“Your Unethical Nature”: Northwestern Journalism Professor Trashes Columnist For Waiting For The Facts On Police Shooting

There is an interesting conflict playing out on the pages of the Chicago Tribune over the coverage of killing of Adam Toledo.  We previously discussed the shooting of Toledo after police responded to a shooting and the suspension of a prosecutor who noted that Toledo was armed. In a June 18 column,  Tribune columnist Eric Zorn defended his coverage in April that it “was still too soon to draw conclusions.” He specifically responded to Steven Thrasher, the Daniel H. Renberg Chair of social justice in reporting at Northwestern, who trashed him for his circumspection and insisted he was excusing the murder of a child and it’s ‘never too early’ to think they are worthy of murder.”  Thrasher’s view of ethical journalism was on display in Fort Lauderdale this week when its mayor declared that a tragic accident involving an elderly driver was an act of murder and terrorism by anti-LGBT forces. He also believed that it is never too soon to declare murder.

The shooting occurred in a stronghold of the Latin Kings, a notoriously violent gang in Chicago. Many of us who grew up in Chicago are familiar with the Latin Kings, which is a huge criminal organization that often uses children to hold guns since they are subject to lower possible criminal penalties. Roman is facing felony charges of reckless discharge of a firearm and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon as well as child endangerment and violating probation.

This incident occurred around 3 a.m., when two Chicago police officers confronted the 13-year-old and Roman while investigating gunshots in Little Village. According to prosecutors, Roman had fired a gun at a passing car. Roman has been rumored to be a member of the Latin Kings. The Chicago Police Union president also alleged that Toledo was a known member of the Latin Kings.

After Zorn wrote that we need to examine the evidence, including the videotape, he “was branded a racist and a monster whose own children should be killed so I’d know how it feels.” He specifically discusses the attacks from Thrasher who tweeted that he was canceling his Tribune subscription because “there is no space in a newspaper for arguing for the murder of a child, and that it’s ‘never too early’ to think they are worthy of murder.”

When Zorn later wrote to Thrasher about the unfairness of his remarks and the calls from many that he should be fired for wanting to see the evidence, Thrasher responded: “Your words make the murder of children more likely, and I have no interest in you, your unethical nature, your cynical worldview, or in communicating with you.”

This is a journalism professor who is referring to Zorn’s “unethical nature” for wanting to wait for the facts of a story to develop before declaring that it was murder.

The column ran after a similar controversy unfolded in Fort Lauderdale, Florida where a person was killed and others injured by a Dodge Ram that crashed into a crowd at a gay pride event. Without waiting for any facts, Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Dean Trantalis ran to the closest camera to declare a “terrorist attack against the LGBT community.” While most mayors seek to voice the need for calm and investigation, Trantalis wanted to be the first to denounce anti-gay terror.

As was quickly confirmed, the driver was a 77-year-old male who was physically unable to walk in the parade and was allowed to drive as the lead vehicle. As the parade was about to begin when the 2011 white Dodge Ram unexpectedly accelerated into the crowd.

Consider this: Trantalis, a politician, is closer to what Thrasher considers a true and ethical journalist than the Tribune’s Zorn. He did not wait for the facts and declared not just murder but terrorism was unfolding on the streets of the city.  He was not willing to let a tragedy pass for even a few minutes before using it as an example of a lethal example of identity politics.

Thrasher’s view of journalism is spreading among top schools. 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. Likewise, the University of North Carolina recently offered an academic chair in Journalism to New York Times’ Nikole Hannah-Jones. While Hannah-Jones was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her writing on The 1619 Project, she has been criticized for her role in purging dissenting views from the New York Times pages and embracing absurd anti-police conspiracy theories.

Thrasher is a striking example of such advocacy journalism where confirming the narrative is more important than confirming the facts.  He has been in the forefront of framing violence in more redemptive or justified terms as when he argued in Slate that the “destruction of a police precinct is not only a tactically reasonable response to the crisis of policing, it is a quintessentially American response, and a predictable one.”

