Hannah-Jones: “All Journalism Is Activism”

We have been discussing the academic saga over the offer of an academic chair by the University of North Carolina to controversial New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones. UNC rescinded the offer but then re-extended the offer without tenure. Hannah-Jones accepted but then changed her mind and demanded tenure. UNC then gave her tenure and she changed her mind to take a chair at Howard University. The opposition to Hannah-Jones was based on the historical errors in her 1619 Project and criticism over biased journalism. Now Hannah-Jones is removing any doubt about her view of journalism. She has declared that “all journalism is activism.”

Hannah-Jones told CBS News that journalists now have set aside notions of neutrality. She noted:

“When you look at the model of The Washington Post, right? ‘Democracy dies in darkness,’ that’s not a neutral position. But our methods of reporting have to be objective. We have to try to be fair and accurate. And I don’t know how you can be fair and accurate if you pretend publicly that you have no feelings about something that you clearly do.”

Reporters are now claiming greater and greater license to frame news to illustrate the truth as they see it. They nod to the need for fairness but then note that they have to tell the truth about society and politics as they see it.  They then seek to frame rather than report the news. Hannah-Jones is a great example of how this new journalism quickly becomes raw advocacy.

We have have been discussing how writerseditorscommentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. Even journalists are leading attacks on free speech and the free press. Bias is now treated as something that is natural and motivating. Recently, Lauren Wolfe, the recently fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.” 

This movement 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. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted 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.”

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.  Hannah-Jones has been a leading voice in attacking those with opposing views. A year ago, the New York Times denounced its own publishing of an editorial of Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House.  It was one of the one of the lowest points in the history of modern American journalism. While Congress would “call in the troops” six months later to quell the rioting at the Capitol on January 6th, New York Times reporters and columnists called the column historically inaccurate and politically inciteful. Reporters insisted that Cotton was even endangering them by suggesting the use of troops and insisted that the newspaper cannot feature people who advocate political violence. (One year later, the New York Times published a column by an academic who has previously declared that there is nothing wrong with murdering conservatives and Republicans).

It is thus no surprise that Hannah-Jones will now teach the same biased approach journalism to students at Howard University. What is saddening is the silence of most journalism professors as they watch their profession just become a new form of advocacy. Few want to risk the professional attacks in opposing figures like Hannah-Jones. However, this movement is killing their profession. Polls show trust in the media at an all-time low with less than 20 percent of citizens trusting television or print media. Yet, reporters and academics continue to destroy the core principles that sustain journalism and ultimately the role of a free press in our society.

 

 

 

 

123 thoughts on “Hannah-Jones: “All Journalism Is Activism””

  1. ANTITHESIS OF THE “1619 PROJECT”

    This descendant of illegal aliens, consequently an illegal alien herself, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and her ilk must be summarily deported. The status of slaves in America was transformed from “property” to “illegal alien” under the Naturalization Act of 1802 upon the issuance of the unconstitutional emancipation proclamation in 1863. A crucial paradox is the fact that the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers; the Israelite slaves possessed the capacity, gumption and acumen for endeavor and self-reliance, in stark contrast to immutably innate parasitism.

    Nikole Hannah-Jones, through her notorious, extremist, subversive and seditious “1619 Project,” is demonstrably in league with America’s known enemies, “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…” and, thereby, committing capital treason against the United States, not dissimilar to the perfidy of Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg. Americans, actual and non-hyphenated, this is the face of the enemy; this is the direct and mortal enemy of America.

  2. Jonathan: Your continuing attacks on Nicole Hannah-Jones reveal your own bias–your own refusal to recognize that systemic racism is still a serious problem in the US. “Objectivity” in journalism is a noble goal. But objectivity is rarely attainable in most life endeavors. We all filter our world views through the prism of our preconceptions, prejudices, bias, education, etc.. No one is bias free and that includes journalists. Journalism as “raw advocacy” is on full display every day on FoxNews. Tucker Carlson doesn’t make any pretense of “neutrality” on his show. Don’t recall you ever criticizing Carlson for his conspiracy theories and false claims. Nope. Your criticism is reserved for Black journalists. We owe a debt of gratitude to Woodward and Bernstein for their zealous investigative reporting of the Watergate scandal. W & B had a “bias” against corruption at the highest levels of government. They didn’t receive a Pulitzer Prize by following your rule of “neutrality”. They were junk yard dogs in pursuing every lead in their investigation of Nixon’s criminality.

