Academia, Free Speech, Media, Politics

University of North Carolina Awards NYT Reporter Hannah-Jones A Chair In Investigative Journalism

We have been writing about the assault on foundational concepts of neutrality in journalism in academia. This includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. Now the University of North Carolina has awarded the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism to New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones. While Hannah-Jones was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her writing on The 1619 Project, she has been criticized (including on this blog) for her role in purging dissenting views from the New York Times pages and embracing absurd anti-police conspiracy theories.

As discussed earlier, Hannah-Jones was one of the journalists who denounced the New York Times for publishing the views of Sen. Tom Cotton on the use of troops to quell rioting in U.S. cities.  Hannah-Jones applauded the disgraceful decision of the Times to apologize for publishing such an opposing viewpoint and denounced those who engage in what she called “even-handedness, both sideism” journalism. When Hannah-Jones and others objected to the publishing of the views of Cotton, opinion editor James Bennet reportedly made an apology to the staff. That however was not enough. He was later compelled to resign for publishing a column that advocates an option used previously in history with rioting.

Notably, while the use of national guard troops was condemned in the protests around the White House, the delay in the use of national guard troops was later criticized in Jan. 6th riot.

Not long after playing a prominent role in the removal of Bennet, Hannah-Jones was criticized for advancing an anti-police conspiracy theory. 

In her now deleted tweet, Hannah-Jones promoted a thread that discussed how the recent injuries and destruction caused by fireworks was not the fault of protesters but actually part of a police conspiracy. This occurred at a time when police are trying to quell the use of these fireworks in New York and other cities. These incidents were becoming more and more of a concern for residents both in protests and random attacks. This included an incident involving the victimizing of a homeless man and effort of the police to identify the culprit:

As criticism of the use of fireworks grew so did a conspiracy theory on the Internet is that the fireworks are part of a police plot “to disorient and destabilize the #BlackLivesMatter movement.” The thread promoted the view of a person identified as Robert Jones, Jr. that

“The media is reporting this as though it’s just Black and Brown kids blowing off steam, but I don’t believe that’s the case. My neighbors and I believe that this is part of a coordinated attack on Black and Brown communities by government forces; an attack meant to disorient and destabilize the #BlackLivesMatter movement.”

When confronted on her republishing of this conspiracy theory, Hannah-Jones deleted the tweet and apologized.  That was the correct response.  However, the incident does not seem to have prompted any reconsideration of the recent move against the Times or its editors. In that incident, they published not a conspiracy theory but a column on a power held by the federal government for decades and used repeatedly in history.

There was not a lot of “investigative reporting” shown in Hannah-Jones suggesting that police were framing protesters by secretly giving them the fireworks used against the public or homeless people. It fit a narrative and that was sufficient.

Unlike the editor of the Times, however, such theories are not viewed as cause for resignation or unacceptable “both sideism.”  

Academics have also criticized Hannah-Jones writing on the 1619 Project. According to The Atlantic , Princeton historian Sean Wilentz criticized that work and some of Hannah-Jones’s other work a letter signed by scholars James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, and James Oakes. They raised “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing.'” They objected that the work represented “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.” The Atlantic noted that “given the stature of the historians involved, the letter is a serious challenge to the credibility of the 1619 Project, which has drawn its share not just of admirers but also critics.”

The concern is that figures like Hannah-Jones represent a fundamental rejection of objectivity and neutrality in journalism. She appears to adhere to a growing view among academics.

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.

What is interesting is that this fundamental challenge to journalistic values is not being widely discussed. For those of us who have worked for decades as columnists and in the media, the growing intolerance for dissenting views is stifling and alarming. Media outlets are now wedded to echo journalism models where opposing views or facts are increasingly rare. We are seeing our leading schools teaching such advocacy and bias as values as opposed to dangers to journalism. It is a shift at universities that will impact journalism for many years to come.