Woke journalism is raging among newspapers because there is little recognition of its inherent hypocrisy. Almost on the one-year anniversary of its condemning its own publication of a column by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. (and forcing out its own editor), the New York Times published an academic columnist who previously defended the killing of conservative protesters. Over at the Washington Post this week, the newspaper promoted a columnist,Karen Attiah, who last summer caused an outrage after she tweeted “White women are lucky that we are just calling them Karens. And not calling for revenge.”

What is striking about the Zorn-Thrasher controversy is that Thrasher is speaking of the standards governing not columnists but actually journalists. It appears that, just as the burning down police precincts is “quintessentially American” and “predictable,” that same is true with burning down journalistic norms like confirming facts on major stories. Fact-based journalism is no more in vogue than fact-based politics. It is rage that is the currency of our society and it is “never too early” to vent such rage as a reporter.

48 thoughts on ““Your Unethical Nature”: Northwestern Journalism Professor Trashes Columnist For Waiting For The Facts On Police Shooting”

  1. Speaking of Journalism, Alan Dershowitz has just published a book that Professor Turley could have authored in light of Turley’s defection from the mainstream media to serve as a critic of the Left for Fox News. The book is entitled, “The Case Against the New Censorship.” Subtitled, “Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives and Universities.”

    Sound vaguely familiar?! I read somewhere that Turley is writing his own, but Dershowitz has beat him to the punch. Poor Turley. Dershowitz was just on Hannity plugging his book. No doubt, Turley will follow Dershowitz on Hannity when his book arrives. Though you will not likely see Turley appearing with his book on the “fake news” networks, CNN or MSNBC, as his Fox workplace refers to them, where he will face tough questions for which he has no honest answers.

    1. Every day with Jeff Silberman it’s about Turley working for Fox. Second verse same as the first. The following link should eliminate the false narrative presented by Jeff about who Turley actually works for. Please see paragraph three under Career. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley. When Jeff continues his daily rant after countervailing evidence is presented their must be an adjective that should be aptly applied. You may pick one that applies to your liking.

      1. Think,

        What countervailing evidence? Are you suggesting that Turley is not on the Fox payroll? We all have our obsessions; and I’ll admit that I am no less obsessed in demonstrating Turley’s hypocrisy in joining Fox than Turley is obsessed with advocating against the “new censorship.”

        And we shall see whether you will be defending Turley in the months to come when he will not defend Trump, et.al., by calling his prosecution a witch-hunt. Already he is receiving a backlash here by defending Bill Barr against Trump.

        Turley is against Trumpism; he is on my side; not yours.

    2. It appears that Jeff Silberman is against the protection of free speech. Jeff, why don’t you just come right out and say that you don’t agree with Dershowitz that freedom of speech should be protected. Why don’t you denounce your own right to post what you think on this forum. To Jeff, appearing on Fox to protect free speech is an immoral unforgivable sin. Jeff would be the first to tell you of the sanctity of his own right to speak freely and he would happily go on MSNBC to declare it so. Jeff is an expert on the operation of a pretzel factory in his brain.

      1. Think,

        Thanks for your questions. Yes, it is unforgivable for Turley to legitimate the credibility of Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham by appearing on their programs. He would never appear with Alex Jones, now would he? Fox prime time hosts are nearly as deceitful as Jones. That’s my opinion though I know you don’t share it.

        As I have said time after time, Turley decries what he calls our “age of rage” while ignoring the network which built its audience by fueling this rage- Fox.

        I am no less ardent than Turley in defending free speech against “Big Brother.” I differ only in my view of what he calls the “Little Big Brother,” that is, private companies and universities. I believe that private companies should be free to ignore and to refuse to give a platform to amplify hate speech and demonstrable lies which violates their conscience. Everyone remains free to speak whatever they please if they can find an audience of their own, but they have no right to be heard by those who refuse to listen (or remain with a private entity if that person violates the terms of their employment contract).

        Turley would not long remain an employer of Fox were he to criticize Fox. e.g., Shep Smith. He well knows that he would have no legal cause of action against Fox were it not to renew his contract if he publicly held Fox to the same journalistic standards he holds its media competitors, CNN and MSNBC. Thus, Turley holds his tongue and looks the other way.