    The real threats to journalism don’t come from journalists like Hannah-Jones. An international consortium of investigative journalists has just reported that a firm in Israel, NSO, has been selling its spy-ware technology (“Pegasus”) to governments to spy on journalists, politicians, human rights activists and critics. “Pegasus” was installed on the phone of the fiancee of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi just days after the journalist was murdered under orders from Saudi Crown Prince bin Salman. Some other countries using “Pegasus” are Morocco, the UAE and Mexico. More journalists have been murdered in Mexico than any other country “Pegasus” permits governments to track the location of journalists thru their phones and read their E-mails and messages. This obviously has a chilling affect on the “free speech” rights of journalists to gather information and report on government corruption. During the last months of the Trump administration they did the same thing- trying to silence Trump’s critics. Your buddy AG Barr sought the phone and other records of journalists and got a court to put a “gag” order on Google and others to prevent the targets from knowing about this intrusive activity. Now one would think that as a big proponent of “free speech” you would be focusing on the real threats to an independent press as we saw under Trump/Barr… and now under “Pegasus”. I guess not. That would require you to punch holes in Barr’s attempt to rehabilitate his dismal reputation. And you won’t do that. Your own pro-Barr bias is a good reason why you are the person least qualified to talk about “objectivity” and “neutrality”!

    1. Dennis says:

      “Journalism as “raw advocacy” is on full display every day on FoxNews. Tucker Carlson doesn’t make any pretense of “neutrality” on his show. Don’t recall you ever criticizing Carlson for his conspiracy theories and false claims.”

      Nor will he. Ever! Turley will claim that Carlson is not a journalist, but an opinion maker. The problem is that his viewers get their news from him and don’t realize that he is not a journalist. Turley won’t acknowledge the fact that Fox prime time entertainers are holding themselves out as journalists. They are purposely blurring the line between opinion and news. This has been Fox “News” secret sauce from its inception.

      Jeff Silberman

  3. Nikole Hannah-Jones is not a journalist. She is a presstitute. In fact, journalism scarcely exists today. And there are no practicing journalists at all in the major mainstream media. There are only presstitutes. That said, we must give credit where credit is due. Nikole Hannah-Jones and The New York Times are among the very best presstitutes in the entire presstitution industry.

  4. The Pulitzer price is supposed to be for only the very best work. The 1619 project has been criticized by scholars of both the right and the left. A book on history is supposed to be about history as it happened not a fantasized interpretation. If an author has to apologize for her work she is admitting that the quality of her work is sub par. She admits that her work is poorly presented but she has no problem keeping the $15,000 Pulitzer Prize money. Rest assured, it won’t be the last race baiting money she receives. While I’m on race baiting here’s a plan put forward by Mr. Kendi. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/. Please not the part where Mr. Kendi discusses the disciplinary tools to require people to comply as part of the agenda of the new government Department of Racism to be known as the DOA. You can’t make this s—t up.

  5. At least she’s being partially honest. She should just say that she is a biased op-ed writer. Objectivity is not her forte.

  6. Turley sighs:

    “What is saddening is the silence of most journalism professors as they watch their profession just become a new form of advocacy….. However, this movement is killing their profession. Polls show trust in the media at an all-time low with less than 20 percent of citizens trusting television or print media. Yet, reporters and academics continue to destroy the core principles that sustain journalism and ultimately the role of a free press in our society.”

    When Turley allows himself to be held accountable for his opinions by submitting to questions from an interviewer, he may be queried about the irony of his bemoaning the silence of most journalism professors with his own silence about the network which employs him, namely, Fox, which started the entire trend to advocacy journalism in the first instance by claiming that the MSM was irremediably biased.

    We can’t overlook the fact that journalism is a business, and much of the finger-pointing is just a means by which to discredit one’s media competitors in a bid to steal their audience. I suspect that there are many journalists who have a personal vendetta against a former news employer which they believe have mistreated them. There is much back-stabbing and score-settling motivating their journalism to which we are not privy.

    Ever since Trump has called the MSM “fake news” and pushed Fox News into a corner to defend that accusation, war has been waged. Once you unleash the nuclear option, there is no turning back, for no one will concede that they are fake. The stakes could not be higher, and there can be no peace until one side has been irretrievably discredited. Until such time, the Left and the Right will remain siloed in their respective news echo-chambers. This is total war, and Turley will not long be able to sustain his presence as an “objective” critic. In times like these, there can be no spectators who remain on the sidelines; “you are either with us or against us.”

