Stanford Journalism Professor Rejects Objectivity In Journalism

For four years, I have written about the alarming loss of neutrality and objectivity in journalism — a trend that is reflected by many polls showing that the majority of the public no longer trusts the media for fair and honest reporting. While I have regularly criticized President Donald Trump, I have also objected to unrelentingly biased reporting as well as embarrassingly soft coverage of former Vice President Joe Biden. Now, Stanford Communications Professor Emeritus Ted Glasser has publicly called for an end of objectivity in journalism as too constraining for reporters in seeking “social justice.”

In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.”  Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”

Dressing up bias as “advocating social justice,” does not remove the taint of yellow journalism.  It is the same rationalization for shaping the news to fit your agenda and treating readers as subjects to be educated rather than informed.

While other professors in The Stanford Daily disagreed, Wesley Lowery, who has served as a national correspondent for the Washington Post, also rejects objectivity.  In a tweet, Lowery declared “American view-from-nowhere, “objectivity”-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment…The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity.”

These are major voices in media.  Glasser is a Stanford Department of Communication professor emeritus and served as the director for Stanford’s Graduate Program in Journalism. He is also the former president of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

Glasser doubled down in an interview with Campus Reform, stating “My understanding of journalism, like my understanding of history, rests on the premise that there is no finally correct description of anything — only interpretations.” He added that “I’m not a big fan of the term ‘objectivity’ or ‘objective truth’ because it gets us talking about all the wrong things.”

That relativistic view, of course, would wipe away any semblance objective reporting. Indeed, he is rejecting the very notion of objectivity or any “correct description of anything.”

It is a liberating notion for writers like Glasser and Lowery.  They can assume the mantle of social warriors and join whatever movement they prefer.  They can then discard pesky notions of journalism as striving to offer unbiased accounts for the public to reach their own conclusions.

The alarming aspect of these views is that they are prevailing. It is now common to hear academics and reporters reject “both sideism” as a trap and even a form of racism. Even the publishing of opposing views is now considered dangerous as shown by the removal of New York Times editor James Bennet, who resigned in the recent controversy over an editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton.  I supported Bennet’s decision to publish that editorial and denounced the cringing apology of the Times after a backlash. Yet, the same journalistic figures at the New York Times who pushed for his removal have continued to espouse unhinged and untrue conspiracy theories in the name of advocacy.

With the collapse of objectivity will come the collapse of journalism. While academics revel in their ability to dispense with limitations of neutrality, many of their newspapers and news organizations are declining with the free fall of credibility with the public.  As a result, the media has hit a historic low, with less than half of the populace finding it credible. Some polls show that the only group deemed less trustworthy than Trump is the media. The Knight Foundation has found that three-fourths of the public believe the media is too biased; some 54 percent believe reporters regularly misrepresent facts, and 28 percent believe reporters make things up entirely.

Notably, as these journalists saw away of the branch upon which they are sitting, the impact may be more than the destruction of the media market.  Few people want to fed a diet of what Professor Glasser believes is morally fight as opposed to factually true. The problem is that this view will remove any real distinction between journalism and political science department; between reporters and social warriors.  While they will continue to enjoy free speech protections, courts gave become less inclined to support the protections afforded to the free press because there would be no discernible press as opposed to politics or propaganda.

Most importantly, what will be lost is one of the most important protections of liberty found in a free press. It has been the media that has triggered most reforms in our history from the Pentagon Papers to Watergate. Yet, this was only because the public trusted the media because of the very objectivity and neutrality values that Glasser, Lowery, and other now reject.

325 thoughts on “Stanford Journalism Professor Rejects Objectivity In Journalism”

  1. The MSM, including Facebook and Twitter, run anti-Trump programming 24 hrs a day; from slanted morning shows and fake “news” to late night “comedy.”

    True objectivity in the press, journalism and election campaigns would require “EQUAL TIME” for President Trump on all networks and social media platforms 24 hrs a day.

    Of course, there is no objectivity in journalism or elections as communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) cheat in both.

    Their cheating has become incoherent – they are ahead in the polls with a completely incompetent and incoherent candidate.

    The Deep Deep State communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are running without a legitimate candidate.

    Joe Biden is a “fake” false candidate with severe mental illness, in the form of increasing dementia, who can barely read his teleprompter and only on rare occasions.

    Joe Biden is the worst kind of election fraud and cheating.

    Joe Biden is empirical evidence of cheating and the onset of dictatorship.

    The communists intend to win the presidency by cheating and award the office of the president to the dominion of the Deep Deep State communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

    America was established as a restricted-vote republic, not a one man, one vote democracy.

    One man, one vote democrazy has completed the Tytler cycle.

    “…loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

    – Alexander Fraser Tytler

    1. At some point it may be needful to identify some big tech companies as unregistered agents of an unfriendly foreign government.

      Twitter seems very close right now.

    2. Understanding that “antitrust” legislation is unconstitutional, in that the 5th Amendment right to private property is absolute, that private property, by definition, is not public property, and that Congress has the power to regulate ONLY the “value” of money, the flow of “…Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;…,” and land and naval Forces:

      – Establish that free market competition is impossible.

      – Subsume Facebook and Twitter under Eminent Domain.

      – Operate as state-regulated monopolies.

      – Implement all constitutional consumer freedoms including, but not limited to, the freedom of speech (excepting wanton, gratuitous profanity and/or incitement to insurrection).

  2. The biggest worry with a Press that is no longer honest, fair and unbiased will result in the death of all journalism – even bad journalism. The Press are there to protect the people against a tyrannical government. By informing the people: who is corrupt in govt etc will keep the government honest. Those who are not honest will be voted out. But once you take away this truthful objectivity, the government or Party will remain in power forever. They will eventually take all freedoms away from the Press and only allow the Governments voice to be heard. This happens in China and many third world dictatorship. I could happen in the USA if the Press continues down this ill chosen path.

    1. Douglas, I think this slippery slope argument is not realistic

      Fact is in China where there is state control of the internet, there are still tens of millions of private voices if not a billion, spewing out their personal opinions about x y and z. They just are a lot more careful about running afoul of CCP censorship and punishment.