    3. An interview of Professor Turley on CNN or MSNBC would be very interesting. I believe that he would be happy to appear on one or both of these venues. If their objective was to present both sides of the story they would extend an invitation for the Professor to appear post haste. Jeff Silberman if you can find a link that shows that they have extended an invitation to Professor Turley and he has declined I will take your rumination more seriously. We breathlessly await your response.

      1. Think,

        You know I am not privy to any communications between Turley and any networks. It is a foolish challenge.

        As I have said elsewhere, my guess is that Turley has burned his bridges with the MSM ever since he began vilifying them once he joined Fox. He appears to have resigned himself to follow in Dershowitz’s footsteps to be a liberal gadfly. Dershowitz no longer appears on the MSM and finds refuge primarily on Newsmax and occasionally on Fox.

        If we are lucky, Turley will appear on C-Span to take questions about his forthcoming book. That may be the only opportunity to hold him accountable. Like so many controversial talkers on cable and radio, they rarely, if ever, submit to taking questions from the public without a screencaller and avoid at all costs being interviewed by a hostile press. They know that they can’t defend their rhetoric and lies, so they won’t.

  2. Turley: “This is a journalism professor who is referring to Zorn’s “unethical nature” for wanting to wait for the facts of a story to develop before declaring that it was murder.”

    ***
    This is just one more piece of evidence on a growing mountain of evidence that hiring ‘professors’ with a goal of ‘diversity and ‘equity’ rather than excellence or even sanity is rotting the soul of academia and oozing corruption into all of our institutions.

    Unfortunately, many of us have come to expect no better of them.

    1. Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), inequity, and exclusion under the ostensibly “secular” Pro-Choice “ethical” religion.

      A modern jurisprudence where the judge and jury rule on plausible rather than probable cause a la warlock trials of past, present, and progressive.

      That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. Baby Lives Matter

  3. If you take the time to look up Steven Thrasher, you’ll find that he, like Nikole Hannah-Jones, is black. So is Karen Attiah. These people – yep, that’s the term – make outrageous comments because they can get away with it because of the color of their skin.

    1. Semco– I think it is Thailand, or maybe India, where the monkeys at a temple can do no wrong. They rob tourists and raise hell without any fear of reprimand. Somehow that reminds me of what appears to be happening here.

  4. Is a school shooter “worthy of murder”? Is being a minor a shield against deadly force in all circumstances?

    Adam Toledo, allegedly AKA “Lil Homicide”, allegedly a member of the gang Latin Kings, was with an adult in the wee hours, shooting up an intersection. He pulled a gun, twisted, and threw it. Unfortunately, that looked like he was drawing to fire to a reasonable human being, who does not have a pause button, slow speed button, or the ability to regenerate their own life.

    Drawing a gun in front of a police officer is a really stupid thing to do. He was trying to toss a weapon. With a name like “Lil Homicide”, there are probably some specific reasons why he would not want the police to find that weapon. The cop doesn’t know if you are drawing it to blow the cop’s head off, or to drop it. But it was a very rapid move.

    You can’t expect a police officer to just stand there, and wait to see if that person is going to shoot him or not. The cop can’t tell how old the suspect is. Young man, shooting up an intersection where innocent people are driving by, runs from police, and draws a firearm at the end.

    But you’re a racist if you either want an investigation before drawing conclusions, if you question whether the cop was racist, or if you in any way suppose this might be justified.

    This is yet another example of how this is a mob mentality. There is no critical reasoning involved.

    1. Karen S says:

      “But you’re a racist if you either want an investigation before drawing conclusions, if you question whether the cop was racist, or if you in any way suppose this might be justified.

      This is yet another example of how this is a mob mentality. There is no critical reasoning involved.”

      While I disagree with the blanket statement in your first paragraph, I do agree that there is a mob mentality. If it were up to me, these local murders would be left to local news and not sensationalized nationally for ratings. Better yet, they would not be reported until AFTER there has been an official investigation. These matters should be addressed in a court of law not in the court of public opinion.

      I realize that ain’t gonna happen. So, the people will jump to conclusions on insufficient facts. C’est la vie.

