room.