Mark Steyn has written that the post-truth era is over, at least for the moment.
His essay in today’s New York Times is titled “The Post’s Mark Steys Endgame.”
The Post is a news organization that is a favorite among progressives and liberals alike, because of its long-standing commitment to objective reporting and its deep and abiding commitment to a skeptical approach to news.
This is the same kind of skepticism that propelled President Donald Trump to become president and led him to make sweeping claims that he is “the most transparent person in the world.”
The post-fact era, as Steyn sees it, has come to an end, and so has his post-election dream of a post-partisan America.
Steyn concludes his essay with some advice to conservative readers.
I’m sure some of you have seen his columns on this site.
I can guarantee that you have read many, many of them.
And you’ve heard the arguments about the importance of fact-checking and the importance and necessity of having a serious conversation about issues.
I think you’ve also read the posts on his blog, which you can find at his blog and elsewhere.
And as a conservative, you’re in for a big surprise.
The Post, you see, is a partisan organization.
Its mission is to produce opinionated, opinionated journalism.
The idea that its writers and editors are not beholden to that mission is not only laughable, it’s a mistake.
And that’s where the Post’s post-modern worldview comes into play.
If its writers are not willing to engage in that kind of thinking, its readers are not going to have a great time.
The problem is not the Post; the problem is that its editorial and political priorities have drifted too far in the direction of partisan interests and are out of touch with the values of a nation that values truth, openness, and the rule of law.
So what does Steyn have to say about that?
In part, he says that the Post has not always been so willing to challenge its own biases.
I don’t think the Post should be surprised by this.
When it was founded in 1896, many people believed the newspaper was simply an outlet for the news of the day.
Its founders understood that a paper of that caliber was vital to the functioning of the republic, as well as the prosperity of a democracy.
It was also essential to keeping the public informed, and in that sense, the Post was a valuable tool for those ends.
But by the early 20th century, as the nation entered a period of rapid industrialization, its role as a news source and the source of information about the American people shifted to one that was more about the politics of the moment and the workings of the corporate state.
Over time, it became increasingly apparent that it would be even more important for the Post to present the views of the powerful and powerful interests than to inform the public.
Over the course of the 20th Century, as newspapers like the New York Tribune and Washington Post and The Washington Post itself began to shift away from reporting the news, the need for accurate information about political and economic events began to diminish.
This changed the nature of what the Post did and how it reported.
The media has always been about reporting the facts, but it is no longer the sole function of the newsroom to report the facts.
It is now largely a vehicle for delivering the views and opinions of the dominant political and business interests.
When a news outlet chooses to report a news story based on the opinions of a small group of people, it is not reporting the truth.
It’s telling a very different story.
And it’s dangerous.
The first lesson that should be learned from Steyn’s column is that the mainstream media has not done a good job in challenging its own bias.
I’ve long been critical of mainstream media reporting.
I find that its reporting on the Clintons and the Lewinsky affair, for example, has often been misleading.
And yet, it has been my experience that most reporters have not challenged their own biases, and instead rely on their sources.
As a result, their reporting has been skewed and distorted by their own partisanship.
As Steyn notes, journalists who do challenge their own bias are more likely to be called out by their peers.
This bias, of course, is something that we should all be concerned about.
As I said earlier, I am a journalist.
And I do believe that if a story is being reported inaccurately or distorted, it needs to be challenged, especially when that distortion is coming from a mainstream media outlet.
So when I read Mark Steyr’s Post column, I donned a pair of glasses and read through it.
And the first thing I noticed was that he doesn’t offer any solutions to the problem.
He simply tells readers that it’s not his job to solve this problem.
That is not his role.
He does not need to fix