KURTZ

I'm not one for making long-distance psychological diagnoses of people I disagree with (I leave that to Charles Krauthammer), but Stanley Kurtz really seems to have gone 'round the bend:

Big media’s melting down. Movies are in a slump. Why? The media’s losing money because contemporary secular liberalism is really a kind of religion. Liberals don’t want to make money. They’re out to win souls. Oh sure, within the acceptable parameters of their secular religion, liberals are pleased to make a profit. No doubt Hollywood and MSM do plenty of market research and such. But it’s obvious that the media would rather “make a difference” (i.e. gain converts to secular liberalism) than make money. It wouldn’t be hard for the big newspapers and magazines to attract reporters and writers from all sides of the political-cultural spectrum. In fact, a news magazine that truly covered stories from both the left and the right would excite interest, buzz, loyalty–and make money. Readers would also be more disposed to forgive mistakes. But big media doesn’t do this because, for secular journalists, making the culture more liberal is the mission that gives meaning to life.

Can't you just imagine the media executive sitting in his plush office, third lunchtime martini in one hand, secretary's bum in the other, struggling with the question which has dogged corporate media types since the dawn of industry: "More profits...or more souls for liberal secularism?"

Then, decision made, he gulps down his martini, dismisses his secretary, stares up at the portrait of George Jacob Holyoake (the same one that hangs in every media exec's office), and announces "There is really only one choice. I must serve my liberal secularist masters. Profits be damned!"

They must be stopped!