    1. “Fox,which started the entire trend to advocacy trend in journalism” is a ridiculous obvious lie. The opinion section always advocated. Dewey poisoned our educational system when just a coincidence FDR became president,by embracing the atheistic Marxist belief in the autonomous person. This with previously unconstitutional unions were under threat of adding or packing the court until he got his way. Then as Kipling poem The Gods Of The Copy Heading Says we abandoned them and followed the path of mankind. Doom always follows

    2. Jeff, there can be ” spectators”. Those would be people who actually identify the truth. I admit those can be hard to find. But if every definition is subjective, like most on the left would like it to be, there is no point for any intellectual discourse. And Fox did not start the trend in advocacy journalism. They were just the first network to push back on the left leaning MSM. It is called balance. And judging by the ratings for the last decade at least, the American people have a tremendous appetite for that balance.
      So in order to be legitimate, every contributor should allow him or herself to be interviewed? That is ridiculous. Turley like many others is a contributor who states his opinion. There is no need for cross examination. If all opinion contributors were to be subject to cross, you would need a 24 hour network just for that.
      The subject matter of this particular post unless I am wrong deals with the ideal that journalism SHOULD NOT be objective. That is absurd. Of course we have our own biases. But in order for the ” journalistic system” to work journalists need to put them aside. I am sure that there are many moral defense lawyers that defend clients that they are absolutely sure are guilty. And my guess is they agonize over that fact constantly. But for the system to work they need to put aside their personal biases and give their ” guilty ” client the best defense they can. The same holds for journalists. If they want to state their ” opinion” there are op-eds for that.
      And again we go down the road of personal choice and information. It is up to the individual to decide what is pertinent and relevant as to what ” facts” the journalist presents to them.
      Individuals need to separate the facts from suppositions and biased reporting.
      As far as stealing viewers, I doubt that there are many msnbc viewers that would switch to Fox under any circumstances. And vice versa. People gravitate towards what reflects their core beliefs. From a business standpoint, the networks try to ascertain what those beliefs are and shape their content accordingly.
      To play in your ballpark for a while, arguably the most divisive person to middle America was Trump. Now that he is no longer President and basically barred from social media, his chief antagonist, cnn, has seen their ratings plummet. Lemon can’t even get a million viewers a night. That is what happens when you are a one trick pony.
      When I read my morning paper about a building collapsing ( Sunrise), or a tornado I don’t need to read about it from a climate change advocate’s point of view. Just give me the unbiased facts. Who, what , where. Those are objective. The why can be subjective. Usually to be determined by further investigation.
      Is that too much to ask?
      You may choose not to reply because you may not want to take the word of a ” Trumpist”.

      1. Paul,

        We can only agree on the Death Penalty. Apart from that, our differences are night and day. And it does not seem that either of us can change his mind. We are both recalcitrant. There is no hope of our having a meeting of the mind short of a long face-to-face discussion preferably with some truth serum- alcohol. I think you said you lived in Chicago. I have a college buddy who lives there. I’ll let you know if I ever happen to be in your neck of the woods. Until then, peace.

        1. Jeff, I really never thought that I could change your mind on anything. I simply wanted to have a respectful discussion of current events of which we might have different viewpoints. And I thought it started out that way. Unlike many on this blog we conceded to the other on certain points of view. I thought that was the purpose of posting on a blog.
          You even said something complimentary to the effect that I represented the type of person that you thought Turley wanted to post on his blog.
          I guess once I fell into your definition of a ” Trumpist” all of my credibility is gone. Sounds a little dismissive and overly judgmental for a champion of the less fortunate.
          But if you no longer want to engage, that is certainly your prerogative. Hopefully you won’t mind when I call out your hypocrisy in the future.
          Yes I do live in the Chicago area. And my offer of dinner holds.

          1. Paul,

            Despite the fact that you appear not to accept the fact that Trump is a conman, I am willing to make an exception in your case because you are civil. Certainly you are a cut above the general run of this place. I would not mind having a discussion at length with you, but it would be too exhausting to attempt to make any headway under these conditions. We are at loggerheads. Until we can establish some basic facts with which we can both agree, we cannot begin to have an argument. So far, we have agreed on precious little. I fear that our world views are irreconcilable. Not unlike a religious person and an atheist. We may just have to learn to get along with each other somehow despite our profound differences.