      Jeff Silberman

      1. Jeff, surely you have noticed a trend, remarked upon in this very blog post, where those who question the narrative are called racist, etc. It’s an effort to shut people up instead of simply discussing concerns.

        I absolutely agree with you that most killings should remain in local news, unless there are extreme sprees, such as occurs in Chicago. I also agree that these matters should be investigated in a non biased fashion by the criminal justice system.

        It’s more than frustrating when the mob makes these snap judgements, so often wrong. Time and time again, police officers are found to have lawfully used force, but by that time, their career is over. The pitchfork mob has ruined their lives.

        1. Karen says:

          “Jeff, surely you have noticed a trend, remarked upon in this very blog post, where those who question the narrative are called racist, etc. It’s an effort to shut people up instead of simply discussing concerns.”

          I have. Have you noticed how Republicans call liberal Jews “anti-semites” for supporting BDS? Have you noticed how Republicans call Leftists “socialists” who want to raise the minimum wage?

          Both sides employ this bad faith attack on their opponent’s motivation to shut them up.

          Agreed?

      2. Better yet, they would not be reported until AFTER there has been an official investigation. These matters should be addressed in a court of law not in the court of public opinion.

        Your answer is to use the power of govt to restrict the media from reporting any actions until a legal ruling has been reached? Years down the road. How about bloggers? you going to lock them up too? Does it apply to conservatives? How about things that aren’t a crime? Just sleazy? Like Hunter Biden

        1. Chill out. I’m just saying that it would be swell if the media would not nationalize and sensationalize local news stories in a bid for network ratings. It won’t happen, I know.

          As a liberal, it may surprise you to learn that I am all for investigating and prosecuting Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, if either broke the law. I will not scream “witch-hunt” like Trumpists will do if Trump is prosecuted. Place either or both Bidens in the prison cell next to Trump and his cronies.

          I agree that the MSM downplayed the Hunter Biden story, but then Fox/Turley totally ignore the Republican’s Big Lie. Each side panders to their audience. Sad, but true. Wish it were not so, but that too is not going to change.

  5. Steven Thrasher missed this scoop

    Two days ago, Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano age76 had a shootout with a 16 year old punk. It isn’t over yet.

  6. If you fictionalize a news release it becomes much more interesting and readable. Forget about disclaimers, they’re not necessary.

  7. Thank you for your extremely timely and informed commentary on this subject. What I find MOST OFFENSIVE is the fact that any contemporary “journalist” who is guilty of FRAMING articles and published works for ADVOCACY in any way is UNDERMINING ALL OF JOURNALISM in a way that strikes at the very foundation of truth in all media.

    For example, when I was growing up as a child and first learning about reporting, reporters, articles, media and journalism, the PREVAILING STANDARDS OF TRANSPARENCY and UNBIASED, EQUAL ATTENTION to BOTH SIDES of any subject and story WERE PARAMOUNT!!! The effect of this over decades of “modern” journalistic expression produced a DEEP SEEDED SENSE OF CONFIDENCE in the “NEWS” and published News Sources. Being that these standards are so ultimately subjective and there is no authoritative gauge for a Balanced Article, other than the developed skill and experience of the individual reader, are we not just decrying “fraud” in a system that was SET UP to be frauded?!?

    HOW is the media and “journalism” supposed to be “fixed” at this point???

    1. Horseactivist- the way it it fixed is for people who are intelligent and want heterodox opinions to pay for and support other media. I read all media including Leftist media like NYT, WaPo, and AP but I also follow Washington Times, NY Post, WaPo, Daily Wire, Federalist, The Hill, etc.

      The NY Post has done the most truthful and investigative reporting over the last 3 years. If you need to subscribe to read it, do so. It is a place you can find truthful reporting.

  8. The false narrative on the FL accident is trending on Twitter.

    As Professor Turley has pointed out in the past, MSM has traded in its integrity, objectivity, and respect for “journalist activism.” Their so-called news articles are little more than activist pieces with a few facts thrown in. Many of them read like something a jr. high schooler would write.

    1. Journalism activism? I’d call it what it is, propaganda. There is nothing remotely akin to journalism.

  9. There has never been a leftist issue that did not enjoy Eric Zorn’s full support. Now he is shocked to harvest the seeds he had sown.

