Media, Politics

Advocacy Journalism 101: Howard University Professor Hannah-Jones Criticizes MSNBC for Covering Shoplifting Stories

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.

 

328 thoughts on “Advocacy Journalism 101: Howard University Professor Hannah-Jones Criticizes MSNBC for Covering Shoplifting Stories”

  2. Vladimir Putin should have to go through a Congressional hearing to make sure he is fit and responsible to control nuclear weapons, lest he abuse them to hold other nations hostage.

  3. If Putin will not respect and obey international laws, then why should other countries? It makes no sense to have international laws if there is not an international executive branch to enfore them.

  4. A decapitation strike against Moscow with a handful of nuclear weapons can end the Ukraine thing overnight.

  6. Here is a moral equivalence: assuming all nations are political equals, if Russia can invade Ukraine, then it is only fair that Ukraine can invade Russia, so the United States should loan Ukraine some short-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads that can reach Moscow. That should deter Putin.

  7. The “professor” and her topic are just too stupid to comment on. Let her bask in her ignorance and let’s just hope she’s transparent enough that her student see through her. They won’t but we can hope.

  8. Dude is a symbol of progressive grit and resilience. Ten prime cuts of grass fed organic beef from Trader Joes. A purloined gas grill from Home Depot over on 59th street. Bottles of fine French wine from Sherry-Lehman Wines down the street, on the house. Wine glasses and cutlery on the five finger discount plan from Macy’s. Free crack pipes from the Biden administration. And finally, a wide screen TV repatriated from last year’s BLM riots. A dinner party with nine of your closest friends watching CNN’s coverage of Justin Trudeau threatening to deploy the Canadian military on the civilian population. Priceless.

  9. What’s really hilarious about the video of the guy stealing the steaks is that the store people do nothing to the looter, but the looter catches holy hell from street sweeper when the looter steals the street sweeper’s plastic garbage bag. The morale of the story is that can steal hundreds of dollars worth of steaks, but don’t dare take someone’s $1 garbage bag…. Too funny…

  10. Rather than engage in simple dialogue with the millions of Canadians voicing their unified opposition to his government’s forced vaccination policies, Justin “flee the capitol in fear” Trudeau today threatened to unleash the Canadian military on his nation’s civilian population. Sure, its a last resort, he said. But we have to prepare for any eventuality. People. People. I have been very clear. Mind your manners and I won’t be forced to call out the military, said the former high school teacher. He looked and acted remarkably like a teacher who knows that he has lost control of his class.

    Even more terrifying, Trudeau claims to speak more broadly on behalf of what used to be known as western liberal democracies. How would the military even respond if called on to use force against their fellow American, Canadian, or French citizens? The repercussions would be far worse than the convulsions that rocked the nation after four students were killed by panicked National Guard Troops at Kent State a generation ago.

    One can only hope that Trudeau, Biden, Macron and other like minded rulers have the sense not to call out the military. Not so long ago, such a prospect would have been unthinkable. Today, that possibility was openly articulated, live on camera, by the Prime Minister of Canada. One can only hope that Trudeau and his ilk come to their senses. This is a crisis of their own making. The way to end it is to listen to the people. Please.

  12. Under WOKE he is not stealng, he’s just taking an entitlement. That is under the new auspicies of diversity and bringing equality to and for all.

  13. You don’t mind someone stealing someone else’s steak but if it’s your steak oh brother you better look out.

    1. Thinkitthrough – considering that NYC is going to hell is a hand-basket, Just how good would a Trader Joe’s steak be? Is it grass fed or grain fed?

  14. My horoscope for today reads:
    “You might want to stay off social media today and focus on more pleasant things. Avoid looking for things that upset or annoy you”

    Is this social media? A social medium?
    Maybe social light?

  15. Some here try to play down the pandemic of shoplifting but Al Sharpton doesn’t agree wit them. Some say that the guy with the steaks is just a poor hungry urchin. What they don’t understand is that in the long run the law abiding citizen will have to pay for this guy’s steak. I have no interest in providing these steaks without my permission. You will soon pay a hidden shoplifting tax that will be added on to your increases in pricing due to inflation. Duh and duh and duh.

