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. Hannah-Jones tries to convince us that the totality of who we are is based on people who lived 300 years ago. On her basis black people today are responsible for blacks who enslaved and slaughtered other black people in Africa because they were from another tribe. You’ve got to hand it to her. She figured out that there were like minded bigots that she could race bait to buy her book and line her pockets. She learned her lesson well from a fellow martyr named Jesse Jackson with a net worth of $15,000,000. The Reverend Jackson and Hannah-Jones come a singin. Bringing in the sheaves. Bringing in the sheaves. They will come rejoicing bringing in the sheaves.

    1. “Hannah-Jones tries to convince us that the totality of who we are is based on people who lived 300 years ago.”

      You have an overactive imagination. Or perhaps you’re just dishonest.

      1. Anonymous you are correct. It wasn’t 300 years. From 1619 until today would be 402 years ago. My imagination was under calculating when Hannah-Jones defined the character of our nation by 102 years. She based our character on what people did 402 years ago not 300 hundred years ago. I didn’t mean to be dishonest when I understated the idiocy of her premise.

        1. “Hannah-Jones tries to convince us that the totality of who we are is based on people who lived X years ago” is false no matter whether you substitute X = 300 or X = 402.

  2. JoeFriday has convinced us of the glories of complete control by the Federal government. He tells us that a worthwhile goal is control of all the money and how it is spent. Joe assures us that centralized control of all the businesses in America through financial coercion is to be raised to the level of the highest honor. Thank you Comrade Joe for you most well thought out praise of the Commissars. We are forever in your debt. Perhaps you can enroll us in your next boot licking class.

  3. OT:

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    – Alexis de Tocqueville

    Restrict the vote.

    Restrict the spending.

    Expand the vote.

    Expand the spending.

    The American Founders restricted the vote.

    Turnout out in 1788 was 11.6% by design.

    “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

  4. the failure mode of the blue city/blue state governance model has dragged on as painfully long as it has for one reason and one reason only:
    the mainstream medias unwillingness to do their constitutionally protected job to hold all government accountable
    not just government they disagree with
    we will never know the untold pain misery suffering and lives lost that happened in blue cities and blue states that shouldnt have happened but did because the media picked sides and in so doing allowed it to continue unabated
    shame on them:
    they own chicago
    they own detroit
    they own st louis
    they own baltimore
    they own minneapolis
    they own portland
    oakland san francisco los angeles and many other like them
    so their judgement awaits
    and their culpability in this will end in their inevitable destruction

  5. UNC plays the “race card” even when the coursework is supposedly in “journalism” – more accurately biased opinionating.

  6. May I remind commenters on this forum that the subject is the call for journalism to become opinion and the justified indoctrination of the citizenry. In this new religion espoused by the new found priests of journalism, opposing views must be treated as blasphemy and those like Tom Cotton must be expunged from the public discourse. There is dancing in great joy around the burning of his writings at The New York Times. In addition, a warning at the Times has been issued to make sure that any such action by others in the future will be met with the fate of the flames. All the editors at the sermons of the Times fall to their knees in prayer and utter their amens. Indeed their religion is the one and only truth.


    “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    – Albert Einstein

    When asked whether freed Blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals,” Abraham Lincoln responded, “My own feelings will not admit of this,…and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”5

    – Robert Morgan

    Abraham Lincoln:

    Racial separation, Abraham Lincoln went on to say, “must be effected by colonization” of the country’s Blacks to a foreign land. “The enterprise is a difficult one,” he acknowledged,

    but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.

    – Robert Morgan

    “In January 1858, Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to set up a committee

    ‘to inquire into the expediency of providing for the acquisition of territory either in the Central or South American states, to be colonized with colored persons from the United States who are now free, or who may hereafter become free, and who may be willing to settle in such territory as a dependency of the United States, with ample guarantees of their personal and political rights.’