      This should not blind us to the fact that in both the PRC and in the USA, the TOOLS OF CENSORSHIP are now the same.

      Artificial intelligence routines run by gatekeeper entities like Facebook or Twitter are the tools and they’re precisely same as what Wechat or such like are using behind the PRC’s “bamboo curtain”

      American social media conglomerates are sinister and in reality they have not only HELPED the PRC with its online censorship, they continue to be in league with them now and operate their tricks on the US population with impunity

      case in point:

      break up these behemoths like GOOGLE NOW! use antitrust, the great innovation of the Teddy Roosevelt admin that languishes much unused.

  3. The Story Professor Turley Didn’t Want To Cover!


    The top communications official at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accused career government scientists of plotting against President Trump and told Trump supporters to arm themselves ahead of the November presidential election.

    In a Facebook Live on Sunday, Michael Caputo said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was harboring a “resistance unit” to Trump, The New York Times reported.

    The career scientists “haven’t gotten out of their sweatpants except for meetings at coffee shops” to plot “how they’re going to attack Donald Trump,” Caputo said, according to the Times. “There are scientists who work for this government who do not want America to get well, not until after Joe Biden is president.”

    Caputo reportedly hosted the event for followers of his personal Facebook page. His comments came after Politico first reported on Friday that top political HHS appointees have been interfering with the publication of CDC’s reports on the pandemic.

    Top House Democrats have now launched an investigation of the matter.

    According to the Times, Caputo also warned Trump’s followers to be prepared for an armed insurrection when Democratic nominee Joe Biden refuses to concede the election.

    “When Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin,” Caputo said. “If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it’s going to be hard to get.”

    In a statement, HHS said “Mr. Caputo is a critical, integral part of the President’s coronavirus response, leading on public messaging as Americans need public health information to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic.”

    Caputo, a Trump loyalist who was installed as top spokesman at the agency in April, gave no evidence for any of his claims. But the attacks follow a pattern of top administration officials, and even Trump himself, blaming shadowy figures inside the government for the president’s coronavirus response.

    Last month, Trump without evidence accused the “Deep State” at the Food and Drug Administration for slowing COVID vaccine trials.

    “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics,” Trump tweeted.

    According to The Times, Caputo echoed those claims to his Facebook followers, saying scientists “deep in the bowels of the CDC have given up science and become political animals.”

    The CDC is typically an apolitical institution staffed by career scientists. The agency’s headquarters are in Atlanta, not D.C., in an effort to avoid the type of political pressure that is now being accused of succumbing to.

    In the remarks, Caputo veered from attacking scientists to accusing the far-left “antifa” of plotting an attack on Trump supporters.

    “Remember the Trump supporter who was shot and killed?” he said. “That was a drill.”

    One person singled out for praise amidst the attacks, The Times said: CDC Director Robert Redfield.

    Redfield “is one of my closest friends in Washington,” Captuo said. “He’s such a good man.”

    Full article from: “Top HHS Official Accuses Scientists Of Plotting Against Trump, Tells Supporters To Buy Ammunistion”

    The Hill, 9/14/20


      Michael Caputo is the top communications official at Health and Human Services. Yet Caputo has no background in Science or Medicine. It is outrageous to think this conspiracy-minded fool would dare to publicly promote these baseless conspiracies only days after the Woodward tapes were revealed. One strongly suspects Trump sought defenders to put out these crazy narratives.

      This totally illustrates the serious challenges the media faces with regards to Trump’s presidency. Reporting baseless conspiracies is impossible when trying to give ‘equal weight’ to both sides.

      This story, one should note, is playing wide today. And again, it’s really odd that Turley would write the above column without taking note of Caputo’s Facebook event.



        Mr. Caputo, who has faced criticism for leading efforts to warp C.D.C. weekly bulletins to fit Mr. Trump’s pandemic narrative, suggested that he personally could be in danger.

        “You understand that they’re going to have to kill me, and unfortunately, I think that’s where this is going,” Mr. Caputo, a Trump loyalist installed by the White House in April, told followers in a video he hosted live on his personal Facebook page. Mr. Caputo has 5,000 Facebook friends, and the video has been viewed more than 850 times. It has been shared by 44 followers.

        The department said in a statement: “Mr. Caputo is a critical, integral part of the president’s coronavirus response, leading on public messaging as Americans need public health information to defeat the Covid-19 pandemic.”

        Mr. Caputo said Monday, “Since joining the administration my family and I have been continually threatened” and harassed by people who have later been prosecuted. “This weighs heavily on us, and we deeply appreciate the friendship and support of President Trump as we address these matters and keep our children safe.”

        Mr. Caputo delivered his broadside against scientists, the media and Democrats after a spate of news reports over the weekend that detailed his team’s systematic interference in the C.D.C.’s official reports on the pandemic and other disease outbreaks. Former and current C.D.C. officials described to Politico, The New York Times and other outlets how Mr. Caputo and a top aide routinely demanded the agency revise, delay and even scuttle the C.D.C.’s core public health updates, called Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, that they believed undercut Mr. Trump’s message that the pandemic is under control.

        Those reports, deemed “the holiest of the holy” by one former top health official for their international respect and importance, have traditionally been so shielded from political interference that political appointees see them only just before they are published.

        Mr. Caputo on Sunday complained on Facebook that he was under siege by the media and said that his physical health was in question and his “mental health has definitely failed.”

        “I don’t like being alone in Washington,” he said, describing “shadows on the ceiling in my apartment, there alone, shadows are so long.” He then ran through a series of conspiracy theories, culminating in a prediction that Mr. Trump will win re-election but his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., will refuse to concede.

        “And when Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin,” he said. “The drills that you’ve seen are nothing.” He added: “If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it’s going to be hard to get.”

        Mr. Caputo’s installation at the agency was a White House move to assert greater control over Alex M. Azar II, who has been Mr. Trump’s secretary of health and human services since 2018. His job is to coordinate the messaging of an 80,000-person department that functions as the center of the American public health bureaucracy and includes the Food and Drug Administration, the C.D.C. and the National Institutes of Health, which lead the government’s pandemic response.

        Mr. Caputo boasted in his Facebook talk that the president had personally put him in charge of a $250 million public service advertising campaign intended to help America to get back to normal.