            This explains why the Left and Right media preach to their own nowadays and have given up trying to present the other side to their respective audiences. To do so is pointless and merely antagonizes their viewers who don’t want to hear it. Most viewers tune-in for validation because thinking is tiresome after a hard day at work, and most consumers just want to throw on a feed bag and be told what to think.

            We might be able to break down the ideological barrier between us, but it will require us to do a sit-down along with a neutral party to chaperone us just in case the argument gets out of hand!

            1. Thank you for your reply. Don’t know where this leaves us exactly.
              But let me guess who would decide on the ” neutral party”.
              Good luck
              Good health
              Replying in the future is up to you.

        2. “We are both recalcitrant. “

          I am going to enter here. Only one is recalcitrant, and that is the one that refuses to use data and facts to prove his observations and feelings. But we already know that Jeff refuses to deal with facts though many others on the other side are willing to do so daily.

          It makes sense to you that your side wishes to cancel out its opposition. In that fashion you never have to prove the case you are unable to prove.

    3. “Fox, which started the entire trend to advocacy journalism . . .”

      Someone doesn’t know much about the history of journalism in America.

      “Yellow journalism” was “advocacy journalism” — in the 19th century.

      Walter Duranty’s whitewashing of the Soviet Union, published by the NYT, was “advocacy journalism” — in the 1930’s.

      1. Sam, Sam, Sam,

        I was referring to cable television, not the history of journalism.

        1. Why do “progressives” NEVER admit their errors? Are you THAT terrified, poor thing? Opinionated journalism is as old as the republic. Maybe you didn’t have to take any history classes at that tony Eastern finishing school?

          1. Finishing schools are for girls, you dolt; I went to a Preparatory school for men.

            1. You would have done better if you had skipped Preparatory school for men and stuck with Finishing School. Your postings show you to be little more than a spoiled brat.

              1. I was spoiled growing up, something which I am ashamed to say I have in with Trump, though I don’t deny it as he does.

                1. He’s a workaholic, so don’t try to compare yourself with him. He leaves you in the dust.

  7. Turley Never Addresses Rightwing Media

    Turley writes about ‘media bias’ almost every day. And typically his criticisms are geared towards The New York Times and Washington Post. Like those two sources have an obligation to give equal weight to rightwing media views. ..They don’t..!

    The New York Times has no duty whatsoever to make sure their coverage corresponds with Fox News talking points. The Washington Post is read by urban professionals. It doesn’t pander to small town Christian Conservatives.

    Yet Turley keeps pretending that our best-known news organizations are ‘biased’ if they don’t reflect the views of hard-right, anti-government types. As though The New York Times should be respectful of Anti-Vaxers and Climate Change Deniers. Those groups deserve no respect from fact-based journalists!

    Turley has been inside the rightwing bubble so long, he honestly thinks conservatives are a persecuted majority. Consequently too many of Turley’s columns have a sour grapes tone. An attitude like, “They’re not playing fair with us”. That persecution complex is all too common amongst today’s conservatives.

    1. Fox mostly separates fact from opinion.

      CNN, MSNBC,ABV, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo frequently do not.

      That is where the problem lies, the separation of fact from opinion.

      Do you know the difference between fact and opinion? Apparently not.

      1. Gray Anonymous, no one outside the rightwing bubble respects Fox News or thinks, for even a second, that Fox separates fact from opinion.

        For almost 30 years Fox News has been widely perceived as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. And during the Trump years Fox News was so connected to the White House the relationship was described as a ‘closed information loop’.

        1. You DO know, don’t you, that all of the corporate “mainstream media” is the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party? You know that, right?

        2. I can’t help it if you or the others can’t separate fact from fiction.

          Any time you wish to prove your contentions go ahead. Then think of the Russia Hoax, the Steele Dossier, Ukraine and all the other lies that the left wing fed you for four years.

          You didn’t see that on Fox who I am not in love with but I recognize is far better than the others under discussion.

          It is also a hoax that Fox is an arm of the Republicans. It isn’t. It was founded because the MSM was so far to the left that there was room for a channel to reflect the other side. Fox had to be pretty honest to survive.

          You can believe whatever you wish. Anonymous the Stupid will agree with you not me.That should satisfy your needs.