    “Blair, quoting Thomas Jefferson, stated that Blacks could never be accepted as the equals of Whites, and, consequently, urged support for a dual policy of emancipation and deportation, similar to Spain’s expulsion of the Moors.”13

    – Robert Morgan

    1. George, for the uncountable times you tell us of the evils of Lincoln. It should follow then that all the things he did should be condemned in our modern discourse about his life. It would also follow that we should condemn his freeing of the slaves. You post this same discourse almost every day. Me thinks this smacks of obsession.

      1. Abraham Lincoln tells you of the “evils” of Lincoln.

        An interesting juxtaposition; I’m certain you agree.

        1. Then answer my hypothesis of discounting his freeing of the slaves. Would a man of great racism be willing to sacrifice the lives of 600,000 mostly white men to bring about the emancipation of men that he really hated? You can attempt to twist the narrative to your ingrained concept but in so doing you expose a very shallow understanding. You maniacally post the same info everyday. It would seem that your very personality is at stake in your one stuck on piece of information. The hope is that some day you will become more well rounded.

        1. While previous musings emerged from the lips of Lincoln and his colleague, below are the words, sentiment and law of the American Founders, legislated within the year of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

          Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802

          United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

          Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

          These are not the words of George.

          Another interesting historical juxtaposition: The Israelites were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers.

        1. Anonymous, if George is a white nationalist he is no different than the racist against whites on the left. Both of their messages come from their application of their respective religions. Both are members of their cancel cultures. There’s not an ounce of difference between them.

          1. Apparently you don’t understand what white nationalism is. White nationalists want to rid the country of people of other races, so that the sole citizens are white.

            How about you name someone who is “racist against whites on the left” and argues that there should be no white citizens?

            1. No they aren’t arguing that their should be no white citizens. There just telling us that because we are white we are racist because of the skin color we were born with. Because it wasn’t practical to get rid of all the blacks in the nation they just told them to shut up and get to the back of the bus. Now the woke of the left are telling white people to shut up and get to the back of the bus through cancellation. Second racist verse same as the first.

              1. “No they aren’t arguing that their should be no white citizens. ”

                Glad you can admit that white nationalists ARE “different than the racist against whites on the left.”

                “it wasn’t practical to get rid of all the blacks in the nation ”

                George doesn’t care. He wants a whites-only nation now.

            2. “. . . argues that there should be no white citizens?”

              The only difference between fewer white citizens — aka affirmative action — and no white citizens is the degree of the evil.

              1. Affirmative action doesn’t argue that there should be fewer white citizens. Where on earth did you get that bizarre idea?

                1. “Affirmative action doesn’t argue that there should be fewer white citizens.”

                  I guess implications (and simple ones, at that) really are not your forte.

                  A demand — via affirmative action — for more blacks in, e.g., colleges, police departments, corporations, means fewer whites in those positions.

                  (Don’t waste time on your standard rabbinical hairsplitting. You’re all alone down that rabbit hole.)

                  1. LMAO that you think the difference between “positions” (your new category) and “citizens” (what I asked you about) is “hairsplitting.”

                    You repeatedly make excuses for your errors.

        2. Indeed, I am an American who knows and adheres to the unassailable genius of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights engendered by the American Founders and Framers.

          You obviously prefer Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” imposed by his Communist Manifesto.

          Abraham Lincoln also preferred brutally imposed and enforced dictatorship in treasonous, diametric opposition to the fundamental law of the United States.

  8. After impugning the integrity of others without proof, lying and not responding to content Anonymous the Stupid goes on a posting spree saying absolutely nothing forgetting that the responses by others had content, something nearly all his replies lack.

    To avoid responding to the 6 personal responses ATS sent to me (leaving out the many dumb responses to others), I am responding with one post copying what he wrote to prove we are dealing with door knob dumb ignorance and nothing else.

    “That’s why he proudly wears the blog-monitor badge…

    Says the little boy Allan-Meyer who lives on this blog.

    You are the fool you decry, Allan.

    And by golly, he takes his blog-job very seriously.

    Allan is clearly one of those guys who has to be right

    Allan will reply again because he needs to have the last word, ”

    Logic, why else would one write a contentless none responsive replies if only for the fact they wish to have the last word and do so in an ignorant fashion.