        Edited from: “Trump Health Aide Alleges Broad Conspiracies And Warns Of Armed Revolt”

        Today’s New York Times

    2. More drivel from Trump supporter politicians who, like their hero, think that the entire U.S. government exists to make Trump look good, and that anyone or anything who does or says anything not approved by the campaign is part of the “Deep State”. That’s why he keeps firing Inspectors General, whose job is oversight. Trump has never had a real job in his life, and has never even been accountable to a Board of Directors–hence, the 6 bankruptcies. He sells himself as a self-made billionaire, but hides his tax returns and financial records. That’s why they complain about CDC scientists telling the truth instead of supporting whatever stupid lie Trump tries to tell, like downplaying the risk, not mandating masks, insisting on opening up schools and businesses, even though the pandemic continues. That’s why they keep trying to cast doubt on the true number of infections and deaths. That’s why they complain about the FDA following standard scientific protocols for vaccine development–requiring efficacy and safety, instead of knuckling under to an election cheater who lied to the American people about the risks of this pandemic and who thinks that if he bullies his way into getting some insufficiently tested vaccine on the market, and if he bullies the FDA into granting emergency use authorization, he’ll look like a hero. That’s why he complains when the scientific community tests hydroxychloroquine and declares that it is not only unsafe and ineffective, it might cause heart arrhythmias, because he bought up hundreds of thousands of doses with our tax money that he planned to dole out to look heroic.

      Yes, this is all one big plot against Donald Trump. No–to the contrary, to feed that massive ego, Donald Trump is one big plot against the American people, beginning with cheating his way into the White House with Russia’s help to defeat the will of the American people, continuing with his refusal to cooperate with Congressional oversight and the Mueller investigation, continuing with the endless lying. Lies include the fact that he knew there is a pandemic that was here in February, that is airborne, that is highly contagious, and will result in multiple deaths and severe illness, far worse than even the most-serious seasonal influenza. Yesterday, the head of the RNC admitted he had and still has no plan for addressing this crisis. They only praise Dr. Redfield because he will say whatever they tell him to say, including rolling back the recommendation for testing asymptomatic people with known exposures, something that the public health community finds shockingly irresponsible. He’s done everything possible to try to pre-cheat again, including handicapping the U.S.P.S., and Republicans are trying to purge voter registration rolls of presumed Democratic voters, and making it difficult to vote. Now, they’re actually suggesting arming themselves to keep Trump in power?

        1. Kurtz, “semi auto” is not in the tweet, and a majority of Americans favor banning assault weapons – which is what he said. The problem with these weapons is they fire high velocity, low recoil rounds, meaning wounds explode and are very difficult to impossible for docs to patch up, and the low recoil means the shooter maintains high control and can therefore do even more damage. They are well designed killing machines which should be illegal and some day will be.

          1. terminology book, look it up. assault rifles are select fire ie full auto and they are already illegal under the national firearms act

            an assault rifle is a term that can mean any weapon used to commit an assault– here, a cute way of denigration a rifle you dont like

            or it can mean as defined under the Clinton era “assault weapons ban” which sunsetted and was not renewed, no longer law. he wants it back I guess. Hillary told him it was smart, see?

            the regulatory scheme would essentially make them like NFA licensed items such as lawfully owned suppressors. ie, criminalize a certain variety of brans of semi autos and make them illegal too.

            however, this nose if he gets his nose in the tent, eat everything and turn it over before long. the difference between a semi auto hunting rifle and an evil AR 15 is negligible. I won’t bother to dissect the Clinton AW ban here. more than that.

            bottom line JOE BIDEN IS A GUN GRABBER.

            wants to DISARM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS …. during a budding insurgency no less!

  4. Natacha truly does represent what Turley’s comments were about, using false statement and a true bias to make you point. Just a cursory look at the CDC site illustrates that nonsense. If we are to believe science and the data sets that are produced then deaths from the Covid19 do not come anywhere near 1,000 deaths daily. The CDC as of September 14, 2020 posted an additional 510 deaths since yesterday. The United States has a death rate of 59 per 100,000 people. The other numbers are close enough to not dispute 6.5 million cases and 194 thousand deaths.
    Where Natacha came up with, “40% of them are carrying the virus and possibly spreading it to the other 60%, who then leave and spread it to others” is illustrative of the pure nonsense preached by the left.

    1. In warning about the severe risks we Americans will face this fall when we spend more time indoors, just yesterday, Dr. Fauci said that with 40,000 new infections daily, this is way too high of a base level. Trump controls what the CDC publishes, and he’s controlling the FDA, so you can’t believe them if they somehow break all speed records and declare there is a safe and effective vaccine.

      1. Joe Biden’s hazardous to your health how?



        I wonder how many “hi cap magazines” the average AR 15 owning trucker or steel worker has?
        Joe must be planning on locking up a lot of law abiding workers and citizens!

        I just wonder how he plans on confiscating tens of millions of firearms and accessories and also “defunding the police” hmmmmmmm

        maybe he will deputize “blm” and “antifa” to do the job for him

        1. Kurtz, no one of stature in the Democratic party – obviously that includes Biden – favors defunding the police. In fact he proposes spening $300 million toward COPS programs, something which the mid 90’s crime bill also did and which e was instrumental in. Why are doing Trump type lies now? Desperate?

          1. Yeah and Joe Hiden doesn’t tell lies? Outright brazen falsehoods? Over and over again? Maybe Joe Hiden doesn’t know what he’s saying? That’s possible. But the fact is that Joe Hiden lies through his fake teeth. He’s a professional politician after all, and that’s what they do. Lie, lie, and lie some more. It’s the Washington way. But the media attacks Trump? Who has actually done what he said he would do? What a load.

            “At a Monday campaign stop in Pittsburgh, Joe Biden emphatically stated, “I am not banning fracking.”

            Here’s what he says when he’s not in Pennsylvania. At a July 2019 Democratic presidential debate, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Biden, “Would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking in a Biden administration?” He responded, “No, we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated.”

            At a September 2019 campaign event, Biden told another young girl to “look at my eyes” before he promised her, “I guarantee you, I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuels.” Fracked natural gas is, of course, a fossil fuel.