    2. Anonymous says: “Turley Never Addresses Rightwing Media”

      Because he WORKS for Fox News! His contract with his employer will not be renewed if he criticizes Fox or his Fox colleagues. It’s no secret. Turley has an enormous blind spot which is utterly indefensible. He can maintain his veneer of “objectivity” as long as he avoids accountability. And he avoids accountability by refusing being interviewed by journalists or answering questions posed on this blog. He can run, but he cannot hide. Sooner or later, his hypocrisy will catch up with him, and he will have to answer for his one-sided critique of the “age of rage.”

      1. “he will have to answer for…”

        You sound like a nazi before the nazis took over.

    1. ALAN, Republicans defunded the IRS and currently the infrastructure bill is imperiled because Republicans refuse to give the IRS adequate funding. In other words, Republicans are fine with tax cheats. A real ‘law and order party’. ..Not..!

      1. Did you see how Obama/Biden weaponized the IRS against their political foes? The LAST thing this country needs is 85,000 more IRS agents!!

        1. Whenever the Democrats do bad things they attribute those bad things to their opponents. Recently they were trying to attribute defund the police to the Republicans.

  8. “FAKE NEWS”

    REAL “FAKE CHARGES”

    These prosecutors must be charged with malicious prosecution.

    And the Obama/Biden administration and DOJ have done nothing about the real, actual Hunter Biden and Biden family profiteering, influence peddling, money laundering et al. crimes.

  9. The only thing that has changed in the last 40 years (since I have been reading the news) is that now the bias is now out in the open. Before, you would see an important omission here, a twist of a fact there, and one-sided conclusions. Since Trump, the masks have come off and the leftist indoctrination of our schools has reached critical mass. But the behavior goes much further back. Read The Gray Lady Blinked.

  10. She contradicts herself in her statement. The simple solution is to stop buying the WaPo et al. and refuse to pay tuition for students who want to study how to create propaganda and call it “objective reporting.”

  11. ANTITHESIS OF THE “1619 PROJECT”

    This descendant of illegal aliens, consequently an illegal alien herself, Nikole Hannah-Jones, and her ilk must be summarily deported. The status of slaves in America was transformed from “property” to “illegal alien” under the Naturalization Act of 1802 upon the issuance of the unconstitutional emancipation proclamation in 1863. A crucial paradox is the fact that the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers; the Israelite slaves possessed the capacity, gumption and acumen for endeavor and self-reliance, in stark contrast to immutably innate parasitism.

    Nikole Hannah-Jones, through her notorious, extremist, subversive and seditious “1619 Project,” is demonstrably in league with America’s known enemies, “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…” and, thereby, committing capital treason against the United States, not dissimilar to the perfidy of Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg. Americans, actual and non-hyphenated, this is the face of the enemy; this is the direct and mortal enemy of America.

  12. Why do we even have colleges anymore? People doing the hiring seem to be some of the dumbest SOBs around and there is a huge gap between “educated.” and intelligent. The latter no longer existing at institutions of higher learning.

    Pundits on TV are no better and journalists with as much stupidity on display today could be turned out by the DNC and RNC completely bypassing even middle and grade school.

  13. The problem with journalism as advocacy — which I think needs to be spelled out — is hinted at when Mr. Turley refers to the danger that it poses to a “free press.” The danger is that if one position is allowed to dominate and the other quashed through censorship — which is what we’re witnessing happen daily, including the White House’s censorship of so-called “misinformation” — it then leads to only state-approved media, like Pravda, and is used to advance a narrow ideological position, contributing eventually to totalitarianism. CNN and NYT and WaPo will be the new Pravda. In Canada, it’s the CBC. And that’s precisely what authoritarians like those who push CRT want. They don’t want a free or democratic society or a free press. They want a collectivist society run by authoritarians like themselves, in which only one point of view is allowed and those who disagree are arrested and sent to re-education camps, or even eliminated. We have an early version of that now with so-called “diversity training” which is now mandatory in some companies and government offices. And that sort of thinking drummed into children from an early age. It’s all a kind of response to a caricature or strawman that the Left continually advances, and which Trump (for them) became a symbol of. They are so afraid of whatever he is supposed to represent — they say it’s “fascism” — that they’re willing to become fascists to suppress it. It’s a psychological projection on a mass scale, a real case of mass hysteria.

  14. Turley criticizes what he does on a regular basis. His column on corporations as surrogates is literally the very thing he bemoans on this column.

    “ Now Hannah-Jones is removing any doubt about her view of journalism. She has declared that “all journalism is activism.”