  10. Remember the Atlanta Olympic park bombing suspect, July 27, 1996?

    News anchors Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw & Peter Jennings crucified security guard, Richard Jewell.

    Security guard Richard Jewell discovered the bomb before detonation and began clearing spectators out of the park.
    After the bombing, Jewell was initially investigated as a suspect by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and news media aggressively focused on him as the presumed culprit when he was actually innocent. In October 1996, the FBI declared Jewell was no longer a person of interest. Following three more bombings in 1997, Rudolph was identified by the FBI as the suspect. In 2003, Rudolph was arrested, and in 2005 he agreed to plead guilty to avoid a potential death sentence. Rudolph was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for his crimes.

  11. Caution: Every academic and journalist out there, make sure you don’t say something stupid because the champion of free speech himself, Jonathan Turley, will be there to chronicle and criticize whatever you said!!

    Plus when he does criticize you he’ll find a way to tee off on Nikole Hannah-Jones, MSNBC and CNN, too.

    Since you used to appear on MSNBC Turley, maybe you can share the details of your departure from there? I’m curious to know all the free speech stuff about that.

    eb

    1. Anonymous

      I read your comments thinking that I was reading the other (better) Anonymous.

      My mistake, because you are particularly unpleasant today.

      Suggestion: control your bitterness.

      Bitterness is an unpleasant trait and you come across as an unpleasant person.

      Also, you do the Lefty causes no favors if you come across as snarky and ugly while defending the Left.

    2. @Anonymous,

      Lets put this in perspective.
      Since you’re clearly not from Chicago…
      Over the weekend, there was a shooting.
      A group of black gangbangers pulled a couple (man and a woman) from their car and shot them. Killing the man, critically wounding the woman.
      This happened around 9:00pm. Their only offense was that the couple were flying the Puerto Rican flag from their car.

      Not you most likely missed this story because the Chicago Tribune didn’t run the story. Since they are part of a larger national group of newspapers, the story wasn’t picked up and replayed.
      My guess is that the Mayor or someone else didn’t want the story to run. As Turley points out… the LK (Latin Kings) is a dangerous gang. Most likely this could be the start of a gang war

      BTW, the shooting was actually live streamed by someone…

      I’m surprised that the story was about Zorn and not columnist Kass. He’s probably one of the very few Republican/Conservative people on the Trib’s staff.

      1. Tragic story. Nothing to do with what I posted, but a horific situation nonetheless. We have a violent culture that is at the root of many of our problems, and we’re known for it around the world.

        eb

  12. One wonders why anyone would trust corporate media. Could it be that this is why their ratings are rapidly falling? There was a time when we watched half an hour of national news, a half hour of local news and read the paper. There were editors and legal teams who cautioned reporters to get the facts straight and verify their sources before they went to print or went on air.

    In the Information Age and the 24 hour news cycle, the consumer is bombarded with a barrage of loud, angry noise, misinformation and deception from sources that once prided themselves in integrity and truth. How can one sort through the garbage to find the truth? It is not easy but there are still individuals practicing journalism, unfortunately, they are a rare find in corporate media.

    To the consumer, “Proceed with extreme caution.”

  13. Ultimately what they want is a Gestapo state police force. The Birchers had a “support your local police” campaign which started in 1963, warning against Federal destruction of local police forces in order to replace them with a Federal force.
    Looks like they were right all along.

  14. Democrats and the Left are totally disassociated from the truth. And because our Press is 98% Democrat and Leftists, that means the news and information that the average American hears/reads is totally disassociated from the truth as well.

    Our journalism schools have become the trainers of smear and propaganda machines. Note this prof’s title. Some more accurate titles might include:
    – Chair of Pravda Journalism
    – Chair of Squealer and Newspeak Indoctrination … or maybe just be honest and callhim
    – Chair of Leftist Smear Machine Journalism

    Orwell couldn’t have been more prescient. Democrats and the Left have their Press Squealer pigs doing their dirty work ruining our country. They are a dangerous force trying to destroy the US democracy and any person who stands in their way.

  15. Turley says, “We have been writing about the assault on foundational concepts of neutrality in journalism in academia.“

    Why don’t you write a column about the assault on foundational concepts of neutrality of paid legal contributors to propaganda networks such as Fox News?

    You vilify Fox’s cable competitors, CNN and MSNBC. At times, you do reveal that you are on the Fox payroll. And what? If a prospective juror is exposed in voir dire as having a bias against a defendant, he is excused. If a judge has a conflict of interest in a court case, he must recuse herself.

    How is it that you do not recuse yourself from passing judgment on your network’s competitors? What does it serve to simply notify your readers that your commentary is biased? Who can trust your legal opinion knowing that you cannot be impartial and objective? Ethically, you should refrain from offering your opinion where you have a conflict of interest!

    Since you have been retained by Fox, you have criticized Hannity and Pirro only ONCE for taking the stage at a Trump rally. You said way back in 2018:

    “I have been highly critical of what I view as the erosion of the line between journalism and advocacy in cable news…. The President called up Hannity and Pirro to the stage and made things worst for Fox News by saying “I have a few people that are right out here, and they’re very special. They’ve done an incredible job for us. They’ve been with us from the beginning, also.” Referring to Fox anchors as his people who are doing “an incredible job for us” is a serious problem for network. Hannity then declared (likely in jest), in pointing at reporters at the rally, “By the way, all those people in the back are fake news.”

    Likely in jest? LIKELY IN JEST?

    Damn Liar!

    1. Why don’t you write a column about the assault on foundational concepts of neutrality of paid legal contributors to propaganda networks such as Fox News?

      Fox does not routinely lie and endorse violent aggression against the other side. Point to Fox marks you as untethered from reality

      1. The Big Lie for which Fox is being sued for billions for defaming 2 election tabulation companies.

    2. Classic “whataboutism!” What good is Turley’s complaints about Fox when you and your progressive nitwit friends posts 24/7 about it here? It would be so redundant if Turley piled on too.

      I hate Fox as much as any other network. Fox is generally trash.

      OTOH Fox has a dedicated leftist Chris Wallace, a cradle to grave Democrat like Turley, hosting their most critical Sunday news show. No one will hold their breath waiting for any other MSM network to do the same, hire a cradle to grave Rep. to host their most important Sunday news show.

      If there’s one syllable Turley posted in this article with which you disagree, make your case, otherwise you’re just another of many whining leftist Demonkraut progressives crying about being exposed.

      1. Constance says:

        “OTOH Fox has a dedicated leftist Chris Wallace, a cradle to grave Democrat like Turley, hosting their most critical Sunday news show. No one will hold their breath waiting for any other MSM network to do the same, hire a cradle to grave Rep. to host their most important Sunday news show.”

        You are correct. The MSM will not hire a Trumpist who will spread the “Big Lie.” MSM are not propagandists like Fox, Newsmax, OAN and Infowars.

        Jeff Silberman

    3. Jeff, for the billionth time you show yourself to be a one trick pony. Turley has more credibility that the entire Fredo, Lemon, Maddow, Cooper, Blitzer, Tapper, Burnett,Hayes and O’Donnell cabel combined. These propagandists put forth there bull**it every night for hours. Turley is an occasional guest on Fox. My guess is his total airtime per week is less than half an hour. How many times have these idiots testified before Congress? Your outrage has zero equivalence in terms of actual bias. The fact that Turley is a Fox CONTRIBUTOR does not negate his credibility.
      Of course he is not going to take a check from a network with which he has ideological differences.
      That would make him a hypocrite.
      A staple of democrat ideology.

      1. Paul says:

        “Of course he is not going to take a check from a network with which he has ideological differences. That would make him a hypocrite.”

        Radio talker, Mark Levin (a second rate Michael Savage) has a Sunday program on Fox and appears on Hannity’s program weekly (who refers to Levin as “the great one”) is promoting his new book, “American Marxists.” This smear will serve only to increase the rage and polarization in this country. On the heels of this book, one now hears other Fox hosts suddenly throwing around “Marxists” in describing Democrats. As more Fox hosts embrace this demonization of the Left, will Turley simply ignore it?

        If past is prologue, he will.

        Turley will NOT hold his own Fox colleagues to the same standard of journalistic integrity which he demands of Fox’s cable competitors. And as I have stated elsewhere today, you cannot ask him this question because he is not willing to entertain any inquires from his readers. He is beyond reproach.

        1. Jeff:

          The criticism that the Democrat Party has gradually leaned farther Left, even towards socialism, is not new.

          The Democrat Party has, in fact, gone far Left. Bill Maher has been making some cutting remarks on the phenomenon. (I’m waiting for the day he wakes up and realizes he’s a Libertarian.)

          Democrats have produced socialists like Bernie Sanders. Then there’s the Democratic Socialist Party of America, whose members include AOC and Rashida Tlaib.

          You are surely aware of the normalization of anti-capitalist sentiment. What do those activists wish to replace capitalism with? Socialism. The experiment that’s failed over 100 times, and is responsible for the murder of 100 million people. By contrast, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Yet which one does the Left want to try? Socialism. Of course.

          I have become quite hardened to the Left. I didn’t used to be this way. Perhaps, one day, the Democrat Party will stop pushing the castration of boys, letting biological males outcompete girls in their own sports division, racist identity politics, their love affair with socialism, and trying to impoverish political dissenters. It sure would be nice to go back to the times when Democrats and Republicans shared a love of our country, and we just bickered over the best way to run it. i.e. high taxes and bigger government or lower taxes and smaller government. One day, maybe…

          1. Karen S,

            There is so much that you have just said with which I take a contrary view. Even if- for the sake of argument- your views are valid, calling Democrats “Marxists,” is a smear and will further polarize the parties.

            If Turley will not disclaim his network Fox for promoting Levin’s “American Marxists,” and embracing that hate, please don’t ask me to denounce those on the Left who will begin calling Republicans “”American Nazis.” If you will not condemn engendering such rage, we will treat you in kind.

            Tit for tat.

  16. Mr. Thrasher grabbed the limelight with a premature (and possibly false) claim because an obscure academic has few ways to be in the news (look at the waiting lists for professors hoping to be called to comment on almost anything).

    Thrasher said what the media wanted so he got quoted – regardless of his honesty.

    And this is what passes as an educator today.

    Lefties really are scum for the most part.

  17. We have seen the consequences of this idiocy over the past several years.

    Nearly every major media story with political overtones has been WRONG.

    If you wonder why so many people still beleive the election was a fraud – the first place you should look is the media.

    Today we can pretty much count on the fact that if the major media “push a narrative” it is WRONG.

    What I do not grasp is that these people can be THIS STUPID.

    the currency of journalism is trust – undermine that and eventually only zealots listen.

    Today I automatically presume any story in WaPo NYT or other major media is wrong in some important way.

    But even addressing the specifics of these pieces.

    What is the end game ? As we are seeing across the country – less aggressive policing is resulting in rising crime, more violence, more murders. ‘

    Maybe “this time is different” – the left claims that alot, but history tells us that is NOT the case.

    Rising crime and particularly violence politically empowers the RIGHT – not the left.

    NYC is electing a new mayor and the top issue is reducing crime.

    I am personally very disappointed – during the obama administration there was a real oportunity for meaningful criminal justice reform – Obama Blew it. during the Trump administration – that was again possible, but it did not happen.

    Now meaningful reform is growing ever further out of reach.

    As violence rises politicians on the right and the left are with near certainty going to pivot towards appearing “tough on crime”.
    Rather what works and what does not.

    1. Turley writes that “He has been in the forefront of framing violence in more redemptive or justified terms as when he argued in Slate that the “destruction of a police precinct is not only a tactically reasonable response to the crisis of policing, it is a quintessentially American response, and a predictable one.” Using his logic, one might conclude that Thrasher believes that January 6th was also a quintessentially American response, and a predictable one. The only indication that he might not believe that is the fact that he is an anti-American, anti-constitutionalist, pro-totalitarian and fails to possess even a modicum of honesty and ethical values. One has to wonder how the leadership at universities allow such mutt-heads to remain on staff.

Leave a Reply