            Then at a February 2020 campaign appearance, Biden said three times that he was going to “get rid of” or “phase out” fossil fuels. And, of course, the many thousands of jobs that go with them.

            But there’s much more than just Biden’s latest or even past statements.

            His running mate, Kamala Harris, has also been public, and emphatic, about her opposition to fracking. If Biden had to step down or, for whatever reason, would be unable to serve out his term, Ms. Harris would fulfill the fracking ban and throw thousands of Pennsylvanians out of work.

            A poll last month found almost 60 percent of voters believe Biden won’t make it through his first term.”……


          2. Really book? Nobody of stature? Is the Dem mayor of the biggest city in America a person of stature?


            De Blasio On Shifting $1 Billion From NYPD: ‘We Think It’s The Right Thing To Do’

            July 1, 20202:13 PM ET
            Brakkton Booker at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., November 7, 2018. (photo by Allison Shelley)

          3. Book says nobody of stature in Democratic party favors defunding police

            Said to me “Why are doing Trump type lies now? Desperate?” Calling me a liar.

            I show proof the Democratic mayor of biggest city in America Bill Deblasio SAYS THAT HE DIVERTED 1 BILLION FROM NYPD

            I don’t think you should have called me a liar in this context. book. seems like you should take it back and admit that Bill Deblasio is a Democratic politician of stature and you overstated your point.

            Overstatement when making a point– that’s what Trump does a lot. I call it hyperbole, maybe fibbing. Were you doing hyperbole, fibbing, or just overstatement when you said I was lying?

            1. DeBlasio got maybe 12 votes in the Democratic primary and dropped out quickly for a reason. He has no national following and his NY days are numbered. You said Biden favored this and that makes you a liar.

              1. So you claim t hat Mayor of NYC Deblkasio is not a person of any stature?

                But I suppose the mayor of a city of 100,000 or so named Pete is a person of stature in the Democratic party. Gee, I can’t figure this out

                At least Pete never “defunded police” like Deblasio did to the tune of a billion dollars per his own report on NPR

                I think you should correct yourself rather than double down. Maybe I’ll bother to pull the proof Biden has endorsed the notion. Of course that woudl be a waste of time because when confronted with proof of an assertion you refuse to ackowledge it.

                Really, mayor of NYC not a “Democrat of stature?” Wow. 12 votes huh. Cute

  5. Interesting, since Progressives trot out the foolishness that ‘everyone has their own truth’, why would anyone believe outside their echo chamber.

  6. “American view-from-nowhere, “objectivity”-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment…The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity.” — My only question, who’s “moral clarity?”

  7. “They never said it but it was suggested in the format, white characteristics contrasted with black characteristics.”

    I haven’t seen any images that “contrasted with black characteristics.” If there’s part of the document that I missed that said “aspects of black culture,” please link to it. If you can’t, then apparently you imagined that there was a contrast of white and black. If I’m wrong, then I’d like to see the entire poster, so that I have a more complete understanding of what they initially put forth and can reconsider whether that makes any of my earlier claims false. But if you’re wrong, then you should admit it.

  8. Can the Professor Emeritus point to any dictionary that upholds his biased illiterate statement? Or is this just a case of pandering to the uneducated?
    What uneducated? University students are by definition of their status and their acts exactly that.

  9. Just another attempt to normalize Trump, a depraved lying narcissist who is manifestly unfit to occupy the people’s White House. There is no “objective” way to report on his endless lying. In a country where we have 6 million infections, about 40 K per day,and approaching 200,000 dead, with about 1,000 dying daily, how does anyone objectively report about the occupant of our White House deliberately lying to us back in February when he knew this illness was deadly and was airborne? How many fewer would have died if we knew this then, and began wearing masks, avoiding crowded places, social distancing and working and attending school remotely? What is the “objective” way to report that he manipulated, and thereby politicized, the messages put out by the CDC, that exists to compile information and report on communicable diseases? How about the head of the RNC admitting yesterday that Trump didn’t have any plan for addressing the pandemic, but arguing that if people knew that, they would have panicked? There is no objective way to report these hard facts, nor the inconvenient truth that tens of thousands of Americans died due to Trump’s utter incompetence. He continues to politicize even the wearing of masks, as proven by his vainglory rallies. His fragile ego requires throngs of cheering dumbasses telling him how great he is. He doesn’t care that, statistically, 40% of them are carrying the virus and possibly spreading it to the other 60%, who then leave and spread it to others. His ego and incompetence continue to threaten the health of Americans. This virus is far from being under control. Holding mass rallies without requiring masks is beyond irresponsible. How does a news organization proceed with reporting that Trump insisted on the vainglory rally in Nevada, despite being advised it violated local rules?

    The real danger here is people like Turley feeding into the Fox News talking point that the media aren’t fair when they report these things, thereby sowing doubt on the part of those still gullible enough to question the truth. What is fair, according to Turley? Ignoring these facts? Pretending Trump is not a sociopath who loves to wallow in glory, while ignoring the suffering his ignorance and incompetence causes? Ignoring multiple credible reports that he doesn’t even respect the men and women who have laid down their lives in service to our country? (this, from a draft-dodger). We needn’t guess about the latter–his insults of John McCain are recorded. How about the ludicrous claim that he lied about the virus to prevent a panic, while at the same time telling Americans that if Biden gets elected, the “suburbs” will be “over-run” with low-income people, that there will be rioting and anarchy, that ANTIFA will be taking over, or the claim: “they’re coming for you”. In 2016, it was the caravans of “murders, rapists and criminals” coming for us. If that’s not trying to cause a panic, what qualifies? What stuns me is that even 40% of Americans could consider re-electing this aberration.

    1. Regarding Natacha’s Comment:

      There is no “objective” way to report on his (Trump’s) endless lying.

      This is absolutely the case. Trump deliberately set about to gaslight America out of deference to his Russian sponsors. Turley has to understand that on some level.

      Yet the Professor plays this charade where he pretends the media is half to blame. They are not! Turley is trying to shoehorn this narrative into public record; which makes him as deplorable as Trump.

      1. NEWSPEAK!

        Just imagine, there actually are idiots, who are allowed to vote; who read and believe you.