    The irony here is Hanna-Jones is right. Turley seems to be falling victim to a growing case of cognitive dissonance. He seems to be falling into the same intellectual trap that enslaves conspiracy theorists into a perpetual suspicion of anything not conforming to a badly preconceived notion.

    Hanna-Jones had recognized and is willing to correct the mistakes made by the 1619 project. That’s a significant difference from Trump supporters who cannot accept the idea of recognizing a problem with their own arguments.

    Turley is a journalist simply by having his columns published by the Hill and other publications. Turley’s criticism, unsurprisingly, is devoid of any mention of Fox News, his employer, long record of doing exactly what he complains about. He would have more credibility if he aimed his harsh hypocritical criticism at his own employer.

    1. Svelaz, two points. Professor Turley has never claimed to be a journalist. According to your posting Hannah-Jones lied to us then took it back and you are all good with that. Hannah-Jones received $15,000 for the Pulitzer Price she was awarded. Svelaz, please direct us to any information you have about her giving the money back that she received for presenting a story founded on untruths. Your a fair guy right. Do a little research and find a link about her giving the money back. Because your a fair guy, we know that soon you will be posting a source that will tell us that she did the right thing by giving back the cash. We will be watching for your post with bated breath.

      1. Thinkitthrough,

        “ Svelaz, two points. Professor Turley has never claimed to be a journalist.”

        That is true, however journalism is defined as the activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast.

        Turley writes extensively for The Hill, appears on Fox News as a commentator dispensing his opinion, and posts his columns on this blog.

        He may not be a journalist by profession, but he’s certain engaging in journalism simply by having a regular column on a newspaper.

        Turley does exactly what he accuses journalists of doing. Engaging in advocacy journalism. In this highly partisan era it’s impossible NOT to be and that includes Turley.

        “ According to your posting Hannah-Jones lied to us then took it back and you are all good with that.”

        She didn’t lie at all. She didn’t dispute that some claims may be debatable. She openly offered to make corrections where necessary. Those historians Turley often mention as critical of the 1619 project actually agree with the basic premise of what the project wants to show. They even supported more discussion on the subject. Turley falsely claims those historians criticize the entire CRT.

        Why would she give back the cash if she did nothing wrong? You assume she lied because she admitted there were claims that she was open to re-evaluating. That’s what a honest person does. Her critics on the other hand have been making falsehoods about the premise of what CRT is about.

          1. Ivan, he’s engaging in journalism and his columns are exactly what he criticizes journalists of doing. He’s involved in being what he is complaining about.

        1. “Turley does exactly what he accuses journalists of doing. Engaging in advocacy journalism.”

          There is a difference between actual news and opinion. Learn the difference.

    2. Svelaz, I’ll try to keep this simple. A journalist just reports the happenings of the day. An opinion writer presents an opinion about the news of the day. We understand that an opinion writer will be making a presentation that we can either trust or not trust. We like to think that a journalist will report the happenings of the day without bias so that we just know what’s going on. If you feel that I can make it any simpler so that you can understand it better let me know.

      1. Thinkitthrough,

        Turley longs for the days of what reporters were back in the good OL’ fashioned 1950’s.

        Journalism today is not what it once was. It impossible to have what Turley wishes it should be. Problem is he is just as responsible for what journalists do today by doing exactly what he complains about. The type of journalism he wants died the day bloggers were able to fact check reporters and news outlet. Dan rather was there first victim.

        Fox News was created to “balance” the biases of the mainstream media by doing and normalizing exactly what Turley complains about. Turley is being disingenuous by not mentioning the effect Fox News has had on media over the years. It was former Senator Al Franken, before he became senator, that he sued Fox News for its claim of being “fair and balanced “ when it clearly wasn’t. The court ruled news need not be truthful in order to be news.

        Turley is just upset about something that his own employer is responsible for creating.

    3. “Hanna-Jones had recognized and is willing to correct the mistakes made by the 1619 project.”

      Her initial statement was ludicrous and even the NYT couldn’t live with such a crazy statement. What she advocates is garbage. Like the paper from a student you didn’t read Hannah Jone’s paper any more than the student’s paper from over a decade ago. You talk but it is clear you are ignorant of the subject matter.

      Trump supporters are intelligent and for the most part they don’t engage in your preferred activities of lying and linking without having read. You don’t make a case based on fact because you don’t know the difference between opinion and fact.

Leave a Reply to Svelaz Cancel reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: