New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones, went public this week with a call for journalists not to cover shoplifting crimes, even criticizing MSNBC’s Al Sharpton for his discussion of a viral video of a man who recently stole steaks from a New York City Trader Joe’s. Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism and her public criticism of the coverage of the rise in shoplifting vividly shows what such journalism means for the profession.
The MSNBC segment addressed a video of a man who casually walked out of the store with a stack of steaks:
After that video, the store was hit again by a man who shoplifted and insisted in an interview that it was entirely appropriate to do so.
Hannah-Jones objected to MSNBC covering the story because it could support efforts to increase policing and prosecution: “This drumbeat for continued mass incarceration is really horrific to watch. A person stealing steak is not national news, and there have always been thefts from stores. This is how you legitimize the carceral state.”
It was advocacy journalism in full display.
We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. 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.”
Here Hannah-Jones is demonstrating how such advocacy journalism works. There is no question that there is a sharp rise in shoplifting across America, a trend that has resulted in the closing of stores in some cities. As I have previously written, this is due to a lack of deterrence in major cities where prosecution is rare for such crimes and many stores do not even bother calling the police. Even in liberal states like California, politicians have been compelled to establish task forces to combat retail theft. Various Democratic politicians have decried the rising crime trend.
That would seem news. It impacts average citizens with the closure of stores and increase prices due theft. However, by covering the story, Hannah-Jones objects that reporters are working against social justice. She has previously declared that “all journalism is activism.” In this case, she would have media bury such stories because that is not the narrative that she wants viewers to hear.
While Hannah-Jones’ view of journalism is opposed by many viewers, it is in vogue in journalism schools. Indeed, UNC Journalism and Media Dean Susan King fought to give a chair to Hannah-Jones and, in another example of advocacy journalism, even pressured a journalist to frame coverage to help that cause.
The impact of such advocacy journalism is evident in every poll where the faith in the media has plummeted. Indeed, the “Let’s Go Brandon” movement is as much a criticism of the media as it is President Biden. The United States ranked dead last in media trust among 49 countries with just 29% saying that they trusted the media.
Truth is, Jon, you’re an advocacy journalist and your blog is an episode in advocacy journalism. It’s already clear what you think of Hannah-Jones as she is someone you return to for criticism often when the news cycle goes bad back at the mothership of Fox.
See, what we really need to know, since you guys have such close contact with Trump, is whether he wiped his butt with those documents before flushing them?
And for other Magat Trump wannabes running for office the primary question they should face in any contact with the media should be: Will you, also, flush documents? And Will you wipe your butt with them before you do?
Bug
Anonymous
You seem to be a remarkably ugly and bitter person.
Understand if you don’t like your life, but that is no excuse for discourtesy.
Unless you and Turley are friends (and I very much doubt it), then “Jon” presumes a familiarity that you haven’t earned.
And what is your obsession with the nether regions?
Try to use wit; you might be surprised.
Shame on you.
(to “Anonymous,” not monument
Now there’s a vote for he full ticket right there.
Bug
It’s already clear what you think of Hannah-Jones as she is someone you return to for criticism
So blind
Turley has examined Hannah-Jones writtings. You will have to link to an example where he reveals what he thinks about her as a person. I know the concept is foreign to a leftist, that always defaults to destroying the messenger. Always because the position, or ideas, in play, are far past your intellectual capacity to engage.
NHJ is a rabid racist nihilist. And she’s a “journalism” professor who believes “journalists” should lie to destroy society.
She’s a perfect subject for this blog.
Always honored to bring out the true Magat snowflakeness so present in Turley blog consciousness.
Bug
Sorry Bug
I’ll translate to your level of understanding.
Turley questions the ideas, as expressed through writings of Hannah-Jones. Not the person, Hannah-Jones.
As an exercise, take one of her positions and we can examine her position.
OH WAIT!
That is exactly what Professor Turely has done with this very post!. I can infer from your defense of Hannah-Jones today means you support the practice of the media ignoning facts that show the lefts agenda to be flawed and dangerous.
I find that position stupid and dangerous in a free society. Go ahead and argue in support of this position of Hannah-Jones
Turley repeatedly questions Hannah-Jones’ writing. As does Fox. It makes clear what his opinion is. And advocacy journalism is influenced by what’s advocated, hence influenced by opinion.
You’re pretty simple aren’t you?
Bug
Why are you deflecting from the main point? Did L’Orange wipe his butt with those documents before flushing them?
Bug
Who said he flushed anything? What whack conspiracy theory are advocating(without evidence) now?
You still haven’t defended the position staked out by Hannah-Jones. The only thing you have done is attack Turley. Lets get back to ideas.
People who worked in the Trump WH said he flushed documents. Remember Trump complaining about the low water pressure in the showers and toilets at the WH? Now we know why.
Totally. Trump is localized id. He can’t help himself.
Bug
People who worked in the Trump WH said
Like I said. Who? People said is exactly the same as simple fabrication.
Reported on by Maggie Haberman in forthcoming book. She’s been reporting on trump since 2011…, in other words since back when you were getting your dirty goat impulses off watching THE APPRENTICE.
Trumps WH toilet would back up and when the plumber came to snake it out *several times* it was found to be backed up with wet printed paper…
So to return to my original question before your deflection borne in ignorance…, did Trump wipe himself with those documents before flushing them or not?
I wish to God this wasn’t a pressing question but Trump’s presidency took us there, and outside of what happens in Ukraine, there isn’t a more pressing question today.
Bug
So still no evidence. Other than a reporter that spent 5 years “reporting” Russia, Russia, Russia
Trump has regularly sought out interview time with Haberman. He’s impressed with her personally and he’s impressed with who she works for. And since you’re seeminly blinded by cognitive dissonance, let me help out by reminding you trump got a technical electoral college victory in 2016 by enlisting the help of the Russians in the campaign and Vlad Putin played him like the amateur he was every single day of his presidency.
Bug
“People said is exactly the same as simple fabrication.”
Glad to know that’s what you believe.
Trump: “Many people are saying that the Iranians killed the scientist who helped the US because of Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails.”
“I heard a lot of the pundits were saying this was the single greatest group of talent ever assembled for either party.”
Or consider the Reuter’s article that you keep referring to which didn’t name its sources, but claimed that “The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.” The next time you refer to that article, I’ll remind you that you believe “People said is exactly the same as simple fabrication.”
The FBI investigation has determined. is not, some unnamed person said.
And yet you cannot name any FBI spokesperson saying this.
Neither “Four current and former law enforcement officials” nor “multiple Trump White House staffers” names anyone. But you like the former and dislike the latter.
And I have to laugh that you’re silent about Trump making statements that you say are “exactly the same as simple fabrication.”
What are these people’s names?
Oh I forget…, you only watch the network that doesn’t report stuff like this. Do your research and we can discuss the point I originally brought up. Did Trump wipe himself with the documents he flushed or not?
Bug
documents he flushed or not?
Not too keen on defending Hannah-Jones. Exactly why would you attack Turley for critiquing her ideas? You’ll deflect to unsubstantiated lies instead of engage on the topic
You do know this deflection is outstandingly weak, right?
Bug
My deflection? I have been trying to get you to focus on the topic. You refuse to defend the position of Hannah-Jones.
Yes, It’s obvious what you’re trying to do. And It’s exactly at the core of your deflection. Hannah-Jones does fine justifying her work on her own and you’re trying to force me to do it has everything to do with your reaction to my original post and nothing to do with what I actually said. Not that I’m not a fan of her work. I am. Since you’re so hot to discuss it, pick a focused aspect of her work and we can discuss it. I doubt that you will though as my guess is you’re not familiar with her work past alt right media’s take on it.
Why don’t you pick the aspect of her work you are most familiar with and we will discuss that?
Hey Paul. What’s your take on whether Trump wiped himself with those documents before flushing them?
Bug
Bug – vicious rumour at best. We know he was tearing up documents (things he did not want to sign) at the beginning of his term an the National Archives had to tape them together. However, this was his habit as a businessman, to destroy documents he was not going to sign. I am sure he has triple-ply for his ass wipe.
Probably right about the 3 ply, Paul. Looks a lot more ominous on the presidential records act compliance as Trump seemed to have sent much work correspondence to Mar a Lego or relegated it to torn, burned or flushed though.
Bug
Barry Sotero had his papers sent to his Presidential Library in Chicago where they are under seal to this year.
Different story altogether, Paul. No other president has violated so obviously and on a regular basis the presidential records act. Why do you think Trump aides were taping torn documents back together when they found them? They clearly realized when the compliance hammer dropped they were legally exposed in a huge way.
Better yet, and this is why this story gets to the heart of Trump, is that it thematically explains him. His Alfred E. Neumann with a Skrelli grin “I alone can fix It” pronouncements. A guy who came into office saying ‘just trust me, I’m a businessman!’ When literally no one deserved that trust less. Trump is a con man and always was. His treatment of presidential records is just more evidence of it.
Question is, what percentage of the public is okay with it? We seem to be at about 30% Magat as a nation right now. I guess what’s to be played out is a demonstration at a state capitol where MAGATS are met by a group as willing to go violent as they are but coming from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum. That’s how the next civil war starts.
Bug
Paul,
No, Obama did not send the records that he’s required to send to NARA “to his Presidential Library in Chicago where they are under seal to this year.” Maybe you want to read NARA’s FAQ about it:
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/information-about-new-model-for-obama-presidential-library
Understand that in addition to holding records from the person’s time as President, which are required to go to NARA under the Presidential Records Act, presidential libraries often hold records that aren’t covered by the PRA (e.g., records from Obama’s time in the Senate). NARA has the records that Obama was required to give them from his terms as President.
To further elucidate, Paul, let’s look at it this way…, Magats are in roughly the same spot as Vlad Putin is right now…
They’re leaning on digital disinformation and hacking skills to prepare the way for them to steal actual physical territory. Problem is that the same hacking skills can be turned against them after they move and it will completely disrupt their com’s and leave them vulnerable to being cut off from behind…
Which is just shorthand for saying be careful of what you wish for. Trump, and Vlad since he’s this incarnation of mentor to Trump, a current Roy Cohn figure for him, have pushed themselves into more than a bit of a sticky wicket. Their 30% approval ratings can’t drop any further because it means they can’t buy themselves escape routes. If DOJ gets to a place where they know MAGATS càn’t blow up a jury, Trump gets indicted on multiple charges tomorrow.
Guess we have to sit back and watch it all shake out.
Bug
Thanks for posting the FAQ, Anonymous. As usual, quite enlightening.
Bug
Why remain anonymous? It seems to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of journalism. In this blog, Professor Turley is sharing his personal perspective on current events. He is not purporting to report the events of the day. The blog is not a news show. Moreover, in your efforts to malign Fox News, you overlook the fact that Fox News presents its viewers with both news shows and opinion shows. It is disconcerting to many of us to see that participants in the mainstream media and in journalism schools have abdicated their responsibilities to report the news in a fair and balanced manner. We have lost the Fourth Estate. It is a regrettable paradigm shift – a disturbing trend toward an authoritarian and autocratic business model.
Advocacy journalism = bringing op ed persuasion tactics into ‘journalism’. You point out that Turley is writing op ed. Precisely the point I was making in my post. He’s criticizing Hannah-Jones for what he’s doing. Add to that Hannah-Jones being a favorite of Fox to tee off on.
The 4th estate is indeed showing weakness and Fox is a clear and present danger to the U.S. as I’ve maintained consistently. Having said that, investigative journalism is in its heyday as the country was faced with Trump providing so much fodder for investigation.
And on the point of anonymity, there has been a concerted effort on this blog to silence me. I find no problem with taking protective measures in that case. As usual, I’ll sign off as Bug here, which is as much of a true identity as anyone who presents here.
Bug
Turley is writing op ed. Precisely the point I was making in my post. He’s criticizing Hannah-Jones for what he’s doing.
NO you get it all wrong. As the snip i cut and pasted from the post.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, went public this week with a call for journalists not to cover shoplifting crimes, even criticizing MSNBC’s Al Sharpton for his discussion of a viral video of a man who recently stole steaks from a New York City Trader Joe’s.
This is about what the news reports. Hannah-Jones is teaching in journalism school that reporters are not to report facts. Facts that contradict the ASSIGNED narrative.
You are supporting the media intentionally shaping information that contradicts facts. No society can function with such massive disinformation.
hannah is a clown, you are a clown, and the people that aren’t buying it are not magats/maggot/trumpsters or whatever your mother-induced psychoses are telling you.
The more you post, the more I am convinced you are actually a righty simply trying to make the left look more pathetic.
Keep it up.
Thanks Magat.
Why is it in America’s interest just to sit back and let a sworn enemy like Russia help itself to 233,030 square miles of territory? Give Putin an inch, and that is quite a beachhead he will have to take a mile. Isolationists who have taken the wrong position, they should have to suffer consquences for taking it. Their wrongness can have more of a negative impact. It is too easy for people to take the wrong position on an issue without consequences for taking it. Yes, war is bad, but not fighting a just war can be even worse. Consider this: Roger Waters’ father was a pacifist, but changed his mind when he realized just how real the threat from Hitler really was. Had he and others remained pacifists, Hitler could have conquered Britain.
“Isolationists who have taken the wrong position . . .”
Someone’s itching for a war. Is the Biden administration really that desperate for a distraction?
Apparently, nobody wants to talk about the fact that Ukraine is an *authoritarian* government, more a kin of Russia than the U.S.
Zelensky and his henchmen violently dispose of political opposition. They regularly violate free speech and disband dissenting media. They have dismantled an independent judiciary, and their secret police terrorize innocent citizens. Property seizures are routine.
But when you need a diversion from your failures at home, facts be damned.
If you had an iota of education, you would know that nations thrive when they are isolationistic in everything but trade – history of the world.
But keep pretending you and anyone that tells you what to think knows a damned thing outside of what they are told to think, clown.
Keep posting, you’re helping the right.
Need a cite for “If you had an iota of education, you would know that nations thrive when they are isolationistic in everything but trade – history of the world.”
I will get this to you, give me a bit of time – kid is doing a masters in int’l development at Cambridge. Talked to me this in the Fall.
Send him an email. Tell him your International Reputation depends on it. 🙂
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/jun/24/globalisation
I realize that Ha-Joon Chang is no hannah-jones, but here ya go. There is much more including books and youtube lectures/discussions.
I mispoke and meant ‘protectionism’ not isolationism – science student, not econ – pardon.
Thx for the cite, The article makes more sense than your original statement. 😉 Hence the request for a cite. Not sure I agree with him (I adhere to Adam Smith), however it is worth pondering.
Actually, when the constitution was passes, the news media was all about advocacy. There were no newspapers, per se, private persons printed “broadsheets” for the express purpose of expressing their points of view, usually on matters political. Freedom of speech was to assure that broadsheets advocating all points of view could be printed. It was the act of allowing the monopoly of newspapers into the hands of a single owner that requires a neutral position in reporting and editorializing which is, of course, impossible due to the freedom of speech which has been rendered moot by the fact of monopolized ownership of the medium of that speech.
The sly tactic used by most advocacy journalism is not in the reporting of outright lies (that would destroy trust!), -but rather, in reporting only selective facts and selective stories that support a favored view/conclusion/agenda, -puffed up by the nearly subliminal addition of opinion/declaratory statements buried within the selective “facts.” A recent example of this was the Kyle Rittenhouse case coverage.
Advocacy journalism fools the naive, who, (unaware of the edited and/or UNreported facts–after all, how can you know of them if they are not reported?), continue to return to the same news sources, over and over, and fall into a state of inertia when it comes to seeking other sources that might cite additional facts that would alter the favored agenda.
A “Free Press” is a hollow, rather than hallowed, right when the “messaging” is controlled by big money, big interests, big propaganda. one message.
If only Turley didn’t work for the station leading the way in “advocacy journalism” and engage in it himself, he’d sound more sincere. Even when he’s right, he’s tainted by being so one-sided. The rest of you act like only MSNBC, CNN, and others you think are leftists are the media while you gobble up Fox News and the newer far right stations. Are they not the media too? Fox was the leading broadcast network for years.
Fox News is far closer to the center – the accurate facts, than any of the other alphabet media. Being “right” of “far left” does not make an outlet an advocate.
If you think Fox is the center, you have no sense of equilibrium.
Its objectively true by a factor of 100.
No, it isn’t “objectively true.”
There is no “objectively true” center for news reporting. Even if you wanted to use a measure of central tendency, there is no objective scoring, and mean, median, mode, etc. often give different values.
+1000
Absolutely.
Bug
If only Turley didn’t…
The intellectual vacuum exhibited by the left is ever present.
No desire (or ability) to engage on the topic. Turleys post is about advocacy journalism. It quoted journalism professors and journalism schools about the importance of the media to ignore facts, and pick and choose to present stories that advocate for outcomes. Ignoring facts to the contrary.
Now I have explained it to you, do you have an opinion, one way or the other? (pro tip: Mentioning Turley or FOX, self identifies you as a clueless dullard)
“Now I have explained it to you”
The self-delusion of your signifigance runs deep,
Enigma – since Chris Wallace left and scurried over to the sinking CNN, all I know is Tucker Carlson has the highest viewing.
Hope all is going well in your world.
I don’t know whether that says more about Tucker Carlson of his viewers?
All is going well, thanks for asking!
The network that has always led the way in advocacy journalism is NBC.
I’m not aware of any consequential lie anyone on Fox has ever told. And people like you can never cite one.
Fox is being sued right now for consequential lies about Dominion Voting and Smartmatic. Fox tried to have the suits dismissed, but judges have ruled against them on that.
If there were lies, the consequences were positive for the Left. In other words, any lies would have been pro-Left lies.
Try again.
You said “I’m not aware of any consequential lie anyone on Fox has ever told.” The suits are consequential for Fox. They’re being sued for over $1Billion.
I doubt that Fox cares whether you personally consider it consequential. They consider it consequential, which is why they tried (unsuccessfully) to get the suits thrown out. Now you’re aware of consequential lies by Fox employees.
This is standard lawfare.
No, it’s actually not standard to be sued by two different companies for defamation, with each suit for over $1B.
It’s rare.
They are really the same company running a shell game. I was actually talking about the motion for dismissal.
I agree that the motions for dismissal are standard, but I don’t consider it “lawfare” (that term has a narrower meaning for me).
And no, they’re not “really the same company running a shell game.”
But it doesn’t support the notion that Fox lies in conducting advocacy journalism for the Right. Lies about Dominion benfited the Democrats.
People clearly have different opinions about who benefited. They were consequential lies regardless of who benefited.
“Now you’re aware of consequential lies by Fox employees.”
Which is, of course, a lie about the “lies.” They are *alleged* “consequential lies.”
I disagree. It’s alleged defamation, and a jury will determine that. But we don’t need to wait for a jury to determine that the statements were false.
Anonymous the Stupid, suits are part of business, something you don’t understand. But in this case, an expert evaluated Dominion machines in Georgia, leading to the headline: “Biden Administration Urges Court Not to Allow Release of ‘Secret Report’ on Dominion Voting Machines”
Why would that be? The answer: “release of the report at this point “increases the risk that malicious actors may be able to exploit any vulnerabilities and threaten election security,” government lawyers said in a Feb. 10 filing in the case.”
I’ll interpret this for you because interpretation is not your strong point. The machines are vulnerable to alterations of the vote count, which some have claimed and you deny. If they are vulnerable, then there is reason to believe the vote count in Georgia was not correct and counted based on illegalities. Democrats are known to do these things.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-administration-urges-court-not-to-allow-release-of-secret-report-on-dominion-voting-machines_4273710.html
FOSM.
How about when Hannity was texting Mark Meadows begging him to get Trump to call off his people on January 6th, then got on air and blamed Antifa?
The two are not mutually exclusive statements
We know enough to know it wasn’t Antifa. You need to believe the lie because you can’t handle the truth.
Ted Glasser… said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.”
So he lifts the curtian to reveal the agenda. Stuff the leftist “moral” agenda.
As always, Who’s morals? The left dont have any. The end justifies the means, is not a moral compass My high school histroy teacher said Communism is the best form of govt, because the goal is moral….It just hasn’t been done right, yet. I asked him what about starving millions, by design, is moral. He said you cant judge the whole system by a few bad apples.
That is morals the left lives by.
iowan2: Leftist “morality” is all relativism dressed up as morality. What they do is, by definition, moral. Anyone who disagrees with them is a __ (insert slur of choice). Every dictator and totalitarian leader has lived by the motto: the end justifies the means (or, as Biden has said several times: “by any means necessary”).
“In this case, she would have media bury such stories because that is not the narrative that she wants viewers to hear.”
That is their epistemological MO. To them, reality is just a “social construct.” There is no such thing as facts independent of their desires. Their feelings create reality (1619 — really?!). And their feelings have the power to vanquish facts: “Shoplifting? I don’t see you. I don’t see you.”
The left’s hero Hannah Jones is advocating theft and violence. She is the woman many leftists look up to, including our leftist friends on the blog. The left appears to believe theft is moral and promotes it. Social justice is encouraging people to steal and do harm to others. Next, they will teach that form of social justice in kindergarten.
Everything the left controls, is a Potemkin village.
Universities are an elaborate facade. Looks like a University, but Ideas are not allowed. The buildings are vacant, and the professors, just as vacant.
Journalists ignore facts and push a narrative determined by those in control
Dem Politicians? Paper dolls being dressed by others
Office of President ot the United States… Talk about empty facade
Science? We know scientist were told to falsely heighten the severity of the virus. Yet another phony facade.
Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.”
The problem here is that one man’s social justice is another man’s fascism. If objectivity is not required of journalists, how is the reader to judge who is correct about what is truly social justice?
“. . . how is the reader to judge . . .”
There’s your first mistake.
You’re not supposed to judge. You’re supposed to swallow whole and blindly obey.
I’m relatively new to this forum.
In the month or so I’ve been commenting, I’ve noticed that at times, a significant number of the comments are attacks upon Professor Turley. Not just well-worded well-thought out arguments…….no. Those would make sense. But when the attacks begin to shade toward the personal, it strikes me as a pointless venture for that commenter. If you can’t disagree without resorting to personal attacks, why bother to comment at all.
Richard, your point is well taken. People that come here to only disagree are the same LIBERALS that DEMAND that Fox News be banned, that Joe Rogan be banned, that anything with which they disagree with be banned. A conservative sees CNN or MSNBC and turns the channel, we don’t try to get them pulled off the air. We see a Joy Reid and we laugh, we don’t call her sponsors and DEMAND that they stop supporting her. We see players kneeling in the NFL we watch fewer games, we don’t DEMAND that the NFL be banned.
People like JeffSilberman and one particular Anonymous guy will come here to attack Professor Turley day after day to the point where I believe it is an obsession.
PS. The one thing that I have begged Professor Turley to change on this site is to not allow many people to be “named” Anonymous. I have no issue with everyone or anyone being anonymous, I just want to be able to ignore the one Anonymous who is a weird contrarian who brings the comments section to a halt every day. I wouldn’t care if they were named Anonymous-1, Anonymous-2 etc, just allow us to ignore the guy we almost all dislike.
hullbobby – if you can get JT to change his stand on the Anonymoii, you are better than many of us who have tried before you. Good luck, though. 🙂
Hello Paul, good to see you pop up. Take care!
“I just want to be able to ignore the one Anonymous who is a weird contrarian who brings the comments section to a halt every day.”
Hullbobby, I couldn’t carry on a rational discussion with another without getting a reply from a bizarre anonymous list member. Sometimes I didn’t know who I was talking to. You might object, but that was the reason I named him Anonymous the Stupid, shortened by another to ATS. In that way, the discussion could have a semblance of coherence. He didn’t like that, so he brought in his anonymous pretend friends to argue. I named them ‘pretend friends,’ the type children might have when they are young.
This blog is one of the best available for comment and discussion. I am sure the Professor would occasionally be open to the blog, but for these nutters that like to destroy and take down everything good thing that is in their path.
I love to ignore hullbobby as his position on anonymity is infantile.
Hullbobby 2
Richard Lowe: Spot on. There are a handful of “regulars” whose only purpose is ad hominem attacks on Turley. What they end up doing, contrary to their agenda, is to prove his commitment to free speech. Ignore them, mock them, criticize them — it’s open season on trolls.
“. . . it strikes me as a pointless venture for that commenter.”
Except that there is a point. It’s a smear campaign to discredit Turley. They cannot “pound the facts.” So the “pound the man.”
It seems Jones would fit in happily in a location like Escape from New York?
Dear posters please ignore and stop responding to the regular trolls. They play you like a fine tuned violin and bait you off topic. You know them, they hate the most watched news network, they hate anyone who supports one of the best President’s, JT is a Fox toadie. They are the useful idiot’s who could possibly be paid trolls or non Americans. Let them write and respond to their sock puppets. Ignore them.
Enjoy the Super Bowl.
Margot – you actually care about the Super Bowl? Why not follow a purer sport, college football?
Paul – I absolutely have! In the past I kinda “looked” at college games but since the NFL has disrespected our flag, our military our law enforcement, college has been my go too. Hopefully the pros will once again stay out of politics and concentrate on what they are paid to do, play a game.
Paul– first it is good to see you posting again. I trust all is well. Second, I am afraid that you and Margot may soon be in for a bit of a disappointment in the “purer sport.” As you may know, a group of players sued the NCAA over the prohibition against the college players receiving compensation. As a matter of equity it did seem unfair for some programs to make millions from the games while the players got nothing. At any rate, the players won the lawsuit and now college athletes can receive compensation from such things as endorsements. I am aware of one female basketball player who is to earn approximately $2 million in the coming year, just from endorsements. I am concerned that this will drive players even more to a relative handful of schools where the endorsement money potential is greatest. It is beginning to sound a lot like pro-ball.
Haven’t we given this person far more than her 15 minutes of fame?
Yes. Too much time beyond her 15 min.
whig98: 15 minutes of fame? I think this lady won a Pulitzer Prize for her 1619 gibberish. Got a long ways to go before she fades away I am afraid.
Holy crap, I thought you were joking.
We need a Mt. Rushmore for wokeness, I propose it have Sharpton/Tawana Brawley, obama/Nobel Prize, jussie smollett/subway sandwich & noose, and this jones/pulitzer
‘Legitimize the carceral state’? Uh, yes, that’s the idea. She is such a privileged tool I think I just glimpsed my occipital lobe with my eye roll. At least we know an overwhelming majority of us are on the same page about the media.
I’ve seen this with my own two eyeballs – in my case, someone walked in and quickly walked out with two cases of beer. Just like steak guy, it was a white male under 30 that was anything but disenfranchised judging by the six-figure expensive truck they drove off in. Jones and these other spoiled children actually do all suffer from the same problem – gross entitlement.
Today’s advocacy journalists will be yesterday’s street corner ranters, and today’s ‘influencers’ will be yesterday’s ‘mavens’ (remember those)? Given that both the *Democrat* governor and mayor where I am are practically begging the legislature to get tough on the increase in crime they themselves created with their own idiotic policies (and not finding reversing their compulsiveness to be particularly easy), I am thinking the winds might be changing, and I’ll be surprised if the DNC makes it through their own stupidity in one piece.
It is also much, much too late to gaslight at this point, the dems don’t have anything left to stand on with all of their fancy foot shootin’ of the past several years. I think that soon the likes of Jones will be disgraced hot potatoes getting tossed from hand to hand until they end up forgotten in a corner somewhere.
Lefty journalists: “We lie to you and call it journalism.”
Americans: “You are liars and we don’t trust you.”
Watch the Lefties here use whataboutism as a defense.
jeffsilberman is typical of the crass Lefties who post here and think that by insulting our host, he actually changes minds.
Pathetic people.
@monumentcolorado
If anything, Jeff does a great job of the exact opposite. He is a fantastic foot soldier in the cause of confirming that the far left are insane, blathering, babies.
James,
I am a foot soldier. And know this:
The ONLY way you Trumpists will get me to stop shaming you as liars is over my dead body.
Being shamed by a retard? Sure.
“Don’t feed the trolls.”
– iowan2
Remember?
Jeff, don’t flatter yourself. You are not a foot soldier or any type of soldier. You are a pampered fool that doesn’t deserve the time of day.
We are all waiting to hear the policies of Trump that disturbed your fragile mind. Presently, we are seeing the destruction of the greatest nation on earth, but underneath the leftist venom, there seems to be movement to reverse the trend. If it fails, you can continue your stupid behavior in the gulags we both end up in.
Moon label. That’s the spirit Jeffy.
That’s molon labe. What the he’lls the matter with these computers?
Thx for clearing that up. I was not getting the other reference.
Monument,
Don’t flatter yourself. I don’t want to change what’s left of your mind. NeverTrumpers don’t want your ilk on our side. The lying Trumpists can have you.
That’s because we are rational thinking people and not war mongering sheep.
Lying – lol. Enjoy your WMD, enjoy your Wall street will collapse and the world will end, enjoy whatever it is they feed you because that is all you will ever get, baaaahhhh, baaaah, baaaahhh
“media” types are leftists.
It stands to reason they are forced to lie about all that they advocate produces results, that are by objective standards, failures. They refuse to acknowledge humans respond to incentives. Thus all their agenda items are failures.
Unless we all play are part in the emporors new clothes, facts will delegate the leftists to the dust bin of history.
UNC-Chapel Hill, the nation’s oldest Public University, is a disgrace to the notion of Higher Learning.
It is a training depot for Leftist Ideologues.
The Journalism School’s initial benefactor donated the money for the School…..and did so with the stated intent of advancing non-biased impartial Journalism.
It is emblazoned on the wall of the School Building.
Sadly those days of teaching traditional standards of ethics and propriety to budding young journalism students is long gone and. has been taken over by Leftists teaching new generations of zealots and abandoning the role the Press (now the Media) was expected to play in our system of government. The Founding Fathers saw the need for an independent Press so as to have a well informed Electorate who would be able to make effective informed choices when voting.
Now….the Media has become a propaganda outlet for the Democrat Party and every other Leftist group.
If we wish to heal the divide in the Nation….we first have to excise the cancer that is existent in the Media…..and until that happens there is no hope of healing.
I suppose the Red Headed Racist who is so loudly proclaimed for her 1619 Project Editing (she could not do her own research it seems and only spun others works) thinks telling only the one side of a story or only telling a story in a way that if agrees with her socialist agenda based upon bogus claims of systemic racism will garner affirmation from those devoid of critical thinking skills but regular folks see through her as if she was a grand picture window.
She is not a journalist…..she is a socialist agitator who sees everything through a self imposed prism of Race.
The Red Hair is your sign folks….Red Hair…Red Agenda….and should not to be read.
Remember….UN/C Chapel Hill is the Defendant in a Racial Discrimination Case before the US Supreme Court…..for discriminating against Asian applicants during Admission Selections.
UNC Chapel Hill is also considered one of the ten worst Universities for violations of Free Speech Standards as is George Washington University which Professor Turley teaches.
“If we wish to heal the divide in the Nation….we first have to excise the cancer that is existent in the Media…..and until that happens there is no hope of healing.”
A positive way of healing is to support the relatively new media reporting the news and facing the bear of the MSM. I subscribe to them. National Review is not one of them, nor are some other prominent names. Two examples would be Just the News and The Epoch Times. They have their spin, but they have been chiefly correct when looking backward on what they wrote. Numerous others have sprung up. An additional reader added to their readership promotes them at the expense of leftist advocacy journalism. A little bit of cash helps as well if one is able. There is also substack. One can get many of the articles for free but supporting those one likes the most helps keep them alive while chipping away at statism and advocacy journalism.
The University of Georgia is older than UNC.
And put this in your pipe and smoke it, Turley:
“White House pushes back on Fox News reports claiming the government is buying crack pipes for people”
https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-slams-fox-news-misinformation-govt-buying-crack-pipes-2022-2
“Fox News hosts including Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity seized on the project on Wednesday, claiming the government was using taxpayer money to give crack pipes for free.”
Is that not advocacy journalism, Turley? How about this false narrative:
“Fox News hosts and guests slammed the policy. “The Biden administration is promoting drug addiction. They’ve been caught doing it and now they’re denying it,” Carlson said.”
Promoting drug addiction? Your Fox colleague Carlson is a damn liar. And what do we hear from Turley? The usual-
Crickets.
All White House press secretaries push back on stories that are not flattering to their bosses. Does it make it so? As an example, George Washington’s press secretary pushed back on a story that doubted that Washington cut down a cherry tree.
There are many valid criticisms of the Biden administration, e.g., the Hunter Biden scandal, but promoting drug addiction is a false narrative.
I don’t disagree with Turley’s criticism of the mainstream media. My criticism of Turley is his self-censorship of ANY criticism of his network Fox News! I defy you to find me one article in which Turley has EVER found fault with the journalism at his employer.
It seems the Biden administration has permitted the drug cartels near free run of our borders so that Fentanyl and other lethal illegal drugs can be sold on the black market to kill our youth (well over 100,000 and rapidly rising).
You are an idiot.
Who is reporting on the Hunter Biden scandals? Anyone other than Fox News?
I have long agreed with Turley’s criticism of the MSM giving little attention to the Hunter Biden story, but Fox ignores stories unflattering to its side.
When has Fox reported on Matt Gaetz being investigated for sex trafficking? Once I recall months ago by Carlson. That was it!
It’s not just the Hunter Biden scandals the media ignore. Everything they screamed about nonstop for four years under Trump was NOTHING compared to the very real Biden corruption scandals, Joe’s incompetence, Joe’s nastiness toward the press, Joe’s obvious lies, Jenn Psaki’s lies, Fauci’s lies, MIA cabinet secretaries Becerra and Mayor Pete, ETC. The press is pretty much silent and focused on Trump and J6. It’s disgusting how propagandized the people of this country are because of the Fake News.
You get a hash pipe and you get a hash pipe and you get a hash pipe. Just like Oprah.
LOL.
1. The kits do include crack pipes
2. The funding of the program is a tax-payer-NGO-DNC feedback loop. Track the NGOs and their getting/giving…NGOs are the new labor unions.
3. Keep on posting Jeff, much like biden talking, you are doing wonders for your opposition.
jeffsilberman: Still don’t get it? Reporting the truth is not “advocacy journalism.” Ignoring the story, which NHJ demands, is advocacy journalism. Ignoring stories that don’t fit the “systemic racism” narrative, like CNN and MSNBC do daily, is advocacy journalism. It’s more a “sin of omission” on the left…they just leave out the parts they don’t like. That’s why it’s so hard to have an intelligent debate with leftists — they aren’t aware of what’s happening in the country because they didn’t hear anything about it on CNN or MSNBC.
But but but Fox News!!
Giocon says:
“Ignoring stories that don’t fit the “systemic racism” narrative, like CNN and MSNBC do daily, is advocacy journalism.”
Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham ignored the latest scandal involving Trump ripping and flushing White House documents. Don’t get me started on the myriad of stories the Fox opinion hosts ignore!
Of course, we won’t hear Turley complain about his Fox compadres ignoring certain news stories because Turley is self-censoring such criticism. As a Fox employee, he naturally is an advocate for Fox.
“Promoting drug addiction? Your Fox colleague Carlson is a damn liar.”
Welcome to the NHJ school of “thinking.” If this commenter wishes for something to not be true, then it’s not true.
And, yet, the fact remains this:
If I spend money to make trampolines safer for children, then I’m promoting trampoline use for children.
And if I spend $30 million to make drug addiction safer, then I’m promoting drug addiction.
And here we have the utterly twisted priorities of the Left. Make life safer for drug addicts, while making streets and stores more dangerous for the rest of us.
Sam says:
“And here we have the utterly twisted priorities of the Left. Make life safer for drug addicts, while making streets and stores more dangerous for the rest of us.”
When Turley accuses the Left of wanting to make life safer for drug addicts in spite of the fact that the streets are more dangerous for the rest of us, I’ll believe it.
Turley’s opinion I trust. Yours not so much. As always, my complaint with Turley is his deliberate blind-spot when it comes to his own Fox News. He will not bite the hand that feeds him.
“bite the hand that feeds him” –funny that you use the same phrase that I reminded you of a few months ago….
Lin,
You are my teacher. I wouldn’t know what I would do without you spoon-feeding me all my best lines. Keep up the good work. I desperately need you.
I will, thanks. When do you graduate to the next level?
You tell me, Master.
another *cop-out*
“When Turley accuses . . . I’ll believe it.”
Or you could use your own two eyes.
No, if you spend money making X safer that does not mean you’re promoting X.
Car manufacturers spend money making cars safer in crashes. They’re not promoting crashes. For someone who claims to have spent years teaching logic, your logical reasoning skills are lacking.
On this subject, Sam is correct. If you spend money to make a product safer (in this case the government) you are promoting the product. Car manufacturers make cars safer at the behest of the government. However, they make cars less safe at the behest of the government.
Paul, I’m not sure what you mean by “Car manufacturers make cars safer at the behest of the government. However, they make cars less safe at the behest of the government,” as those two statements seem contradictory. Also, the claim that they’re making cars safer because the government requires them to do so contradicts that they’re doing it to promote the product.
You have to be able to hold two seemly contradictory statements in your head at the same time.
Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to regulate ONLY the value of money, the flow of commerce among the States, and land and naval Forces.
Regulation of industry shall not be conducted by Congress, and must be conducted by said industry and all industries, at the peril of debilitating litigation against said industry.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Government has no power or authority to participate in design, engineering, production, marketing or any other method, form or fashion, in commercial or free market enterprises.
Government has not power to engage in “central planning,” or to otherwise command or direct industries, such as that of electric cars or generation of electricity, which is the function of free market competition.
Government has no power to “control the means of production,” either directly, through central planning, promotional or punitive taxation, or through unconstitutional regulation.
Government has no “emergency power” or any power to order or direct healthcare, such as “lock downs” and vaccinations.
Individuals are responsible for their own responsible behavior and their own health.
Individuals may be arrested only upon the presentation of probable cause.
__________________________________________________________
“You can’t handle the truth.”
– Colonel Jessup
_____________
The truth is that Americans are free; they really are really free – and government is severely limited and restricted by the Constitution.
The only thing free Americans lack is a judicial branch and Supreme Court that “support” the Constitution they swear an oath to “support” – not modify, but merely “support.”
Are you that analogy challenged or just dishonest?
Car manufacturers are promoting car use.
Sam, are you that attention challenged or just dishonest?
My statement was “Car manufacturers spend money making cars safer in crashes. They’re not promoting crashes.” You ignore the centrality of “crashes” in that statement, perhaps because you cannot counter the actual statement.
“You ignore the centrality of ‘crashes’ . . .”
Because the central issue is use (of drugs or cars), not crashes (while on drugs or in cars).
You intentionally misrepresented my trampoline analogy.
Jeff Silberman says look! The White House was asked if the embarrassing story about them providing safe drug kits to drug addicts that included crack pipes was true and they simply lied, as they often do, and said, “That’s MISINFORMATION! Fox News is pushing DISINFORMATION!”
Then the “fact-checkers” jump in as part of the White House cleanup operation to say to the public….”Hey we asked *the White House* if this was true and *they told us* it was DISINFORMATION”….so the “fact-checkers” rate it as “false and MISLEADING because the White House said so!
The so-called “fact checkers” rush in to defend the Biden administration with zero consideration of the “actual” FACTS.
The HHS confirmed that the “kits” are used to smoke, crack, meth, and “any illicit substance.” That is a FACT that strangely, the “fact-checkers” did not actually “check.”
This is the state of our “watchdog media” today.
Wake up and smell the propaganda Jeffrey!
Jeffrey — Seizing, slamming and pouncing is what Fox News does. CNN tells us so! CNN/WaPo/NYT, etc doesn’t seize, nor pounce, nor slam. Neither does the gang over at MSNBC, of course. No pouncing going on there! Nope, that’s only right-wing, Republican stuff, all that pouncing and seizing.
Sadly, she is correct. It seems to run in cycles. Advocacy press, neutral press. Rinse, repeat.
Turley,
Can’t you find even ONE example of advocacy journalism at your Fox News? How about this one reported at the hill.com:
“White House disputes reports of federal funds for crack pipes.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/593566-white-house-disputes-reports-of-federal-funds-for-crack-pipes
“Reports circulated on Fox News and other conservative outlets that the grant program was being used to fund “crack pipes,” however, and the narrative quickly spread among conservative lawmakers.”
Turley, you are shameless. You never cease to demonstrate that you are a sell-out.
You seem very upset about the “crack pipe” stories. I guess I’m most curious where you perceive the inaccuracies in the coverage.
If FNC is wrong, why do you explain: what exact *is* in the White House’s safe crack smoking kits?
Read the articles!
I have. Is your problem that they contain inaccuracies? Or do you contend that by even talking about the “safe crack smoking kit” grants on air, FNC is engaged in “advocacy journalism”?
It’s not a crack pipe smoking kit. That’s Disinformation. Fox News *advocacy journalism* meant to create the false narrative that the Biden administration is promoting drug addiction. That’s a lie.
Ah, I see. I’ll remind you that just because it’s embarrassing doesn’t mean it’s “disinformation.” The grant does – in fact – provide “safe smoking kits” that sometimes include “glass stems.” Indeed, the Drug Policy Alliance is upset with the WH because it statements suggest they will no longer allow federal funding to go towards putting pipes in the kits. If that’s not confirmation that pipes *were* in the kits, I don’t know what is.
If I remember correctly, besides lip balm, the “safe smoking kits” include clean needles.
Crocoloc,
It’s not embarrassing because it is a false narrative. It in NOT the intention of this program to “promote drug addiction. Carlson is purposely attributing a bad faith motivation on the Biden administration. Now, if you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
Why can’t you see that “harm reduction” efforts to some “promote drug addiction”?
Disagreement doesn’t make an opposing argument “disinformation.” But instead of arguing why harm reduction is the best approach (or whatever) and explaining why new glass stems is consistent with that goal, the WH gets embarrassed and LIES about the inclusion of glass pipes.
That’s the problem – not Carlson pounding an unflattering argument.
Crocoloc says:
“Why can’t you see that “harm reduction” efforts to some “promote drug addiction?”
Why can’t you see that Fox News invariably will cast every positive initiative of the Biden administration in a negative light in order to discredit the Democratic Party in furtherance of its ideological agenda to “take back the country” for its Trumpist viewership?
Has Fox EVER praised ANYTHING Biden had done?
Jeff – I think Fox News is truly astonished that Joe Biden can still get from point A to point B.
Paul,
I have never denied that Biden has lost a few marbles; but not one Trumpist will admit what is also plainly obvious that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar.
Jeff – Biden has lost a few bags of marbles at this point. On the lying thing, all President’s have to lie. We can’t STAND the truth, 😉
No, Paul. If you don’t believe that Trump is in a class by himself when it comes to politicians in general, then I stand by my claim that Biden has lost a marble or 2 only.
Jeff – Jill Biden has to clap her hands to get his attention when he has to end his speeches and get off. The only thing keeping him going is Adderall.
Paul says:
“Jill Biden has to clap her hands to get his attention when he has to end his speeches and get off. The only thing keeping him going is Adderall.”
Trump is such a patently obvious conman that Turley recognized that fact years ago when he called Trump a “carnival snake charmer.” Has Turley EVER said anything since which would indicate that he has changed his opinion of Trump?
I challenge you to cite me one example of Turley praising Trump’s character.
If you will continue to deny that Trump is an inveterate liar, I will continue to deny that Biden is suffering from a mental deficiency.
Two can play your game….
Jeff — ALLPresidents lie. That includes Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan,Bill Clinton, Barry Sotero, Joe Biden and, it follows, Donald Trump. However many presidents there are/were there are that many liars.
Has Turley called any of those presidents a “carnival snake charmer?” You don’t demean an individual so contemptuously if you think everybody does it. If you don’t realize that Trump’s lying is sui generis then I can’t help you. I can only pity you. Enough said.
Jeff – can you stand there with a straight face and tell me Barry did not lie to the country? Or Biden? or Psaki?
Paul,
I’ve said all what I have to say about Trump’s pathological lying. When Turley calls any other human being a “carnival snake charmer,” I’ll revisit the topic.
“When Turley calls any other human being a “carnival snake charmer,” I’ll revisit the topic.”
Run away little Jeff, run away and hide.
Paul, do you understand that there’s a difference between run of the mill lying and pathological lying?
All Presidents sometimes lie, but only Trump was a pathological liar.
You realize there is a difference between lying and puffery? Your ad manager does, it keeps them out of prison.
Paul, lying is knowingly making a false statement with intent to deceive.
Trump lies a great deal, though at times it may be that he’s so deluded that he doesn’t recognize his claims are false.
jeffsilberman: Give a junkie a “safe pipe”? Nah, that’s not going to promote drug addiction.
Giocon1 says:
“Give a junkie a “safe pipe”? Nah, that’s not going to promote drug addiction.”
I wouldn’t know because I was never a junkie. I defer to your experience in the matter.
Jeff, It IS a crack smoking kit, they just got caught. Odd that you never discuss the issue of lefty states and cities (and now the Feds) making it EASIER for people to do hard drugs??? Any opinion on that little issue?
Another point: you argue that Tucker, Laura and Hannity are all over the crack pipe kit and then follow by asking, “is this not advocacy journalism”. Well genius, Tucker, Laura and Hannity ARE NOT JOURNALISTS and never claim to be journalists. Hannah and her idiot followers want the NEWS MEDIA not to cover smash and grab robberies that are forcing stores to close. See the difference genius?
Another point: Hannah will be the first to screech at the “white patriarchy” when there are no grocery or drug stores in the areas where the left is soft on crime. I can hear it now, “we have underserved areas”, blah, blah, blah. This woman is a scourge on education, journalism, history and now communities.
Hullbobby,
Don’t give me the “we’re not journalists” cop out. They are opinion makers, and their opinions shape the opinions of their viewers.
They are FAR more influential than the journalists/reporters at Fox. You damn well know it. That’s why they are on prime-time.
Jeff, you answered your own question, Palin v. NYT is based on this very question.
Paul,
So is Smartmatic v. Fox News and Dominion v. Fox News. Two defamation lawsuits which Turley unsurprisingly mentioned just ONCE buried at the end of an article headlined by a defamation lawsuit by Project Veritas!
Turley did not discuss the merits of the allegations in the lawsuits against Fox. Instead, he simply quoted from the pleadings. He probably did not analyze the merits because it was plainly obvious that he is hopelessly conflicted inasmuch as he is employed by Fox, and as a good employee, he is bound not to say anything ill about his Fox brethren.
So much for Turley as an impartial and objective legal commentator. Very sad that he is so compromised.
Jeff – I follow at least 6 attorneys on YT and who they cover is really up to them. One likes covering reality and influencer’s, another SCOTUS, another IP, one covers so much it sometimes causes a fight or flight response. It is JT’s “sandbox.” He gets to pick. When he is on Fox, it is their “sandbox” and they pick. If he testifies before Congress it is their “sandbox” and they pick.
Paul says:
“It is JT’s “sandbox.” He gets to pick. When he is on Fox, it is their “sandbox” and they pick.”
I have NEVER said that it is not Turley’s prerogative to choose his topics on his blog.
Let’s see how easy it is to refute your argument:
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/24/what-elephant-the-media-again-buries-a-hunter-biden-scandal-on-foreign-deals-during-the-biden-vice-presidency/
It’s CNN’s and MSNBC’s respective sandboxes! They get to pick which topics to highlight and which to ignore.
Did that argument persuade Turley from RIGHTLY criticizing CNN and MSNBC for omitting coverage of the Hunter Biden scandal? Of course not.
Can you understand the difference between what someone CAN do versus what they SHOULD do?
Jeff – They may be legally right but morally wrong in not covering a topic. That goes for everybody. You can always cover the topic yourself.
Not only can Turley cover the topics he chooses, but he sees fit as well to criticize those networks which ignore topics that he believes they SHOULD cover as responsible news outlets. My criticism of Turley is no different than his. I simply point out news items that Turley SHOULD not ignore as an impartial and objective legal commentator.
Jeff – you do realize that this blog is primarily for his law students. We are mere guests.
Paul,
Where do get the idea that this blog is primarily for his law students? I have asked whether anyone here IS a student of Turley’s, but no one has identified himself or herself as such. Everybody is welcome here as long as they are civil. Turley has never disinvited me from his blog, but many a Trumpist has suggested I split.
I am a guest, but Turley would not want his guests to self-censor their speech because they are afraid of being blocked from this blog for something they have said!
Paul, think it was either Meyer or Lin who tried to educate silberman on *employee* status several times, but he just kept going
You can drag a student to knowledge but you cannot make him/her understand.
Jeff says. “don’t give me the ‘we’re not journalists’ cop out”??? Well genius, they are NOT journalists. Hannah wants the NEWS DEPARTMENT to not REPORT on crimes, can you grasp that?
The fool then says, “that’s why they are on prime-time”?? Wow, great argument! I guess that since the EDITORIAL PAGE is a big part of any paper the EDITORIAL BOARD is now the NEWS DEPARTMENT??
Drop the shovel pal, the hole is deep enough.
jeffsilberman: you don’t have to worry much about your opinion “shaping” the opinions of others…
Lin says:
“you don’t have to worry much about your opinion “shaping” the opinions of others….”
As I have said, my goal on this blog is NOT to shape the opinions of liars. Trumpist are dead men and women walking; they will go to their graves believing Trump is an honest man robbed of an election. They will never admit they are lying. I get it.
My purpose here is to send up a warning flare from this cesspool of hate to any and all newcomers that the vast majority of comments here do not reflect the attitude of Turley. That in spite of what they may glean from the Trumpists here, Turley is, in fact, a NeverTrumper, for one, and for another, Turley is not an impartial and objective legal analyst; rather, he is beholden to Fox News, his employer, so keep that fact firmly in mind when reading his articles.
Jeff – I know employment law is difficult for people and impossible for most. JT is employed by George Washington University Law School. Everything else is a side-gig, although it may count towards publish-or-perish.
On a sidenote, I know one of his students and another was just convicted of stealing money from his client. He didn’t cover that case either.
Paul,
I would hazard to guess that Turley earns more money from Fox than GWU, but either way, this source of income is too substantial to readily forego. And Turley may not have any prospects at the mainstream media were he to depart Fox. It’s not unlikely that he has burned his bridges there and may have to resign himself to follow in the footsteps of Dershowitz who used to be a Fox regular but now is seen on Newsmax.
Certainly, Turley would turn up his nose at joining the ranks of Infowars and One America Network. I just hope that he will never lower himself to work at Newsmax- the usual dumping ground for those who leave Fox. Though his fellow academics and professional colleagues may not regard Fox as discredited as Newsmax and Infowars, they nonetheless believe that Fox is bad enough to be unworthy of Turley to lend his good name to its brand of *advocacy journalism.*
I’ve read elsewhere that Turley is writing a book. Could it be that he intends to take advantage of his appearances on Fox to promote his book? I don’t begrudge him selling a book, but it would be naive to overlook the fact that Turley may have ulterior motives for staying at Fox despite others who have left on principle, specifically, on account of Carlson’s false flag narrative in his “Patriot Purge” documentary:
“Over the past five years, some of Fox’s top opinion hosts amplified the false claims and bizarre narratives of Donald Trump or offered up their own in his service. In this sense, the release of Patriot Purge wasn’t an isolated incident, it was merely the most egregious example of a longstanding trend.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/22/fox-news-tucker-carlson-patriot-purge-capitol-attack-goldberg-hayes
Did Turley criticize the blatant advocacy journalism of “Patriot Purge”?
Of course not. Would he have done so were he not beholden to Fox? No doubt.
Did Turley mention the fact that two Conservative commentators left Fox on this account or that long time Fox reporters Chris Wallace and Bret Baier had serious reservations about the truthfulness of Patriot Purge?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10234203/Chris-Wallace-Bret-Baier-warned-Fox-News-execs-Tucker-Carlsons-Patriot-Purge.html
Crickets.
Jeff – was he paid to do any of those things?
Paul asks whether Turley is paid not to criticize Fox.
Of course not.
Fox need not tell Turley to ignore Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham committing the same sins that Turley rightly criticizes at Fox’s cable competitors. Turley perfectly understands what is expected of him in order to earn his keep. Fox will not continue to employ a commentator who criticizes the network. Duh.
Has Turley EVER criticized Fox News’ false narratives? Not to my knowledge. But, by all means, correct me if I am mistaken.
So far, no one has.
JS, not everyone sinks to the lowest common denominator, and not everyone will only work for compensation. Thank you for telling us who and what you are. Do you live vicariously through Turley? Is that why you want him to become like you, an amoral conniving hypocrite?
When we talk about hate, the first name to come to mind is Jeff Silberman.
When we talk about libel, the first name to come to mind is Jeff Silberman.
When we talk about lying, Jeff is not the first name to come to mind because he readily admits he doesn’t know much about these things, but he sure talks a lot.
hullbobby: She’ll undoubtedly put it in a “racial justice” frame: “POC are disproportionately affected by all these white stores closing. That’s systemic racism!!!”
Care to provide even a shred of evidence to back up your claims, hullbobby?
Crocoloc, Thanks to you and the others for taking the time to dispell Silbermans’ propaganda. It’s dirty work but when you are able to get any truth corruptor to contort, duck, and reformulate in a popular public forum, you are providing a service for any who may not be fully informed to the facts. Of course, the damage to the propagandists’ credibility suffers as well for future reference.