        And now you know why the American Founders established a restricted-vote republic, not a one man, one vote democrazy.

        Now you know why turnout in the first presidential election, 1788, was 11.6%; deliberately and by design.

        Never were the idiots you influence intended to vote.

        The only question which remains to be answered is when actual Americans will take their country back from the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

        “the people are nothing but a great beast…

        I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

        – Alexander Hamilton

        “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

        “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

        – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

      2. There are no “russian sponsors” that itself is a malicious falsehood

        of course some people like to keep on believing it after the absence of proof has been verified. talk about lies!

        the reason I suspect is because Trump projects nationalistic viewpoints which some people associate with Putin.
        fact is Putin is not the only head of state projecting nationalism,.

        who’s got a problem with healthy patriotism? Trump haters raise your hands.

          1. what you call going down on, I call diplomacy and deconfliction

            in one case, reduces the threat of war on korean peninsula,

            in the other case, reduces the threat of nuclear war and global dieoff as a result

            1. So, denouncing your own intelligence agencies while on stage with Putin – literally taking his side against them – then making excuses for his murdering opponents and meddling in other countries because “we’ve done that too” (paraphrase) is patriotic and nationalistic? How about making excuses for Kim murdering a young American citizen, saying he and Kim are in love, and looking the other way while he continues testing and producing missiles and nuclear weapons is patriotic and nationalistic?

              Not in my dictionary.

              1. you frame it in your own way.

                I approach foreign affairs from a Westphalian perspective. The domestic affairs of sovereign nations are secondary to American national interests.

                Trump is also the head of government. CIA’s mission is to assist him in critical strategic decisions, not to usurp his role as CIC and chief diplomat.
                Trump is at liberty to decline to take their overbearing and self serving advice if he deems it wise. This is his job. Not to let them call all the shots.
                Trump over ruling CIA and these other intel geeks is fine by me

                And I should add Obama did it too at least once. You may not be aware of it. Back when the “red line in Syria” was supposedly crossed. Well it may have been a false flag in fact there is proof that it was. This was discussed by Ray McGovern if you want to go look it up. Obama was right to move the goalposts in that instance and back away from the threat to get in deeper in Syria.. The moral of the story is the CIC is the boss not geeks like John Brennan

              1. You know how Natacha always mentions this bs in her spiels? This is for her:

                ‘If it wasn’t obvious to you right away that the “Russian bounties” story was manufactured BS, you are an incorrigible dupe. Leaked just in time to be a pretext for Putin-obsessed Dems and the Liz Cheney GOP to block withdrawal from Afghanistan. Couldn’t have been more brazen.’ @mtracey

            1. One of you Anonymous people should consider changing your name. It’s very confusing reading your posts when you share the same name!

      3. “Yet the Professor plays this charade where he pretends the media is half to blame. They are not!”

        Okay, then the Obama FBI, CIA, the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and also the fake news media are the ones to blame? Sounds about right.

        1. One of you Anonymous people should consider changing your name. It’s very confusing reading your posts when you share the same name!

    2. An ad hominem screed. Seems Natacha doesn’t like Trump (it’s hard to tell). Turley, by the way, is no Trump fan, but Turley is a fan of a phrase Natacha probably doesn’t care for: “Fair-and-balanced.”

      1. You are so deep into Trump worship and are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the Fox News theme that anyone who says anything bad about your leader is wrong, just an “ad hominem” attack, that you don’t understand the point that I was making, which is this: there is no “objective” or “fair and balanced” way to report on Trump because he is a pathological liar, a narcissist, and everything he does is for his own personal glory, not the good of the American people. American Presidents simply don’t behave this way. What if FDR tried to lie about Pearl Harbor, saying one ship was sunk, but it might have been due to some fire of unknown origin? Or, what if JFK decided we didn’t need to know that Russians had placed missles in Cuba, pointed at the U.S., so as not to panic us? What if the Eisenhower administration tried to bury the report about the defective batches of polio vaccine in which the virus wasn’t killed, and which gave hundreds of American children active cases of polio, some of whom died? Should this information have been kept from us for our own good?

        What is “fair and balanced” about lying to the American people that “it’s just one person from China”, or “15 cases will soon be 0 cases”, or “it will disappear by April’, or “anyone who wants a test can get a test”, just as examples, all of which are lies? It’s one thing for him to lie about the size of his inaugural crowd, or his alleged wealth, or the actual vote totals, but quite another thing to lie about matters of public health that influence our behavior. He wasn’t trying to prevent a panic–he was trying to buy time to prevent the economy from tanking. He didn’t, and still doesn’t care that his lies have caused Americans to die and to get sick and suffer. He still encourages unsafe behavior.

        Does “fair and balanced” to you mean that news media should report Trump’s lies as if they could be true, or that Americans should believe what Trump says, despite the fact that he constantly lies?

          1. It’s a fact. That you can’t detect his transparent and overriding self dealing is a comment on either your self delusion or flawed capabilities in dealing with other humans.

    3. Joe Biden is running a campaign that is full of lies, nasty attack ads that are outright lies, and he is staying hidden from questioning and interactions with the press and of course, with voters. Joe Biden’s strategy is to stay out of the public just enough and long enough to hopefully win the election because he was Obama’s VP for two terms.

      Joe Biden calls “a lid” on reporters most days, meaning nothing else is on his schedule. He shows up for a staged speech in front of no one and takes few to no questions from the press before he heads back home and calls a “lid” on reporters the next day. He reads from teleprompters when he gives softball puff piece aw shucks interviews on the late night shows. No one knows what Joe Biden is for, aside from raising taxes and mandating mask wearing and re-upping all the failed Obama policies.

      The media and everyone in the DNC, etc are KNOWINGLY DECEIVING the American people and HIDING JOE BIDEN from the voters. Why? His cognitive health? His senility? His corruption? His lies? His missteps and misstatements too much to keep ignoring the way the media has dutifully done until now? What a deceptive, dishonest, negative campaign Joe Biden is running. For shame.

      Joe Biden deserves to lose the election. Joe Biden has not EARNED or worked for a single vote. Joe Biden is not even showing up. He deserves to not just lose the election, but lose it in a spectacular fashion.