    1. Allan, Elvis Bug and his training troll, ATS, are especially unhinged in their defense of this fraudulent woman. They can’t defend her blatant hatred for “whitey” so they engage in invective against a true mensch, Allan S. Meyer. Where’s the shame anymore??

      1. At what point does Hannah Jones actually have to be defended, Dog man? Seems she’s just been made head of department and stands on her own merits.


        1. Bug, she’s a bigot. If you’re white, she hates you. It doesn’t matter who you are. And if you’re black, she’s not helping. This is not a defensible person.

          1. She’s a department head who has won a Pulitzer and has engaged in the accurate treatment of the roots of slavery in this country. Now, I realize this may be threatening subject matter for you, but I don’t see where this puts her anywhere near the territory of being indefensible, or equal to a Nazi, or any of the other ‘panties in a twist’ terms that have been thrown around here.


            1. Her Pulitzer is like Obama’s Nobel. They might as well call them the white-liberal guilt awards.

              UNC. Aren’t those the same guys that tried to help Nifong railroad the lacrosse players into prison over a crazy stripper?

              1. Well, you’re on the run. Not going to chase you wherever it might lead. Suffice it say, Hannah Jones stands on her own and is probably getting a kick out of poeple such as Turley getting all chuffed and trying to remind her she’s a black woman.


              2. Just curious, was Obama’s Nobel prize do to his white privilege?

              3. “UNC. Aren’t those the same guys that tried to help Nifong railroad the lacrosse players into prison over a crazy stripper?”

                Duke gets credit for that particular evil.

          2. “If you’re white, she hates you.”

            This is a figment of your imagination.

            “And if you’re black, she’s not helping.”


            1. Joe, et al, Rachel Dolezal is fully white, but loathes whites so much she identifies as fully black. Hannah-Jones is a black-identifying bigot.

              1. That’s quite a non sequitur. I take it that you can’t admit that your claim “If you’re white, she hates you” is false.

        2. Anon EB. You are exactly correct about Hannah Jones standing on her own merit. The merit of twisting history to further her dialog and line her pockets. You too stand on your own merit. We give you all the credit for who we know you are.

      2. Diogenes, both are too lame to have shame. They are lazy and ill equipped to be able to recognize what is actually happening. Instead someone feeds them what he wants them to think.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, why would you say that? I provide proof in debate and prove my points. You have no such ability. You don’t have the slightest idea of the effects of what you talk about and much of what you say is lies.

            1. Allan, you’ve trolled me for months on end, insulting me and making false claims about me, but now you want the exchange to turn on a dime and have a serious conversation? I’m not interested. I couldn’t care less whether you agree with me that you project your own weaknesses onto others, and I’m not going to make any effort to convince you. If you want to be convinced, talk to a therapist.

              You regularly avoid providing proof. You handwave that you presented proof at some unspecified time in the past that you can’t be bothered to link to, you claim that things are obvious as if your opinion were a fact, you use endless excuses to try to justify your failure to present proof.

  9. Another school to add to the list of schools not to send your kids to. Why pay lots of money to be indoctrinated with lies, hate, and division?? All you need to do is turn on CNN.

  10. Hannah-Jones is a product of the bogus “African-American studies” “field” that the University of California, Berkley established in the 1960s. The field was bogus from the start but colleges and universities picked up on it as a means of bringing in revenue from student loans and VA educational benefits. Nearly everything taught in the courses is exaggeration, appropriation or outright lies yet graduates with bogus degrees in that field (and “women’s studies, which is another bogus field) have risen to high levels in academia and the media. It just goes to show that there are people who will believe anything then try to force their beliefs on everyone else.. Hannah-Jones is one of them.

    1. “Nearly everything taught in the courses is exaggeration, appropriation or outright lies”


      You apparently have no problem with white culture and male culture being studied, but you object to African American studies and women’s studies.

      1. You apparently like to project your neurosis on others. Have you taken the courses yourself recently? And where is “white culture” and “male culture” being studied?

        1. “where is “white culture” and “male culture” being studied?”

          Asked by someone who apparently hasn’t ever taken an introductory class in any of several social sciences (history, political science, etc.).