  16. It’s a race to the bottom. We are only a couple of steps shy of Jonestown.

    Compare our current “traditional” news system to the old days of hard fact news coverage. Peter Jennings, for example, did several marathon broadcasts during world crises because he earned a reputation of reliability and accuracy. His audience was huge,

    We have a press corps pretending that our President is okay when even a child can tell that he is incapacitated and rapidly declining. His handlers and the hard left are systematically destroying the fabric of our nation. I doubt any of the good reporters believes this tripe. They are given marching orders or it is the end of their careers—Cancelled!

    The elite jet around the globe and do what “fabulous” people do while smugly and condescendingly preaching at us mere citizens. “Do what we say, not what we do!”

    It is tragic to watch.

    Kool-Aid anyone?

    1. E.M. – they used a knock-off brand, not Kool-Aid, at Jonestown. Jones took a bullet to the head.

    2. EM Like PJ saying; ” Who is gonna caryy their water now Mandy”? The Phants are a hoot.

  17. Some minorities want to control how they are depicted just like third-world dictators do. Freedom of the press means that news outlets can report facts and reality if they so desire. If some minorities don’t like this, that is too bad.

  18. Hullbobby says about Fox’s Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham:

    “Jeff says. “don’t give me the ‘we’re not journalists’ cop out.” Well genius, they are NOT journalists.”

    I dispute the notion that opinion hosts are at liberty to lie to their viewers just because they are not journalists.

    Alex Jones is not a journalist. He is merely an opinion host just like Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham. However, in the case of Jones, Turley called out his false story:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2017/07/01/martian-slave-babies-alex-jones-airs-theory-on-kidnapped-children-raised-on-mars/

    Turley has no problem calling out opinion hosts who lie for a living if they don’t work at Fox. He won’t do so against Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham because he is in bed with them, financially speaking.

    1. “I dispute the notion that opinion hosts are at liberty to lie to their viewers just because they are not journalists.”

      They are not lying. They are providing an opinion that you disagree with. Their facts almost always are accurate. You can’t point out the lies by Fox hosts or by Trump. As you often admit, you don’t know about those things. What you do know is how to libel.

    2. Jeff,

      Once again, even after shifting the goalpost you have missed the mark by a wide margin. In addition, the strawman argument that you present regarding Alex Jones is completely without merit.

      In the article that you reference, Turley describes Alex Jones as having a guest on his show ‘InfoWars’ who describes an elaborate theory that NASA has kidnapped children to be slaves on Mars.

      What you miss is that ‘InfoWars’ is a conspiracy theory show much like the radio show “Coast to Coast AM’ first hosted by Art Bell and now hosted by George Noory. By definition this type of show seeks guests having controversial or conspiratorial views and much of it is contrived. It is entertainment much like watching the ‘X-Files’.

      Of course, if, as pointed out by hullbobby, you can’t tell the difference between news and opinion it is entirely likely that you also can’t tell the difference between truth and fiction (or satire).

      Turley apparently recognized the difference but still felt that this particular conspiracy theory was noteworthy enough to post a brief article about it under the ‘Bizarre’ category. On this point, I agree. This theory would be worthy of an ‘X-Files’ episode.

      However, Turley’s article did not criticize Alex Jones or his guest for their statements nor would I expect him to. He is, after all, a free speech advocate. Even crazy conspiracy speech is allowed.

      Will you apply the same standard that you propose for Hannity, Carson, and ingraham to Rachel Maddow?

      1. Ray says about Infowars:

        “It is entertainment much like watching the ‘X-Files’.”

        So is Carlson’s show:

        “You Literally Can’t Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox’s Lawyers”

        https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

        “Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox’s lawyers: The “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’”

        “She wrote: “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”

        Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump’s, added, “Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as ‘exaggeration,’ ‘non-literal commentary,’ or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable.”
        ————————

        Carlson is not “stating actual facts” just like Alex Jones. Did Turley comment upon this very embarrassing admission by the lawyers of one of his own Fox colleagues?

        Take a wild guess….

        1. Jeff – in a defamation suit, Rachel Maddow’s attorneys asserted that the word “literal” was actually hyperbolic. Somehow they got away with it.

          1. Paul,

            I don’t pretend to be an expert on defamation law. Where one draws the line between an assertion of fact and mere opinion is a judgment call obviously.

            You have to understand that my beef with Turley is his hypocrisy. I don’t challenge his criticism of the mainstream media- there is plenty of which to complain. But try as you might, you won’t find one negative comment of Fox News from Turley. I get it. His employer. His blog. His articles. But Turley, like anybody else, is subject to criticism for being partisan. I don’t take any pleasure in discrediting him, but it needs to be pointed out for full transparency.

            I look forward to the day he quits Fox or his employment terminated. I suspect that day may not be too distant. If Trump ever is indicted criminally, Fox News will call any such prosecution a “witch-hunt”. Turley will have to declare which side he is on just like he did after 1/6 where he called for Trump’s censure when not one Fox colleague did so. (Needless to say, Turley’s call for Trump’s censure was NOT reported by Fox)

            However, the stakes will be far higher if Trump is put on trail. One thing I am certain, Turley will never call Trump’s prosecution a “witch-hunt,” for he is not a Trumpist. And by refusing to legitimate Fox’s persecution narrative, Turley will prove himself to be disloyal and of no value.

            At the end if the day, you are either with Trump or against him. There is no middle ground.

            1. Jeff – at the end of the day it is always “who do I trust with the ‘football'”? Joe Biden has not been on that list for 4 years.

              1. Paul,

                I did not vote for Biden. I am not delighted with Biden. I have my doubts about his claims about Hunter. I am in favor of both being investigated. It would suit me just fine were Joe found to be corrupt.

                All that said, I prefer a feeble old man as president to a serial liar and conman. We don’t know if Trump is corrupt, but what we do know is that Trump would lock up his enemies as soon as he could were he given the chance.

                1. Jeff – we do not know your claims about Trump to be true. However, various investigations have proven corruption against the Bidens and other possible criminal activity.

                  1. Paul,

                    I am NOT making ANY claims about Trump’s culpability. How the Hell do I know if there is sufficient criminal evidence against him. I just want him investigated as I do the Bidens. The fact that you believe that the Bidens have been proven guilty of corruption proves to me that you are either deluded or a liar.

                    I ONLY claim that *IF* Trump is ultimately indicted and found guilty, Trumpists will NEVER accept the verdict even if upheld by the conservative Supreme Court. They will claim that the trial was rigged. THAT I do know. And I’d be willing to bet $10k that I would be right. Would you take my bet?

                    2. Paul says:

                      “if Trump is convicted of anything by the SDNY, it is tainted.”

                      I know. You Trumpists will never accept that Trump could have done anything wrong because it will prove that the NeverTrumpers were correct about Trump all along. If Trump goes down, you Trumpists go with him. You would rather lie that the judge was a Democrat, and the prosecutor had a case of TDS and the jury was a bunch of Leftists!

                      Any lie will do to deflect any blame on your leader.

                    6. Exactly, trust Turley when it comes to the law. Trump will say ANYTHING to save his skin. If Trump is found guilty of something and it’s upheld on appeal, Turley will not say that the trial was rigged or otherwise tainted. You can bet on that!

                    8. I’m not a betting man. I only gamble when I eat at a new restaurant. However, I know a sure thing when I see it, and I would bet my life that Trumpists will never accept a guilty verdict on Trump no matter how much Turley tries to convince them that the verdict is warranted.

                      And I *hope* to be proven right in the fullness of time….

                    10. Jeff – you are not a betting man, however you would bet your life on your rampant TDS.

                    12. Jeff – hating you is a waste of my emotion. I have no feelings about you one way or the other. However, factually, literally you have TDS.

                    15. Hey Jeff, welcome to the wagering world. You put me to shame. Never bet 10k in my life. Well, not on a single bet.

                    16. I am not a betting man, Paul, but I know a sure thing when I see it. And I could not be more sure that the vast majority of Trumpists will never accept ANY guilty verdict on Trump.

                      Good luck on the Rams by 4! I’ll be pulling for you!

                    17. I’ll take the bet. I heard 10K was the number, but before putting the money up I want a definition of the word Trumpist with similar definitions of the words used to define Trumpists. You have a problem in that area so I’ll take the bet with a trustworthy third party and a definition that isn’t as loose as your teeth.

                    18. Meyer,

                      I wouldn’t take your bet. Trumpists are welshers. If you will lie that the election was stolen, do you honestly think I would trust you to pay a debt?

                    19. It looks like you are the welsher, Jeff. You act big and then run away from a bet as soon as you know you can’t cheat.

                  2. Paul, investigations of the Trumps have shown at least as much corruption as investigations of the Bidens.

                2. “but what we do know is that Trump would lock up his enemies as soon as he could were he given the chance.”

                  He had that chance when elected President, but didn’t do so.

                3. :All that said, I prefer a feeble old man as president to a serial liar and conman.

                  That feeble old man is a conman and much MORE of a liar than Trump.

                  1. William_JD says:

                    “That feeble old man is a conman and much MORE of a liar than Trump.”

                    You are a pathetic liar.

                  2. >>:All that said, I prefer a feeble old man as president to a serial liar and conman.

                    >That feeble old man is a conman and much MORE of a liar than Trump.

                    I think he was comparing Biden to Obama

            2. “At the end if the day, you are either with Trump or against him. “

              On the southern border alone, Trump stemmed the flow of illegal immigrants, sex offenders, drugs, human trafficking, and criminals.

              That means Jeff is for more illegal immigrants, sex offenders, drugs, human trafficking and criminals.

              It’s hard to believe anyone would dig themselves such a deep hole, but Jeff did.

  20. Jonathan: Your posting of a video of what appears to be a young Latino shoplifting steaks from a Trader Joe’s is an attempt to stigmatize and amplify the petty crimes of minorities. That’s shameful. I just read an article on Yahoo News about a white California multi-millionaire who was sentenced to 15 years for murdering his wife and then depositing her body in a dumpster. The article was accompanied by a police mug shot of Peter Chadwick, the convicted murderer. After Chadwick was charged he posted a $1.2 million bond and fled the country. He was later found in Pueblo, Mexico. What’s the point? The Chadwick case should not be national news. The implication for some might be that white people commit a disproportionate number of heinous crimes. That’s, of course, not true. Most white people don’t engage in such crimes. But how is what Yahoo has done very different from your post? Most minorities don’t commit petty crimes like shoplifting. By posting the video you have given some of your loyal followers the red meat they thrive on in their comments. That’s why I agree with Prof. Hannah-Jones that “a person stealing steak is not national news”. It just perpetuates racial and ethnic stereotypes by people on the right. You should know better!

    2. “Your posting of a video of what appears to be a young Latino shoplifting steaks from a Trader Joe’s is an attempt to stigmatize and amplify the petty crimes of minorities. ”

      Dennis, you miss the problem as usual. Turley wouldn’t have pointed it out if the theft were in only one location or wasn’t happening repeatedly. It becomes national when the theft continues, causing stores to close their doors. You don’t realize that because you have tunnel vision.

      1. Right. This event is emblematic of the wider phenomenon of local governments ENCOURAGING large-scale theft.

        And “minorities” is an outrageously racist term that has no place in public discourse. Whites are 10% of the world’s population. How is that a majority? If someone means “non-whites”, he should say “non-whites”.

    3. Dennis, it is quite revealing that you see a latino man, I see a light skinned man whom I took to be white. Are you suggesting that only minorities commit crimes?

      That this is newsworthy is because it is symptomatic of the blatant, in your face, theft that is plaguing NYC as a result of the soft on crime policies of the left. How better to demonstrate this than by showing a man walking out of a store having stolen as many steaks as he could carry.

      It is clear that Jones, and you, only object to this being in the news because it reflects so poorly on your party’s ideology.

Comments are closed.