      Joe Biden is a plagiarizing, corrupt, senile LIAR who does not deserve to coast his way and deceive his way into the White House. Joe Biden is running a deceitful, negative, shameful campaign. No one could be proud of the campaign Biden is running. No one. And he will lose. Spectacularly.

    4. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and every single Democrat governor and mayor is culpable in the assassination attempt on two LA cops and every other attack on cops we are witnessing today.

      From Candace Owens interview:

      “You have a media that is virtue signalling to criminals that despite the crimes they commit, they can be glorified into hero status if they get into a scuffle with police officers,” Owens said.

      “It didn’t take any stretch of my imagination to see that this is exactly what we would end up with in America, because our media and our politicians have launched a war on police officers in an effort to secure the black vote. More black people are dying as a result of the Black Lives Matter initiative, and black Americans are seeing … community leaders speak out against this narrative.

      What we’re seeing as things seem to be getting worse every single day [is] the last squeal of a dying animal, and that dying animal is the Democrat Party,

      There’s no difference between Black Lives Matter and Antifa,” Owens said. “They just wear different T-shirts when they go out and riot and harass people and commit acts of violence.”

      “What we are seeing is anti-Americanism. They want American society — Western principles [and] Western Civilization gone,” Owens concluded. “Our college campuses are the breeding grounds for this type of Marxist indoctrination [and] this type of totalitarian state that we’re seeing on college campuses where the professors are actively teaching them to hate their country and to believe that America is irredeemable.”

  10. The case of objectivity versus subjectivity can only result in an imperfect result of varying degrees of subjectivity woven into the necessary amount of objectivity. Subjectivity ranges from the extreme as can be seen with Foxnews where the opinion section is headlined with violent attacks on the left to simply not printing the shortcomings of the right. The so called ‘liberal’ rags such as the New York Times and the Washington Post lean left but regularly insert a token criticism of that left. Political bias has always been present in newspapers or ‘journalism’. It is impossible to be completely objective in all cases. Dog bites man is omitted but man bites dog is given a place on the front page. Good news is rarely featured. Shock and awe are the foundations of any newspaper and have been since the beginning.

    The only way to arrive at some sort of truth or objectivity is to read both sides: Foxnews, Washington Times and then Washington Post, New York Times. If one reads a news service such as Reuters or BBC one will arrive closer to that objective center but there will always be a leaning to the left or right to some degree. After all, all papers are written by people with ‘druthers.

    However, when the objective for all times has been the center, the objective, equal representation, and some one preaches subjectivity, that person should no longer be allowed anywhere near the teaching of journalism. Preaching is not journalism. Get a tent.

    1. Isaac, BBC is state run media., So is CCTV (China) and RT and NPR.

      I regularly listen to or watch or read all four. There is a lot to be gained from following state run media.

      One thing I have gained is the understanding that it is NOT per se “Worse” than the private mass media. In many instances it is quite frankly, better.

      At least with state run media we all know there are some national biases operating. People are naive to think bias plays no part in privately owned media.

      And yet that is a common American pretense, a result of our own patriotic narrative about the superiority of the First amendment.
      I am born and bred American but I am not a slavish follower of the First amendment religion.

      Newswire services like AP and Reuters are also essentially privately owned but they are more rigorous in their content productions that the branded mass news media

      1. CBC, BBC, and other state run media services are perhaps biased to the left in terms of social conscience. As a liberal, progressive, but a religious ‘do it yourselfer and take your lumps’, I find the western nations’ state run news services more appealing. The problem for any news outlet is to render neutral just about anything Trump does or says as he is so far off the beam and has such an accepted reputation as a liar and buffoon. The most successful of news outlets that neuter Trump are Foxnews and the Washington Times. When Trump lies, they print that he lambastes someone. When Trump explodes in buffoonery they count it has Trump the aggressor. WAPO and the NY Times openly enjoyably feature Trump’s ravings. However, when the BBC or Reuters print Trump objectively, he still comes off as a Republican nightmare loved only by a few, becoming fewer.

        1. I don’t hold with the sort of framing that Isaac likes from BBC or Reuters that is habitually negative on Trump

          I just like the various state run agencies and private newsires because overall they provide a more diverse set of offerings at their news buffet

          sometimes state media and newswires will investigate things for which private mass media brand names simply can’t be bothered. that’s good, we need more off the beaten path looks

  11. Hamilton, Jay and Madison wrote under the title “Publius”.

    I Quote from “Triumvirate The Story of The Unlikely Alliance that saved the Constitution and United the Nation” Bruce Chadwick.

    “The reaction of Roger Alden, a congressman from New York, probably unknown to the trio, was the most telling. They did not need to convince the ardent Federalists and knew they could not change the minds of the staunch Anti-Federalists. Their goal was to sway the minds of the large number of delegates, and the people in the middle, those who saw the good and bad points of the arguments from both sides and were struggling to make a decision. To do that, the three men decided from the start, they had to write persuasive essays that presented their case fairly and asked for understanding. Alden’s reaction showed that they succeeded. He complained about all the columns from both sides, telling a friend that they were so numerous that “the public ear has become deaf to [ their] cries.” But then he added “Publius takes up the matter upon the best grounds, and is very fair, candid, and sensible advocate upon the federal side. There is nothing personal or scurrilous in his writings–he only means to convince by plain reasoning, by arguments drawn from facts and experience.”

    IF ONLY??????

  12. I wonder how these people who reject reject objectivity in journalism feel about objectivity in science. Do they believe that scientific conclusions are just one interpretation out of many or do they believe that scientific objectivity is what makes science “the truth”. If so for science, then why not journalism? Or do they dismiss objectivity in science as well, which is to effectively dismiss science. Would they admit to being “anti-science?”

    1. aghast asks a good question. this gets into philosophy deeply. science is an epistemological method that is based on empirical observation. however, that method is not just easily veriable disciplines like geology or physics. it is often applied to different endeavors of discovery which are colored by value-judgments too. the greater the difficulties of physical measurement and verification, one suspects that value-premises leak more and more into the particular disciline

      so we can see how the older discipline of physical anthropology and its rigor in studying the forms of humanity, gave way to the more obtuse and judgmental mishmash that today is “cultural anthropology” that has gone far past description into open advocacy of all sorts of clearly deleterious mischief.

      even more empirically verifiable enterprises like biology can veer into value-distortions. Lysenkoism is the usual example from biology

      And yet today we see Lysenkoism happening in different forms in today’s reporting in the area of virology such as the Lancet publishing an obviously flawed “debunking” of HCQ plus prophylaxis for COVID that the Lancet had to RETRACT.

      The Wapoo and NYT were big on the first publishing and then barely mentioned the retraction. Thus proving what a pathetic propaganda operation the two of them have become

      a good book on this question is Kuhn’s “Structure of scientific revolutions”

  13. JT writes:

    “The alarming aspect of these views is that they are prevailing. It is now common to hear academics and reporters reject “both sideism” as a trap and even a form of racism. Even the publishing of opposing views is now considered dangerous as shown by the removal of New York Times editor James Bennet, who resigned in the recent controversy over an editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton. …”

    He is citing a decision about an editorial, not news reporting while raising the “both sideism” debate which is about reporting, not editorials. Is JT really that confused or purposefully confusing? The “both sideism” debate is about the common journalistic practice of getting 2 sides of every issue, even when based on facts, there is no legitimate other side – unless that is you do not believe in objective facts. An example headline would be “US Forces Enter Baghdad While Saddam Claims Victory” or “US Reports 195,000 Dead From Virus, Trump Says “We’ve Turned The Corner”. Both sides are presented, but by any analysis of the facts, there are not 2 sides possible – unless facts are not objective. JT is actually arguing with Trump for non-objectivity in the reporting of news.

    1. PS Clearly JT is trying to destroy objective reporting and the existence of an independent press, not advance it. by encouraging know-nothing dismissal of news so tyrants like Trump can have free reign to spew as many lies as they want. If JT GAF for objectivity he’d be denouncing the constant lying from the WH. He isn’t and he doesn’t

  14. Let’s just not have journalism at all. Less information is better, eh?

    Who needs opinions? Who needs to base any reasoning on news? (or facts, empirical evidence, science, accurate accounts of recent events, etc)

    Sound good?

  15. My small local newspaper, owned by Gannett company, is now pretty much totally liberal/Democrat in all of its sections. The “news” section is ridiculously biased, with some headlines cringingly so. Reading the editorial section entails wading through a cesspool of all HuffPooh type pieces, including alarmist and irrelevant Robert Reich and similar writers. The only reason we subscribe to the paper is for the local news, which usually consists of at most 3 or 4 daily stories. I’ve written the managing editor several times regarding their more glaringly obviously biased “news” articles, but he obviously doesn’t care of must bow to Gannett’s dictates. It’s very likely we’ll cancel our subscription within the next few months.

  16. The sad fact is that the truth will not set you free anymore, because according to Glasser and Lowery there is no truth, just their personal conceptions of the truth which they use to justify their own biased and preferred opinions. Such disregard for objectivity is pernicious and destructive to reason but not surprising given the state of liberal thinking today.

    1. According to the Smithsonian rational thinking is a white characteristic to be avoided.

      They have succeeded in avoiding it.

      1. Your claim that “According to the Smithsonian rational thinking is a white characteristic to be avoided” is false, Young. (See, this is an example of a T/F claim, pretending to be factual, but actually false.) Are you purposefully lying, or are you only mistaken?

        They never said or suggested that “Objective, rational linear thinking” (the phrase they used) is to be avoided.
        And they recognized that what they’d written was false, and removed it and apologized.

        1. The implication was clear and understood by almost everyone but them. They ‘apologized’ when they finally realized they had confirmed multiple negative stereotypes about blacks and it didn’t look so very good after all.

          It was similar in nature to that math teacher’s declaration that saying 2+ 2 = 4 is racist or white supremacist or something like that. They were rolling with an anti-intellectual fad and had rolled a little too far.

          You said “they recognized that what they’d written was false”. Really? What part of it was false in your opinion?

          1. “The implication was clear and understood by almost everyone but them.”

            You’re again treating a false belief as if it were true. You apparently inferred it. That doesn’t mean they implied it.

            “What part of it was false in your opinion?”

            “Objective, rational linear thinking” is an aspect of being human. People of all races draw on objective, rational linear thinking at times and don’t do so at other times. It’s not an aspect of white culture as opposed to non-white culture.

            1. CTHD- “People of all races draw on objective, rational linear thinking at times and don’t do so at other times.”
              Probably true but the issue is likely to be how often different races do it.

              Anyhow, that is a strange declaration from you, someone who does not believe in objectively identifiable races.

              1. And you continue to pretend that you understand my thinking better than I do.

                I refer to social constructs all the time. For example, religions are social constructs, but when I refer to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., I don’t see you proclaiming “that is a strange declaration from you.” Money is another social construct that I sometimes refer to, but I don’t see you proclaiming “that is a strange declaration from you.” As I told you weeks ago, “I didn’t say / didn’t imply / don’t believe that social constructs have ‘no basis in reality.’” –

                I’m not sure what you mean by “objectively identifiable.” According to you, are religions, money, laws, languages, professions, and other social constructs “objectively identifiable,” and why or why not?

                1. Rachael Dolazal socially constructed herself as black. Objectively her genes identify her as not black but European. Seems simple enough.

                  In this instance it should be obvious when speaking of objectively identifiable things there is a difference between religion and genes. You can lie effectively about your religion or change it. A lie about your genes will be discoverable and they are not something you can change. There is objective biology to race but not to religion.

                  1. But genes aren’t races, so don’t pretend that they are.
                    Genes are a biological construct. Races are a social construct, not a biological construct. The social construct of race certainly draws on biology, but if I show you a skin color, for example, which is genetically determined (subject to tanning), you’re not going to be able to tell me for certain what race the person is.

                    “Objectively her genes identify her as not black but European.”

                    “European” isn’t a race. Unless you present an actual genetic analysis, I have no reason to trust that a genetic analysis would show 100% European ancestry. For example, do you know for a fact that she has no American Indian ancestry? If you’re going to call Michelle Obama mixed race rather than Black (which is what you claimed), then how do you know that Rachel Dolezal isn’t also mixed race?

                    And you still haven’t defined “objectively identifiable.” What does it mean to you?

                    For example, you say “A lie about your genes will be discoverable and they are not something you can change,” but again, genes aren’t races. There was a time when Italians and Ashkenazi Jews weren’t considered white. Now they are considered white. That’s not because their genes changed. It’s because the social construct of whiteness changed.

                    1. blah blah blah




                      Joe Biden just lost 90% of all Teamster votes lol guess he didn’t plan on winning them over anyhow. nor the steel workers

                      If i had a nickel for every gun nut I know who is a truck driver or a steel worker….. wow, what a fail, Joe. So much for being moderate.

                    2. 54 shot, 12 fatally, over Chicago weekend
                      The weekend was deadlier than last week’s Labor Day weekend, when eight people were killed and 48 others hurt over three days.


                      Elites who have lived with publicly paid bodyguards for the past 43 years like Joe Biden don’t get it!
                      those of us who can’t afford the security teams of centi-billionaire gun control advocates like Democrat Mike Bloomberg provide our own security!

                      It’s exactly because of criminals with guns that the law abiding citizens must have them too. And yes the ones for shooting 2 legged predators! duh!

                      and when the Democrats “defund the police” how much MORE will we need them than ever!

            2. Just noticed this part of your remark: Rational thinking “It’s not an aspect of white culture as opposed to non-white culture.”
              The point many are making these days is that rationality is an aspect of white culture more than non-white culture. That is why it is being attacked.

              That has been going on for awhile with claims that Western science is just our world myth and is not better than the world myths of other cultures.

              1. Instead of “The point many are making …,” it’s “The claim many are making,” and just because people claim it doesn’t make it true, even if a lot of people claim it. Look at the large # of people claiming QAnon conspiracy nonsense.

                I’ve spent time in ~30 countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas, and I’ve yet to go anywhere that where people don’t engage in rational thinking. In the U.S., I’ve worked with STEM researchers of all races. I haven’t seen any research showing that “rationality is an aspect of white culture more than non-white culture.” If you have research, cite it.

                Still waiting for you to post whatever you were referring to when you said “You are very confused on this issue. I will start a reply on the top of this page.”

                1. Have a look at “The Weirdest People in the World” by Henrich. David Benson mentioned it on this site and Razib Khan as mentioned it favorably.

                  1. OK, but I’ve spent considerable time in countries that aren’t “Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.” I lived/worked for a couple of years in one country that had none of those features.

                    More to the point: WEIRD countries are multi-racial, and he isn’t equating WEIRD with “white.”

                    1. More to the point: WEIRD countries are multi-racial, and he isn’t equating WEIRD with “white.”

                      The behavior and attendant neurological changes have co-evolved in predominantly white and, lately, Asian cultures. The core set of behaviors that have advanced the world are pretty much the same as those described as ‘white’ in that stupid poster the Smithsonian put up and that are increasingly criticized in academia.

                      ‘Multicultural’ doesn’t mean that everyone is on board. The black population in the US, UK, Caribbean, and pretty much every other country where it is located share remarkably similar behaviors and they don’t seem likely to lead to more advanced cultures. It doesn’t help in our society when a black person does adopt successful patterns of behavior he is condemned for ‘acting white’. Knowledge doesn’t belong to any race, but too much of it apparently destroys a black person’s ‘authenticity’ in some of the communities.

        2. CTHD–“They never said or suggested that “Objective, rational linear thinking” (the phrase they used) is to be avoided.”
          They never said it but it was suggested in the format, white characteristics contrasted with black characteristics.

          The funny thing is that the suggestion comes from the source rather than express declaration. If the KKK could put out exactly the same poster their members would love it. “See! We told you they weren’t rational, industrious or able to show up on time, etc, etc”

          I don’t think the Smithsonian favored the same interpretation as the KKK so the alternative is that it must be good not to be objective and rational and good to show up for work whenever you feel like it, etc.

          They did show they weren’t particularly rational. The KKK is missing an opportunity if it doesn’t grab this and post it as true under the authority of the Smithsonian.

          What a fiasco.

          You must be one of the few people who failed to understand the unintended but very clear message in that poster.

            1. You are good at getting stuff online. Finding a copy of the poster should not be too big of a challenge for you. You seemed to have very certain opinions of it for someone not able to see an image of the poster.

              1. I’m not going to do your work for you. Your claim, your burden of proof.

                And I did see an image of the poster. But it didn’t include what you claim. You’re the one who’s saying that there’s more to the poster than what I saw. So instead of making excuses, act like an adult and provide evidence for your claim. If you can’t, then my guess is that you’re misremembering and don’t have the balls to deal with it.

                “You are good at getting stuff online.”

                Thanks. That’s a skill I developed from doing research.

                1. JOE BIDEN



                  SOUND LIKE A RECIPE FOR DISASTER? IF YOU DISAGREE VOTE FOR JOE … and be ready to take your medicine!


                  Joe and his gun grabber centi-billionaire Mikey Bloomberg don’t have to worry– they have the best security teams your taxpayer dollars can buy!

                  1. Biden never said riots are peaceful protests. Kurtz, I get you’re probably feeling desperate, but do you have to lie like Trump/ It’s embarrassing.

                2. I met any burden of proof I intended. This is not a court.

                  You asked me for information you can easily get yourself.

                  I said get it yourself.

                  Perhaps you didn’t understand me before.

                  As to what you understand, or choose not to understand, about the poster, as you constantly remind us nobody knows what you are thinking.

                  In many ways the poster speaks for itself. That’s why they took it down. Perhaps the message was accidentally too honest.

                  1. For some reason, my previous reply hasn’t posted.

                    You seem to have the mistaken belief that burden of proof only applies in court. Allan had that same mistaken belief. You’re both confusing legal burden of proof with philosophic burden of proof. The latter applies any time someone makes a disputed claim, no matter where it’s made: the person who makes the claim has the burden of substantiating it if asked. If the claimant refuses to to provide evidence, then it can be dismissed as unsubstantiated. I’m not going to do your work for you. For all I know, you’re lying or misremembering.

                    “Perhaps the message was accidentally too honest.”

                    Or the message was wrong, and they’re adult enough to accept that they made a mistake.

Leave a Reply