          1. “Asked by someone . . .”

            Said by a true tribalist who smears race and gender everywhere.

              1. “Said by a white male.”

                Thank you for reaffirming: “a true tribalist who smears race and gender everywhere.”

  11. The problem isn’t so much with “biased journalism,” since journalism has always been biased. Now, that bias is out in the open. But the real problem is with one side claiming to have the “right” bias, while the bias of the other side is deemed “disinformation” and purged from public view. It’s not surprising that the U of NC hired this hack, even though everything she’s written is littered with factual and historical errors, CRT nonsense and outright lies. People like Hannah-Jones are riding the CRT popularity wave, kind of like Goebels and Riefenstahl rode theirs. But history has a way of exacting its own revenge.

    1. Funny, I don’t even have to watch Carlson to know what he’s been talking about lately because it’ll be repeated multiple times in this blog comment section.

      1. If you had any guts you’d use your real name, but you’re just another 30-year old juvenile in pajamas in his parents’ basement.

      2. Funny that this Anonymous doesn’t seem to be able to discuss the issue at hand. Anonymous, the issue is people like NHJ treating HISTORY like it is hers to write, that is is dependent on “her truth”, a display of arrogance, ignorance and egotism all at once.

    1. Allan, for some reason, the trolls are defending somebody who is refusing to provide even-handed journalism because she literally thinks she is fighting NAZI’s. She thinks she’s entitled to wage a real propaganda war because we’re that bad, according to people like her. This woman is a blithering idiot.

      It would be like you or me defending the Grand Wizard or Adolf Eichmann, which we would never do. I think Professor Turley deserves a better opposition than he gets on this blog, and we deserve better journalism than Hannah-Jones.

      1. Diogenes, that is true, but the ideology of blindness prevents some from thinking past their nose.

  12. Good post to put up the morning after Rudy’s office and apartment were searched, JT. We all know you’ll be venturing soon into what William Barr’s role in squashing earlier efforts for the search warrants were. Ha.

    In the mean time, it seems you’re seeking to combat perceived journalistic rhetoric…, with, wait for it…, extreme “journalistic” rhetoric. Good on ya for that. Setting a great example. Take the Fox money while it’s there, retirement can’t be that far off.

    For what it’s worth, Hannah Jones will be an excellent department chair. If I was a college aged J major I’d go to UNC for sure. It’ll be a boon to their J program, as well as providing their students with a fantastic educational opportunity.


        1. Anonymous the Stupid, before criticizing another and calling them ignorant you should be ready to defend your remark in the same response.

          You don’t do that because you are a spiteful liar that is totally untrustworthy. Prove your case.

              1. In other words ATS you impugn the integrity of others on the list but refuse to back it up. Instead you respond with garbage that should be removed and probably will be.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, before criticizing another and calling them ignorant you should be ready to defend your remark in the same response.

              You don’t do that because you are a spiteful liar that is totally untrustworthy. Prove your case.

          1. She’s a Pulitzer Prize winner (as noted by Turley, so mistressadams should know that if she actually read the article) and was also awarded a MacArthur. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that “The best you can say about her is that she is a polemicist and a demagogue” is false.

            “you are a spiteful liar that is totally untrustworthy”

            You continue your long history of trying to insult others by describing yourself.

            1. Pulitzer Prize, you mean the organization that refuses to remove Duranty’s lies about how good things were in the Soviet Union?

              You seem not to know what such prizes mean. Obama won the Peace Prize before doing anything and then he started bombing people and executing them with drones.

              ATS, you are a fool.

              1. None of which refutes the fact that plenty of people can and do say better things about her.

                You are the fool you decry, Allan.

            2. Reporting the news and commenting on the news are totally different! What we are doing here is just commentary, our opinion on some news in the US. Biden’s address was barely watched and got more thumbs down than thumbs up. Just shows how divided we are as a nation. This discussion shows the same thing…division not unification…Biden/Harris will never unite the country nor will Trump…I wish I knew where that person was…………

      1. Actually, the best I can say about her is she’s an excellent investigative journalist.


    1. Yeah, and they didn’t really take anything. It’s obvious the raid was political, another example of the bias of the corrupt SDNY.

      1. According to you, were the judges (who determined that there was sufficient probable cause to sign the warrants for Giuliani and Toensing) acting politically, biased, and corrupt as well?

        “they didn’t really take anything”

        Interesting that you consider seizing computers and cellphones — and all of the electronic data they hold — to not really be anything.

      2. Hey, I’m from Rhode Island. We know our bribery scandals around here. Not at all unusual for it to involve the speaker of the house actually…

        This is how it’s going to go: Search warrant leads to seizure of electronic devices and cardboard boxes full of documents >> formal charges filed 6-9 months later. Like clock work.


        1. I went to college in Providence, but haven’t been back in a decades. I still miss the Portuguese sweet-bread from Faria’s Bakery.

          1. Oh my god, best sweet bread ever. And the Italian food on the Hill. Crazy good!


      1. I’m always running between one task and the next. I check in here when I have to slow down and wait for my nose to get back between my toes.


  13. “He was later compelled to resign for publishing a column that advocates an option used previously in history with rioting.”

    This is an outright lie.

    Bennet resigned because he didn’t do his job: he admitted that he had not read Cotton’s column, much less carried out any editing process with Cotton, before publishing the column.

    “Dressing up bias as “advocating social justice,” does not remove the taint of yellow journalism.”

    I’m sure you’d have said the same about those who advocated for those imprisoned by the Nazis in WWII. Unless a newspaper advocated both sides equally, it’s just yellow journalism, right?
    Or can you admit that sometimes the two sides do not merit equal treatment?

    1. “I’m sure you’d have said the same about those who advocated for those imprisoned by the Nazis in WWII.”

      This comment bothered me more than usual–and that’s saying a lot. So are you implying that Hannah-Jones doesn’t owe conservatives even-handed journalism because conservatives are morally equivalent to NAZI’s?

      1. “This comment bothered me more than usual–and that’s saying a lot. So are you implying that Hannah-Jones doesn’t owe conservatives even-handed journalism because conservatives are morally equivalent to NAZI’s?”

        Of course not. I don’t consider conservatives in general to be morally equivalent to Nazis (of course, some conservatives are Neo-Nazis, but most aren’t).

        I’m saying that bias is sometimes warranted (as with the refusal to treat those carrying out genocide and those defending against it as morally equivalent) and not “yellow journalism.”

        1. Then you have more of a problem with her than you do with me, but you don’t seen to recognize that.

  14. Take out the hyphen between Hanna and Jones.

    Hanna Jones was her name…
    She rode off with Robert E. Lee!

  15. Jonathan wrote, “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.”

    You are using the word “educated” rather freely in that sentence and the use of that word in that context is literally FALSE! What they are doing is BRAINWASHING the public with PROPAGANDA.

    “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X

    These so-called “journalists” are intentionally ABUSING their previously trusted positions as “journalists” and have become the United States equivalent to Pravda, promoting only one political agenda and demonizing the opposition. The actions of these “journalists” have made them an enemy of the people.

    1. Some of the right and left are trying to brainwash people. Most are not.

      Also, your comment may get deleted for exceeding fair use.

    2. As I predicted, your other comment was deleted for exceeding fair use. You’re intelligent enough to comment without breaking the copyright law.

      1. Anonymous,
        Your argument is false. Everything was properly attributed to the actual author and I linked to the source where I obtained the text, that source was not the author and that source used the EXACT same text.

        The deletion of the comment based on the argument of “exceeding fair use” is false. If the person that actually deleted the comment should contact me directly and discuss it. Until then I’ll provide a different link in another comment.

        1. No, my statement wasn’t false.

          I posted a response to your comment saying that it was likely to be deleted for exceeding fair use, and it was.

          “Everything was properly attributed to the actual author and I linked to the source where I obtained the text …”

          Which is irrelevant to whether you exceeded fair use, as I claimed.