175 thoughts on “University of North Carolina Awards NYT Reporter Hannah-Jones A Chair In Investigative Journalism”

    1. Jeff, no one wins. Based on repetitive posts we are already aware of your feelings about Turley. That is fine. You have a right to your opinions, however to continuously bash him with the same material is unseemly and not polite. I sometimes criticize Turley as well for specific things he says. I know to you that is unbelievable, but we are on opposite poles with Turley trying to make sense of the law and the legalisms produced by others that reside far below his intellect.

      I worry more for him from the left as they will cancel a person on the drop of a hat. The right generally doesn’t do things like that. He stands behind civil liberties and freedom of speech. His arguments are sincere though he has his particular biases which are mostly center left. I think people like yourself should appreciate Trump for his transparency not seen in earlier administrations whether or not you like his policies. I think you should also praise Turley for his legal opinions being as neutral as they are for too many attorneys are engaged in politicizing the law.

      Jeff, you neither won or lost. You didn’t get something you didn’t deserve. The earth will continue to spin on its axis.

      1. Meyer says: “I worry more for him from the left as they will cancel a person on the drop of a hat. The right generally doesn’t do things like that.”

        Liz Cheney, John Bolton, John Kelly, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, etc and etc.

        The Trumpists know a thing or two about cancelling!

        America is not a Safe Zone. If these public figures can’t stand the heat, then they should stay out of the political soup.

        If Turley is “cancelled,” he has brought it upon himself by his disgraceful acceptance of employment with Fox News. He will depart from that network sooner or later, but the moral stain of his Fox association will follow him though out what remains of his career, for it’s a stench that will never wear off. Turley’s great sin is that he willfully ignores the polarizing and intellectually dishonest monologues spoken by Fox Prime Time hosts. And yet Turley insouciantly appears on their programs lending their programs an air of credibility by virtue of his standing as a liberal professor. That he is willing to be a prop in their disingenuous act is contemptible for a serious academic.

        1. Moral stain? Disgraceful? Stench? Contemptible?

          insouciantly?

          My goodness you could not be more mixed up in your mind.

        2. Your brain is not a Safe Zone. It’s been washed too many times.

        3. “Liz Cheney, John Bolton, John Kelly, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, etc and etc.
          The Trumpists know a thing or two about cancelling!”

          Jeff, none of them were cancelled, spied on, or had the IRS investigate them, etc.

          1. Those “RINO’s”- as “real” Republicans disparage them- are being vilified by Trumpists.

            1. Jeff, do you not know the difference between Party Politics and vilification? Sometimes the lines do get blurred but both parties are doing the same to each other while trying to gain control over the party.

              The infighting is foolish because the real fight should be between those supporting our Constitutional Republic and the desire to create a fascist oligarchy by many on the left. Of course some of the “RINO’s” long ago started looking out for what was best for themselves rather than the nation.

              None of them have attempted to cancel the other outside of the Party. That is something that is done almost exclusively by the left.

              1. Unfortunately some people get all riled up and say things off the cuff that aren’t true. I don’t like Mitt Romney and didn’t when he ran. I spoke to him at the time and still felt he was more about Mitt than anything else with a weak grasp on conservative values. The weakness was not that he didn’t know what they were rather he seemed weak willed in areas where strong beliefs are necessary. He proved a lot of people feeling like me to be correct.

                Despite the fact that this commentator has been on the blog long enough to know the truth, he generalizes, ” they cannot even admit that he ever says anything false –“ Yet on this blog, the strongest supporters of Trump all admit that. We recognize that there will always be some level of disagreement and if there isn’t then those surrounding the leader are sycophants or virtue signalers which is typical on the left. Sometimes many of his followers strongly disagreed with him, but as things unfolded many of his followers realized he was right in the first place. His actions on the Turkish border were one such example though I agreed with him at the time.

                This commenter has poor awareness of the blog and current events. We all know who he is, but no name need be mentioned.