          I didn’t claim that you plagiarized (copying without identifying the author). I claimed that you exceeded fair use. Since you apparently don’t understand what the latter refers to:

          Simply put, you can only quote a very limited amount of something written by another (unless it is in the public domain), and your quote was too long.

            1. It’s not a matter of opinion, Steve, it’s a factual matter. There are laws that regulate the use of copyrighted material. Unless you obtain the copyright holder’s permission or are transforming the material (e.g., in an artistic context), you can only copy a very limited amount without breaking the law. You copied too much. Turley/Darren deleted it for that reason.

              If you want to read up on this, focus on the references here –

              1. Anonymous wrote, “There are laws that regulate the use of copyrighted material.”

                Due to some things at my job and some personal things I written over the years I’m actually quite familiar with copywrite laws. In fact a local newspaper violated copyright laws for something I published and they got hammered for it. When it comes to copywrite laws I do appreciate your general concern.

                Anonymous wrote, “You copied too much.”

                That sir is literally a matter of opinion and mine differs from yours. No one in their right mind would come after me for the amount I quoted or my usage of the content.

                Since we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one let’s end this disagreement right here.

                1. “No one in their right mind would come after me for the amount I quoted or my usage of the content.”

                  So you think that Darren/Turley were not in their right minds to delete your comment for violating fair use? OK.

                  1. Anonymous wrote, “So you think that Darren/Turley were not in their right minds to delete your comment for violating fair use?”

                    Stop that moronic BS; you’re intentionally spinning what I wrote. My statement was clearly about the author(s) of the copyrighted material coming after me. Turley/Darren have no legal standing to come after me for the comment since the content quoted was not theirs. Your implication is absurd.

                    Plus, deleting my post is not coming after me in any way shape or form. Turley/Darren are welcome to their own opinions just like you and I are. But it would seem to me that with Turley’s stance on free speech it would be hypocritical of him to delete the comment. Also, to my knowledge there are absolutely no posted rules that commenters need to follow, I’ve looked and never found any, so my comment literally didn’t violate any posted rules I actually pay attention to and abide by posted posted rules regarding commenting if they exist. It appears that there are no standards to deleting comments and I’ve actually had a couple of direct personal email conversations with Jonathan about how the comment moderators deleted a couple of comments I posted with the word b a s t a r d i z e in it and how absurd it was to delete them based on that particular word.

                    All that said; this is not my blog site to moderate it’s theirs. It’s my opinion that they were wrong to delete the comment based on your fair usage argument (if that’s why they deleted it), there is absolutely no responsibility resting on their heads to leave the comment visible, I wrote it, the responsibility is mine and mine alone. Turley/Darren’s opinion on fair usage and yours are literally irrelevant, the only opinions that are relevant are the actual author(s) and mine.

                    Can we now be done with this absurd deflection that you started.

  16. I just met a young man who had a journalism degree from Missouri who said he would never want a job today in journalism. I ask him why and he said there is no honest journalism anymore just political bias writing, push the narrative of your boss. The Walter Cronkite era is long gone. Today is not reporting the news it’s political commentary on the news. Free speech long gone. Now I have no respect for any college or university. They do not teach you to think, they brainwash you and if you don’t push the leftist political narrative then you are fired. Just ask Candance Owens who dropped out of school.

    1. That young man is wise beyond his years.

      I think millennials are slowly waking up to the insanity. Many people usually do when they get children and a mortgage, but the question is, will millennials wake up faster than the Democrats can californicate the country with undocumented voters. California really happened. Venezuela really happened. I don’t know what to expect. Boomers had time to figure out who was lying to them. Millennials don’t.

  17. Slowly but surely, the Lefties are making their ideas mainstream.

    That’s OK, let ideas compete for adherents.

    But the Lefties are purging and canceling their opponents.

    That is tyranny.

    Who of us hasn’t wondered if some of our posts will come back to haunt us. That is anti-American and undemocratic.

  18. The GoP-controlled North Carolina legislature ought to get all over this. There is a great political career to be made in fighting CRT lies.

    1. If the legislature did intervene somehow, there would be renewed cries for protection of academic freedom by those who seem hell bent on denying that freedom to others

Comments are closed.