        4. “If Turley is “cancelled,” he has brought it upon himself by his disgraceful acceptance of employment with Fox News. “

          That is why universities, Hollywood, Twitter, FB and academia are cancelling people from the right. We are not seeing the reverse. That is what was seen in fascists nations during the mid 20th century.

          “If Turley is “cancelled,” he has brought it upon himself by his disgraceful acceptance of employment with Fox News.”

          Jeff, whether you recognize it or not, what you just said IMO is hateful. There are other things about that paragraph that should be discussed, but sometimes one has to temporarily leave out parts of a discussion when such hostility exists.

          2. Meyer, I would be lying if I did not express my contempt for Turley assisting Fox. I’m sure you would think no different if Turley was a legal contributor Antifa.

            Before you accuse me of making a moral equivalence between Fox and Antifa, I’m not. I’m making the point that it is morally wrong for an individual to join a pernicious association. If Antifa is 9 on a scale 1 to 10 of evil, I’d put Fox at 7. However, I draw the line at 6.

            1. “I’m making the point that it is morally wrong for an individual to join a pernicious association.”

              On your scale of 1-10, what rating do you give to the ‘pernicious’ influences of CNN and MSNBC?

            2. “Meyer, I would be lying if I did not express my contempt for Turley assisting Fox. I’m sure you would think no different if Turley was a legal contributor Antifa.”

              Jeff, I have contempt for ideas and people that steal or kill others, not people in general. I had contempt for the Black Panthers because they killed, but one of the people I know and like the most today was at one time the intellectual advisor for the Black Panthers. He did not preach violence though he was part of the New Left. His parents were Stalinists but after the release of the Stalin Papers the public was horrified and to continue the movement he became one of the founders of the New Left (Stalin minus the violence… a short only partially accurate description of the movement).

              I don’t have contempt for this man so you are wrong about how I feel, but you have told us how you feel. Your feelings demonstrate a failure to separate ideas and actions by placing them in their proper categories.

              I am not contemptuous of Dershowitz when as a lawyer he takes a certain legal position that I find offensive. I might be contemptuous regarding certain ideas but not the otherwise honest man who doesn’t kill, rob, or destroy the property of others.

              Jeff, you place your politics ahead of reason. I prefer reason in the lead.

              ““I’m making the point that it is morally wrong for an individual to join a pernicious association.”

              Jeff your point is wrong. An attorney represents a client. He is not supposed to join the client’s organization and lie or promote criminal activities or otherwise illegal activities.

              The scale you provide at the end of your arguments is sophomoric. It is comparing apples to oranges. Antifa is a terrorist group. Fox is a news station. The world of ideas is a much larger world than you give credit for.

  3. OT FBI Appears to Acknowledge Mass Congressional Shooting Was Classified as Suicide by Cop

    “Hodgkinson, a liberal activist who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), opened fire at an Alexandria, Virginia field as the Republican congressional baseball team practiced in 2017. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) barely survived, and several others present, including law enforcement officers, were struck by bullets.

    Republican lawmakers revealed earlier this month that FBI agents informed them that the bureau classified the incident as “suicide by cop,” even though evidence pointed to it being a domestic terror attack.”

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/fbi-appears-to-acknowledge-mass-congressional-shooting-was-classified-as-suicide-by-cop_3796723.html?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-04-29-2&mktids=26390ff90cc2c79b8ef4e43bddc2e1f1&est=kU%2Fyx3e8d7RFQNtsF9vfVNxPcNGy66%2BuHFJZJJlMI1iYLTOyrmpjOraMZ90nM5gAHi4%3D

  4. Gosh, Anonymous the Stupid keeps posting nonsensical. In less than one ohur he slimed me 8 times while sliming others. Nothing demonstrated any intelligence or even pertinence to the discussions he was responding to.

    I’ll summarize his writings so others can have a good laugh if they laugh at those lacking mental skills. Originality is not his strong point but neither are his critical thinking skills.

    “The little dictator is addicted to anonymous comments.

    Stupid Meyer is hard at it, again.

    Stupid Meyer — the petty dictator of the blog.

    Tell it to Supid Meyer — the only person on this blog who has shown us repeatedly that he has to “have the last word.

    Allan-Stupid Meyer is the little dictator.

    Tell it to Stupid Meyer.

    Hey, Stupid Meyer. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out a solution to your problem …”

    “Stupid Meyer, … stop harassing anonymous commenters.”

    That is all from Anonymous the Stupid who doesn’t sound quite normal. Since he has been here for years I think his mental problems are chronic but stable. My guess is he has spent a lot of money on psychiatric care.

  5. Turley: “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.”

    Here’s the problem: who is and who is not a journalist? Turley rightly expects trained journalists to act objectively. Agreed. However, the most influential talkers on his network Fox News- Ingraham, Hannity, Mark Levin, and Carlson are NOT journalists, nor do they claim to be. They are self-described opinion hosts. But their opinions are not regarded as such by their listeners. As Turley correctly points out they are treating their listeners “as subjects to be educated rather than informed” because they only bring on paid contributors, such as Turley, who will make comments that “fit the agenda” of Fox. I can’t recall one episode- not one- in which Turley disputed the point made by the host who requested his legal opinion. In every case, he simply reinforced the host’s narrative by lending his academic imprimatur. Turley’s less than 5 minute contribution is theater.

    Turley: “Media outlets are now wedded to echo journalism models where opposing views or facts are increasingly rare.”

    I can recall the early days of Fox, where there was a show called, “Hannity and Colmes,” in which Hannity was pitted against a liberal for honest-to-goodness debates. Why doesn’t Turley advocate for such fair and balanced programs so that viewers can be exposed to both sides of an argument. Instead, he laments in agonized generalities without providing specific concrete solutions. Why can’t he call upon Fox to lead by example at the risk of being fired?

    To his credit, Turley levels his accusations against the media in general and does not qualify “the media” by excluding by name Newsmax, One America News, BlazeTV, Infowars or even Fox. On the other hand, I cannot remember the last time, if ever, Turley has critiqued any Fox News host. It is not unwitting bias which accounts for Turley’s ignoring the fraudulent narratives at Fox; it is rather prejudice, for he has been hired to deliberately discredit his employer’s cable competitors- CNN and MSNBC. If ever Turley criticizes a Fox News performer, I will stand corrected….

    1. In my last post, I may have implied that Turley would make comments which he did not believe just to please his Fox bosses. I don’t believe that. As an academic, I do not believe he would make an argument or state a legal opinion which he could not reasonably and honestly defend to his fellow jurists.

      Turley has good faith opinions and states them here and elsewhere. When Fox producers read one of his articles which supports one of their narratives, he is invited on Fox to repeat that opinion. Like any good questioner, Fox hosts never ask their invited guests a question to which they do not know the answer. In this way, Turley has a clear conscience though if he wishes to raise his media profile and increase his newsworthiness, he might be tempted to form opinions which would suit Fox narratives, or otherwise push back at mainstream media narratives.

      Though Turley has discredited himself by joining the ignoble ranks of Fox, the day will come when he will be forced to break rank because he will be expected to defend the indefensible.

      On the news of the search of Giulliani’s apartment, Turley judiciously adopted a wait and see attitude:

      “We might want to wait to actually learn the underlying facts or even the charge before such predictions.”

      But that was not the gut reaction of Trumpists, one of whom tweeted true to form:

      “If other charges are made they will be BS ones just like the one’s with Flynn. The DOJ under DEMS is just disgusting and illegal.”

      Indeed, on Fox last night, the prime time hosts already have begun to spin the false narrative that Giulliani is being persecuted by the Deep State. Giulliani is calling the prosecutors “crooks.” Turley will never go along with this narrative because Trumpism is anathema to his unshakeable faith in the fairness of the American judicial system in which he practices, teaches and has taken an oath to uphold.

      It will be fascinating then to watch how Turley fashions his commentary on Giulliani’s impending legal predicament. The more his opinions diverge from the Fox persecution narrative, the less he will be asked to contribute. His will be a very delicate balancing act—looking for any prosecutorial missteps he can cite while giving all reasonable doubt he can muster to defend Giulliani without buying into and echoing the mendacious Deep State narrative and thereby becoming a veritable laughing stock among his law colleagues!

      Up to now, Turley deftly has been able to straddle the fence in the face of Trump’s political Impeachments, but if Giulliani faces a *criminal* indictment and trial, eventually Turley will run out of wiggle room. He will be forced by his commitment to the law to uphold the jury’s decision and suffer the political consequences come what may. I don’t envy him.

    2. “Why doesn’t Turley advocate for such fair and balanced programs so that viewers can be exposed to both sides of an argument. Instead, he laments in agonized generalities without providing specific concrete solutions.”

      Why doesn’t Jeff advocate for fair and balanced Twitter? Instead, he laments about how someone from the left (Turley) doesn’t criticize Fox, which isn’t true. We see the entire MSM advocating for one sided leftist journalism that has lied over and over again now proven by the FBI releases. Why hasn’t Jeff advocated for fair and balanced MSM.

      There is an imbalance in how some perceive the world. It is not Turley. It is Silberman.

      1. Meyer: “he laments about how someone from the left (Turley) doesn’t criticize Fox, which isn’t true.“

        I would like to be corrected if I have overlooked Turley criticizing Fox News or any of his colleagues at Fox. Just give me, say, 3 examples. That will be enough to prove your point. Thanks!

        1. No need to Jeff because it is written in black and white in the archives. You have already amply demonstrated that you don’t believe in facts and that you prefer to shoot from the hip.

          His comments regarding Fox are generally passing comments and 3 would be a large underestimate. You have just seen one and even commented on it. I don’t think many people have much doubt that the 3 is low, but I wouldn’t want you to have to actually examine facts. It’s of no significant importance anyway.

          1. Meyer, I did search this blog for Fox News references and Fox hosts by name for criticism, and I found no criticism. So, PLEASE, enlighten me. Just give me one- just one- example of Turley criticizing Fox. I double dare you!

            And Turley’s recent post acknowledging the Dominion and Smartmatic defamation lawsuits don’t count because he did not criticize Fox; he just quoted the allegations without commenting on their merits.

            Thanking you in advance.

            1. You are welcome, Jeff. There is no need to demonstrate such criticism because you see what is in your eyes. If an intelligent Trumper has something to say you tell us you are not going to listen. If I spend the time finding the necessary quotes you will simply say that you read them differently and it wasn’t the type of criticism you were talking about. That is fair enough for you, but also enough for me to not put out the effort in a small thing that I find meaningless.

              However, I am willing to defend significant lies made against Trump, lies that you say are important and involve his Presidential duties even though I have yet to hear you mention and discuss them. I am also willing to admit when Trump has overstepped the bounds of reality. All Presidents do, but Trump IMO has done it far less than Biden or Obama. He also has been far more transparent.

              In fact, rather than discuss personalities I am willing to discuss policy no matter who the players or the parties are. Policy is what I vote on in addition to what I know about a person along with his ability to make change in the right direction. Though I am not satisfied with Trump 100% I believe he moved us in the right direction regarding economic policy, the border and our national security. I think Biden is reversing a lot of the good that Trump did and has made the world a far more dangerous place. Right now the economy is doing good, as predicted, because what we are seeing is based almost exclusively on Trump policy. We are seeing the borders becoming porous again under Biden with threats from migrant violence, drugs, prostitution and over all economic costs to American citizens that don’t have that much. As soon as Biden’s policies are implemented we will start to see a worsening of our economy.

              One strange thing is that whenever I try to hire small businesses to do things, I find that the waiting time is much longer than normally expected. The reason is the policy of providing so much money to people able to work is making them choose unemployment even though they happily worked at the same job for years. This continues to kill the small businessman who ends up out of business. That means come October when the money runs out many of these people will be looking for employment but their former employers will have packed up and left.

              That is my policy addition for the day. You can criticize, agree or simply walk away saying you don’t respond to those that advocate Trump type policies. They are actually policies that have worked for decades and caused the US to become a powerhouse. I suggest you take a look at all the winners of the Nobel Prize for economics. You will find many of them echoing the same things even if you think they are on your side of the isle.

              1. This has nothing to do with Jeff.

                Anonymous the Stupid, whether you agree or disagree, whether you think this is smart or dumb, this above is content, something you almost never provide. When you wish to make your nasty little comments think of yourself as a very small person rather than one actively contributing.

                1. Actually, Allan, your reply to Jeff is a wonderful example that despite your claim “I provide proof in debate and prove my points,” when Jeff asked you for “just one- example of Turley criticizing Fox” to prove your claim “it is written in black and white in the archives,” you refused to provide proof, and you instead provided a lengthy excuse for why you were not going to provide proof.

                  I actively contribute in my exchanges with others. I don’t waste my time doing that in my exchanges with you, because I consider you to be a troll.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, in the end this involves perception as to what fits the criteria where no criteria are laid out and are remaining in the respective heads of the discussants. The issue is too insignificant and Jeff already said he was done producing evidence on Trump when he never presented any evidence at all based on the criteria of significance and presidential duties. That ended everyone’s obligations until Jeff changes his mind. That is his prerogative and I hold him no ill will for it.

                    You are an anti-social individual who lives on a blog anonymously because you can’t deal with people. You prefer to insult or play games. That is your style. You have proven it and continue to prove it every day. You say you contribute, but in the past have proven yourself a liar. Further without a name no one can give you credit for anything other than what you say that sticks to the Anonymous the Stupid moniker. You don’t count. You are Anonymous the Stupid.

    4. “When Fox producers read one of his articles which supports one of their narratives, he is invited on Fox ***to repeat*** that opinion. “

      How do you know that? You don’t.

      ” Like any good questioner, Fox hosts never ask their invited guests a question to which they do not know the answer. “

      That is not true.

    5. “When Fox producers read one of his articles which supports one of their narratives, he is invited on Fox ***to repeat*** that opinion. “

      How do you know that?

      ” Like any good questioner, Fox hosts never ask their invited guests a question to which they do not know the answer. “

      That is not true.

      How much balanced news is there in the MSM? Almost none. How frequently did the MSM write mistruths based on anonymous and poorly vetted stories? Often. The proof is in the release of the FBI documents. It is also proven by the inability of Jeff to prove his contentions.

    6. as any pretense of fairness and goodwill drops from the likes of BLM, the mass media, Silverman, and so forth,

      as the liberal institutions calling for procedural fairness such as this notion of “objectivity” collapse,

      wise people on our side will understand: THIS WILL END IN WAR

      and really, it’s obviously underway already

      prepare. si vis pacem, para bellum.

    7. oh come on, silberman. You know darn well that Fox is a well-known forum for conservatives, just as MSNBC and CNN have gone as far left as the spectrum will accommodate. The good professor is clearly referring to the profession as a whole. While being interviewed by FOX anchors, Turley has often criticized Republicans and conservatives. He contributes more to objective journalistic excellence than some full-time hosts, anchors, and reporters. I suspect, by your tone and attitude, that you worship the likes of Rachel Maddow (sp) and Jim Acosta. Why do you want Turley to criticize FOX, but you do not mention them???

  6. Her next assignment should be the pre – 1619 Project. Readers would love to know about the rich history of African civilization before 1619 before whites disrupted it. Surely, she would be so much happier in Africa.

Comments are closed.