We previously discussed the movement in journalism schools to get rid of principles of objectivity in journalism. Advocacy journalism is the new touchstone in the media even as polls show that trust in the media is plummeting. Now, former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward have released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Notably, while Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.
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 decried 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 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.”
Lauren Wolfe, the 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.”
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism.
Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.” Her 1619 Project has been challenged as deeply flawed and she has a long record as a journalist of intolerance, controversial positions on rioting, and fostering conspiracy theories. Hannah-Jones would later help lead the effort at the Times to get rid of an editor and apologize for publishing a column from Sen. Tom Cotten as inaccurate and inflammatory.
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. Notably, writers who have been repeatedly charged with false or misleading columns are some of the greatest advocates for dropping objectivity in journalism.
Now the leaders of media companies are joining this self-destructive movement. They are not speaking of columnists or cable hosts who routinely share opinions. They are speaking of actual journalists, the people who are relied upon to report the news.
Saying that “Objectivity has got to go” is, of course, liberating. You can dispense with the necessities of neutrality and balance. You can cater to your “base” like columnists and opinion writers. Sharing the opposing view is now dismissed as “bothsidesism.” Done. No need to give credence to opposing views. It is a familiar reality for those of us in higher education, which has been increasingly intolerant of opposing or dissenting views.
Downie recounts how news leaders today
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
There was a time when all journalists shared a common “identity” as professionals who were able to separate their own bias and values from the reporting of the news.
Now, objectivity is virtually synonymous with prejudice. Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor at the Associated Press declared “It’s objective by whose standard? … That standard seems to be White, educated, and fairly wealthy.”
Outlets like NPR are quickly erasing any lines between journalists and advocates. NPR announced that reporters could participate in activities that advocate for “freedom and dignity of human beings” on social media and in real life.
Downie echoes such views and declares “What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever ‘objectivity’ once meant to produce more trustworthy news.”
Really? Being less objective will make the news more trustworthy? That does not seem to have worked for years but Downie and others are doubling down like bad gamblers at Vegas.
Indeed, the whole “Let’s Go Brandon” chant is as much a criticism of the media as it is President Biden.
If there is little difference between the mainstream media and alternative media, the public will continue the trend away from the former. MSM has the most to lose from this movement, but, as individual editors, it remains popular to yield to advocates in their ranks. That is what the New York Times did when it threw its own editors under the bus to satisfy the mob.
As media outlets struggle to survive, these media leaders are feverishly sawing at the tree branch upon which they sit.
I wouldn’t have a problem with activist journalists if they were just honest about it. Unfortunately, what also accompanies these activist journalists is the complete intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them and the mad rush to censor any opposing point of view. Some have even proposed criminalizing opposing speech by redefining it as “misinformation”. Just change the rules and get young people to accept it. They have pretty much succeeded in many colleges and universities and are now pressing their agenda down into high schools and middle schools. This is Communism 101. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article. Much appreciated.
The Columbia Journalism Review just released a not so kind review of The New York Times coverage of Russiagate.
If objectivity has got to go, can we expect more stellar reporting like the NYTs? Yeah, I made myself laugh too!
Actually I am perfectly fine if MSM wants to abandon objectivity. For the most part, they already have. Just look at NPR.
But what they really want is censorship of alt-media like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Sharyl Attkisson, whom still hold to objective, investigative reporting. Alt-media makes MSM look like The Three Stooges. Some in alt-media have bigger paid subscription audiences. People are willing to pay for quality, objective news.
Objective news pays the most for those who practice it. That’s why so many supposed mainstream, advocacy ‘journalists’ hate them – they haven’t figured out no one wants to pay people who lie to their face day-in and day-out.
Journalists sell their wares like anyone else.
I am sure that there is a market for dishonest journalists.
Just like there is a market for fat hookers.
But it is probably smaller than these people hope.
If I had to choose, I’d go with the fat hooker. It only takes a box of Twinkies to shut her up.
Next on the list, objective judges.
The clowns are funny, just laugh at the stupidity.
“Lauren Wolfe, the 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.”
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism.
Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.” Her 1619 Project has been challenged as deeply flawed and she has a long record as a journalist of intolerance, controversial positions on rioting, and fostering conspiracy theories. Hannah-Jones would later help lead the effort at the Times to get rid of an editor and apologize for publishing a column from Sen. Tom Cotten as inaccurate and inflammatory.
Then the next statement tells us more than 80% of the American People do not trust the Media
Go figure!
CNN’s viewership is the lowest it has been in nine years.
Yet the Left just keeps on pimping this garbage of “activism journalism” which is code words for “the Leftist Agenda”.
American media for the great part has become the Democrat Party’s Propaganda Machine….and that must be called out for what it is and the harm it is doing to this once Great Nation.
There’s nothing wrong with “freedom and [the] dignity of human beings,” what’s wrong is discarding truth. Or omitting elements that would contribute to truth. And that’s what all of these journo-activists are doing. This idea too that such fiction will find broad appeal is really rather bizarre. As if to say, why enjoy mass audience, why be “good” at something, when one can simply be mediocre? And well-paid, by the political forces that be? (Greed and remuneration, that too is missing here.) And who cares if much of the world sees your commentary, as reflection or expression of inner-self, as evidence of deep-seated instability? And who cares if those who turn to such “outlets” to gather facts for evaluation, to aid in assessing their place in the world, find nothing but bias and propaganda, which they opt to reject? Never mind the fact that given a free-choice, which cannot be denied without militaristic force, mankind will always ultimately make the correct forward-serving decision regardless.
I THINK [?] … THEREFORE I AM
A Human Cucumber
A Meat Popsicle
A Texas door knob warmer*
A Journalist
Please tell Me who I AM
* lol – Never heard of it, Had to look that one up:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Texas%20Door%20Knob%20Warmer
I might watch or read about the weather, if looking for any objectivity. All else (and I mean ALL of it), is hacks being paid to say something to form the minds of its j owners’ consumers. I don’t fall for it, and many others don’t either. You can tell by the ratings and the drastic falloff of participants and viewers. But you all still try even as you circle down the drain.
You can’t find it in the weather any more either. It’s cold because of climate change. It’s hot because of climate change. It’s a tornado because of climate change. It’s a blizzard because of climate change. And Ginger will be back with a special at 10pm about climate change
Since this is true that they think objective journalism has to go then their usefulness to the people has met it’s end. We no longer need these journalists and we have to find a new paradigm of true journalism that simply tells us the facts as they are and not as they wish they were!
Come on. There has never been ANY objective journalism. There’s a reason for the birdcage liner/garbage holder lines of old
Turley as usual leaves out a LOT of context when making these kinds of criticisms. For example he wrote,
“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.”
There’s more to what he said and it’s not what Turley implies. Here’s the full statement,
“Glasser disagreed. For him, objectivity and social justice are in conflict, and he urged that journalism “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.”
Jefferson said that objectivity is not often practiced equitably. In the real world, he said, only “people of color, queer people, women, and so on have their commitment to objectivity questioned.” This discrimination happens, he said, because society perceives objectivity as neutral, and people don’t associate straight, white men with identities that interfere with neutrality.
“There’s this assumption that if you really want objective journalism, just give me a staid, white person,” Jefferson said.
But that, Jefferson said, is obviously wrong: Like everyone else, a white man “comes to his work as a journalist with attitudes, beliefs, preferences and identities … that structure his own thinking about the world.”
Turley does NOT practice what he preaches.
“Objectivity became a prominent journalistic principle in the 1920s. According to the Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel’s book, “The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect,” objectivity emerged because the country’s faith in science was growing, so Americans felt journalism should also be a scientific process discerning objective truths rooted in facts and evidence. According to Matthew Pressman, journalism assistant professor at Seton Hall University, objectivity caught on after massive newspaper closures throughout the U.S. Since there were fewer papers, wrote Pressman, each one had to serve larger audiences and thus more diverse viewpoints. To stay afloat, newspapers embraced objectivity as an effort to keep a wider audience happy“
With the prevalence of the internet and blogs, podcasts, and 24hr news cycles the notion of objectivity as it was in the 1920’s is not as valuable as it once was. Fox News has never been an organization dedicated to objective Reporting. With people like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson who pass off as journalists and Fox blurring the line between opinion and news they have transformed the media landscape to what it is today. Turley should be critical of Fox News for enabling what he is being critical of.
@7:02
You need to properly identify who’s work you are cutting and pasting
Iowan2, if you bothered to check. It’s from the links in Turley’s column.
your presentation is a mess, I refuse to attempt to straighten out. I read our Host’s posting, I sure don’t need your uniformed take.
Iowan2, what you are sayin is you are too lazy to read through the article Turley linked to and passing it off as something you can’t be bothered to “straighten out” because there’s too much to consider.
RE:”Turley should be critical of Fox News for enabling what he is being critical of.” MSNBC and CNN are certainly not without sin but you never call them to account. Hardly objective in your own right, are you. That’s why your posts are so tiresome. Same old rodeo time after time.
ZZDoc, I’m not the one being critical of media not being objective. Turley bemoans the lack of objectivity in news media and uses only examples from left leaning sources. if he were truly objective he would be using Fox News as an example too. Being objective means being critical of both conservative and liberal media and citing examples of both. Because Turley often does commentary on Fox News he can’t really criticize them for fear of not being invited to their shows. To be an objective journalist which Turley implies he would have no problem being critical of his own employer.
RE: ‘I’m not the one being critical…”The Artful Dodger” as usual. My accusation was clear. Your response totally irrelevant to it. Mounting a defense of the two networks I cited would have been far more honest than an opinion critical of Turley based upon presumptions devoid of fact. It boggles the mind that in a Period of Enlightenment where science has finally tossed off the cloak of conclusions based upon empirical observation and donned that of those arrived at through evidence-based research, the fourth estate is now returning to the Dark Ages with gleeful abandon, ready and willing to convince us all that maggots come from meat.
Your “context” makes little sense, in that, that which you provide in paragraph four does not in any way alter or change our perception of Turley’s quote. Also, when referring to Hakeem one should so state it is Hakeem, because in broad journalistic sense there is only one “Jefferson,” and that is Thomas. Who, I know, having read much of his writing, never made such statements. Also, we can debate difference in cultural perception, born of cultural empowerment, but we cannot discard the product itself, which is an amalgamation of facts. No free-thinker ever turns to such sources for simply affirmation through biased presentation; generally speaking, it is only the free thinker that subscribes to such sources at all. Which might explain why you yourself googled this matter of “objectivity” to find Glasser’s and Kakeem’s quotes.
Betuadollar, the context makes your sense when you read the article Turley was referring to.
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/20/should-journalists-rethink-objectivity-stanford-professors-weigh-in/
Turley only posts quotes that fit his narrative rather than what the person he was quoting was actually saying. A certain amount of reading comprehension is required to ‘get’ what Glasser was saying.
Svelaz: “A certain amount of reading comprehension is required to ‘get’ what Glasser was saying.”
Lin: Here is the very first, opening sentence/paragraph of the article that you (Svelaz) linked:
“Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity,” said Ted Glasser, communications professor at Stanford, in an interview with The Daily.”
(All other quotes of Glasser’s comments are also repeated accurately by Turley.)
So why don’t you tell little us, dear Svelaz, -in your own words and reading-comprehensive manner, -just what was Glasser saying? What did the good professor miss? Or misrepresent? And what do you think we might not “get?”
You tell us, please.
Thank you in advance for allowing us to truly appreciate you.
Lin, the quotes are accurately repeated, but that doesn’t mean Turley gave it the proper context which he did not.
You did’t post the entire sedition discussing Glasser’s point of view and why he’s making that claim. Once you do that it changes what Turley is implying. Turley is not being honest with the context of the quotes he’s using. There’s much more to it than he leads others to believe. You don’t need my explanation, obviously you have access to the entire article and what it is actually saying. It’s a lot more nuanced than what Turley leads one to believe.
Thanks Svelaz, but where I went to school, -be it grade school, high school, and beyond, I was always taught to begin your paragraph, essay, article, heading, or comment with the point you wish to make, then flesh out with details in support. The title of Turley’s post is: “Objectivity has got to go….news leaders call for an end to objectivity.”
The article YOU cited begins with: ““Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity,” said Ted Glasser, communications professor at Stanford, in an interview with The Daily.”
The very article that YOU cite, The Stanford Daily, which interviewed Glasser, states the following, “Glasser believes journalists must step away from the blanket idea of objectivity to achieve social change.” More importantly, Svelaz, the Stanford article that YOU cite (above) only mentions Glasser one more time, where it states, “For him [Glasser}, objectivity and social justice are in conflict, and he urged that journalism ‘free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.
I ask you again, dear Svelaz, to tell us what you mean when you say, “You did’t post the entire sedition discussing Glasser’s point of view and why he’s making that claim.”
Please tell us where that is located in the article that you cite. I thank you again.
Lin, when Turley uses quotes from an article he often puts them out of context and he does that for a reason.
Turley’s characterization of what Glasser was getting at and the general context of the article used to get the quote from does not imply what he claims in his column. I”m sure in your schooling days you were taught the concept of the continuity of context when reading something. If you read the entire article from the Stanford Daily it doesn’t imply what Turley claims in his column. Once you read the whole thing and compared it to what Turley writes you can immediately make out the distinction in the context vs Turley’s You can tell he’s deliberately using those quotes out of context and as I have pointed out he changes the context by using one word that does not convey what the author meant.
Lin, this is what Turley said,
“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.”
It’s important when you quote someone that you quote it in the context that it was actually said. Glasser didn’t “insist” journalism needed to free itself from the notion of objectivity. He actually said he “urged” that journalism needed to free itself from the notion of objectivity. There’s a difference between insisting and urging something and it makes a big difference in context when you use “insist” rather than what he actually said. He was discussing a broader nuance rather than a specific insistence that he was NOT making, but Turley mischaracterizes it as such. It’s deliberate.
From the Stanford Daily, directly quoting Glasser: “Glasser disagreed. For him, objectivity and social justice are in conflict, and he urged that journalism ‘free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.'”
Lin, here’s another way of putting it. Turley says Glasser “insisted” that journalism be free from objectivity”. But Glasser actually said he “urged that journalism be free from objectivity.
To really use reading comprehension would require the recognition that “insisted” and “urged” are not the same thing. Insisting on something is to convey a demand. Urging something is to convey strong suggestion. Right?
When Turley characterizes what Glasser said as in insistence, which was wrong, instead of an urging which is what he actually said frames the quote in the wrong context implying that Glasser was demanding that journalism be free from objectivity. Do you agree?
Because when you read the entirety of Glasser’s opinion it’s not saying he’s demanding that journalism be free from objectivity. He’s discussing the nuance of the changing definition of what objectivity means vs what it once meant. Turley was deliberately mischaracterizing what Glasser was saying. THAT is why you need good reading comprehension skills.
Svelaz: Methinks thou do protest too much;
(1) I repeated, verbatim, the ENTIRETY of Glasser quotes found in the article that YOU cited.
(2) You state, “But Glasser actually said he urged that journalism be free from objectivity.” You also said, “… instead of an urging which is what he [Glasser] actually said.”
Glasser never said any such thing. Completely false on your part.
It was the author of the Stanford article, -NOT Glasser, who said that. Please go back and READ IT A LITTLE MORE COMPREHENSIVELY. Try to discern between what the Stanford Daily author is saying, and what Glasser actually said.
(3)Indeed, you state, “Because when you read the entirety of Glasser’s opinion it’s not saying he’s demanding that journalism be free from objectivity. He’s discussing the nuance of the changing definition of what objectivity means vs what it once meant.”
-Ah, but I quoted everything that Glasser actually said, which constitute(s) the entirety of his expressed “opinion.”
Please, Svelaz, show me where I can read “the entirety of Glasser’s opinion,” vis a vis, your own inference of Glasser’s “opinion.”
(4) You have refused to support your statement, “He’s {Glasser] discussing the nuance of the changing definition of what objectivity means vs what it once meant.” Please show us the text where Glasser is doing this explainin’
(4)) What Glasser DID say, is: “Journalists NEED TO BE overt and candid advocates for social justice.” [emphasis mine, but represents actual quote]
In my book, “need to be” is closer to Glasser being “insistent” than being “urging” (which Glasser never said anyway).
Are you being “disingenuous” by implying that Glasser said things that he didn’t actually say?
Are you providing “disinformation”and “misinformation” by presenting your own inferences as actual comments and opinions made by Glasser?
I’m done here, thanks anyway.
betuadollar.. Thank You! You are correct, saying that Thomas Jefferson never made nor would ever make such stupid ‘quotes’ that came from the skewed source of the imbecile troll from the darkside whose handle begins with ‘S’ which continually tries to belittle Prof. Turley…
I can agree with you about Hannity and Carlson but they don’t pretend to be objective. What concerns me is the pervasive trend to subtly insert climate, white Supremacy, anti-Trump, pro-Democrats into AP screeds and supposedly objective news stories on legacy media channels.
Svelaz: Turley jumped the shark a long time ago. How ironic that he criticizes the alleged lack of journalistic objectivity when he works for one of the worst propaganda purveyers out there. One of Fox’s discipleship recruitment techniques is to harp about “mainstream media” being unfair because they don’t constantly: 1. attack Joe Biden; 2. attack Democrats; 3. publish stories about the “Hunter Biden Scandal” that allegedly prove Joe Biden is getting bribes from the Chinese; 4. use the phrase “Biden Crime Family”, a favorite phrase of Mark Levin; 5. defend Donald Trump, but instead, publish facts that prove he lied about winning in 2020, that he fomented the insurrection because his ego can’t stand rejection, that he stole classified documents, lied about returning them, forced the government to obtain a search warrant, and then fundraised over it; 6. criticize the DOJ and FBI and other law enforcement for investigating Trump; 7. attack Fani Willis for enforcing Georgia election laws that Trump violated when he demanded that Raffensberger “find” 11,780 votes; ….the list goes on.
One of the biggest tells in all of this is the fact that so-called “mainstream media” do NOT tell their viewers or readers that Fox, Breitbart, OAN, NewsMax, Info Wars and the other alt-right sources of indoctrination are lying to them, which is exactly what Fox and other alt-right media do. Telling viewers or readers that other sources of information are not credible, is indoctrination, and if Turley were truly objective, he’d have nothing to do with Fox. Today’s little turd piece just checks off the boxes on Turley’s assignment list to: 1. criticize mainstream media; 2. criticize Joe Biden. 3. attack other non-alt-right media. Turley has no credibility any more.
Svelaz: agreed. Here’s just one example of Turley’s disingenuity: “Notably, while Bob Woodword and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.” If you click on the link, the article Turley cites talks about Woodward criticizing the Steele Dossier, NOT the established fact that Trump’s campaign DID collude with Russian hackers to spread lies about Hillary Clinton because polls predicted he would lose. His campaign came up with a strategy of flipping a certain number of votes in precincts in key swing states that would be enough to swing the Electoral College, and this is how we got saddled with 4 years of Trump–who lost the popular vote, BTW. It is an alt-right talking point to conflate the so-called “Steele Dossier” with Russian hacking, and then claim, because the allegations in the Steele Dossier haven’t been proven, that the findings of Mueller, Dan Coats, and the Republican Senate Committee, (i.e.–that Trump’s campaign did collude with Russian hackers to spread lies about Hillary Clinton) is likewise untrue. They lump both matters together and collectively refer to them as “Russia Gate”. This is not accidential, either, and Turley does know better. Mueller’s findings about Russian collusion are established by the testimony of witnesses and validated documents. Dan Coats was the head of U.S. Intelligence Agencies appointed by Trump, a llifelong Republican, former member of Congress, and he confirmed that Russian hackers did interfere in 2016. So did a Republican Senate Committee that investigated the matter. The Steele Dossier and Trump’s campaign colluding with Russian hackers are not the same thing. Turley deliberately plays word games to feed into Fox narrative themes because he’s paid to do so. It is particularly ironic that he attempts to criticize anyone or any organization for lacking objectivity.
GiGi – still holding by your fingernails to the collusion delusion to the bitter end.
Klimnick was An assistant to Manaforte in Ukraine. Unknown to Manaforte, he was working for Russia, and the US State department. The polling data he was provided was not the holy grail. Nor is there any evidence it was ever provided to the Russians nor would it have had much value especially 6 months later.
The Claim that Russian bots or Russian adds – regardless of how they came about was thoroughly debunked by a left wing think tank in Cambridge I beleive that recently published a detailed analysis.
The adds were way to late. Targeted die hards, not persuadable voters, were too few in numbers, were in the wrong markets. and were completely ineffective in changing anyones minds.
Put simply they had Zero effect on the election – and they could not have had an effect.
The whole Russian influence claim has been idiotic nonsense from the start.
You really expect a sane person that The Trump campaign is going to invest significant effort in a criminal process involving spying and tradecraft which they have no experience at, which if they are caught will land them in jail and have everyone invoved with remembered forever in history as evil, in order to get about 10,000 adds posted to people on facebook – really crappy adds designed by idiots in russia who are clueless about american politics, most of these adds favoring Clinton or Sanders ?
When Trump could have just written a check to Cambridge Analytics and had a well done targeted add compaign campaign funded and legal that stodd an actual chance of working.
You left wing nuts NEVER think about the nonsense you spew.
What is most surprising about the Collusion Delussion nonsense is that so many of you beleived it for so long.
You have to be an absolute MORON to think Trump or anyone else would do something this stupid.
I am not a Trump fan. I did not vote for him. But my distaste for him does not make me stupid. Or beleive stupid things
I was NEVER a credible claim that Trump colluded with Russia. Trump would not do that – it is too stupid, not in his interests and provides him with No value. It is all downside no upside.
Putin would not do that. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out Who Putin wanted to win in 2016. And it absolutely was NOT Trump. Even the CIA KNEW Putin favored clinton – though WE did not learn that until almost 4 years later.
For all their problems MOST in the CIA are not Morons. Trump’s policies were universally bad for Russia.
Putin would have to beleive Trump would do NONE of them to consider supporting Trump.
The CIA concluded – that Putin wanted Clinton as president not Trump.
Why ? Because the CIA is not MOSTLY full of complete Morons.
I know far to many left wing nuts fail to act in their own interests.
But successful world leaders do not do things they KNOW are stupid and/or that are not good for their country.
Trump was inarguably bad for Russia, Clinton was much less of a problem
Further Putin beleived he could maniplutate Clinton easier than Trump – which is likely true.
Of course the collusion delusion was a LIE.
Anyone with a brain knew that the very first time it hit the news.
Hillary lost in 2016 because she botched her own campaign.
She wasted lots of effort in California trying to run up the popular vote – when Bill Clinton was warning her she was in trouble in the Rust belt.
The Rust Belt went for Trump – Because he spent time campaigning there – LOTS of time.
One of the reasons that alot of us are highly suspicious of Election Fraud is that States that went for Trump in 2016,
That polled with Trump leading in 2020, That Biden never visited in 2020, that Trump aggressively campaigned in in 2020,
Went by razor thin margins to Biden.
That is the pattern that is suspicious – not narrowly winning places your opponent arrogantly did not bother to campaign.
One of the recent twitter files revalations is that the “hamilton 68” list of alleged russian bots that our government put out.
Were neither Russian, nor bots.
These accounts belonged to AMERICAN Influencers were very real people.
Even left wing nuts at Twitter wondered what the US Government was smoking calling these accounts “russian bots”.
You and yours have been WRONG about all of this since the start.
You were WRONG about the collusion delusion – there are myriads more connections between Clinton and the Clinton campaign and Russia than Trump.
You are likely wrong about Election fraud – recent 2020 AZ senate hearings have evidence that hundreds of thousands of signatures in Maricopa county in 2020 – were not even close to matching – often the signature and the voter name were not only not a match – but not the same name. There were 10’s of thousands of ballots with no signature at all,
Equal numbers with “SS” as the signature – the SAME “SS” in thousands of ballots. Lots of signature that were just initials and NOT the initials of the voter, and on and on and on. These are not “judgement calls” – these are not the same signature by any standard at all.
These ballots never should have been counted. And they are evidence of Fraud.
You were wrong about social media censorship,
You were wrong about the hunter Biden laptop,
You were wrong about Joe being involved in Hunters business.
And these are just a few of the many many many things you have been wrong about
The peoplke, as usual, will be the judge of all this. Newspapers in Europe and Latin and South America long ago went down this route and it’s somewhat surprising that it took this long for American media leaders to adopt the same nonsense. The public in Europe and elsewhere where objectivity has been trashed are gone or turned into supermarket tabloids hawking the newest diet fad or a cure for hunger. The move by the “giants” will give room and space to the little guys who will come along to fill a void wanted and needed by the people.
Fox News set the standard long ago. It was because of Fox News changing what passes off as “news” that forced other Media companies to follow their model of the 24hr news cycle. Fox News lawyers have admitted in court that Tucker Carlson often doesn’t tell the truth. Yet his show is treated as news by his viewers despite the fact that he’s not really a journalist. Keep in mind the fact that Fox News is currently fighting a multi-billion dollar defamation suit for spreading false claims about the 2020 election. All based on the very same advocacy journalism Turley is moaning about. That Fox New is the biggest supporter of such journalism and Turley is dead silent about it is telling. Turley is a hypocrite.
1. Fox News is watched by about 1% of adults in the U.S. (I concede CNN, MSNBC, etc. are watched by a smaller percent than that – often combined)
2. As with broadcast TV news, cable TV news involving journalism ends at dinner time east coast time. After that, it’s entertainment across all media and everyone knows it. Before prime time, the limited broadcast “news” I watch (I don’t subscribe to cable news) is 50%-60% entertainment… highlighted by the tried and true Disney Corporation cross marketing on GMAs 1, 2 and 3… even the ABC “journalists” are today’s version of the Mickey Mouse Club-* (with Robin as Annette, Terry Moran as Bobby, etc. etc. and George as Mickey himself)
3. Fox News is only about 25 years old. This issue long predates that (CNN started around 1980 I think and Turner wanted it slanted from the get go)
____________
*Of course Amy and TJ putting a little dent in that analogy
>> Fox News lawyers have admitted in court that Tucker Carlson often doesn’t tell the truth. Yet his show is treated as news by his viewers despite the fact that he’s not really a journalist. <<
False. The court ruled McDougal's defamation suit was not actionable because Fox viewers understood Tucker's show is opinion.
The lawyers used that legal argument in part, because a year earlier One America News sued Rachel Maddow and MSNBC for defamation after Maddow falsely claimed OAN is "“really, literally is paid Russian propaganda.” The judge ruled that case was not actionable because Maddow's views are understood by her viewers as opinion. Tucker's lawyers relied on that as precedent.
You probably don't know about that case because the people who tell you what to think mostly ignored it.
Not that anybody expects you to be fair or accurate, but Glenn Greenwald lays it all out here.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers
You’re conflating two different cases. Tucker’s lawyers admitted in court that his viewers are basically too stupid to distinguish the difference between opinion and fact. Here’s an interesting article explaining why Fox News is not a very credible source for news.
“What happens when a group of Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month?”
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/11/fox-news-viewers-watch-cnn-study
Free Press – You get what you pay for.
That’s the problem with corporate media. It’s not “free.” They are selling your eyeballs to advertisers.
The advertisers want to reach certain demographics: young, college educated people with high disposable incomes who are just starting in their careers. Corporate media also sell subscriptions and want to target subscribers with the demographic traits the advertisers want to reach.
Since Democrats are now the party of rich, affluent, college educated, they are who the corporate media most desire as customers.
What makes Turley’s blog so valuable is that he does not rely on advertising or subscriptions. He can write about whatever his conscious allows.
He relies on peddling sensationalist political commentary geared toward conservatives and gullible libertarians. He posts his columns hoping to get invited to Fox News and get a nice paycheck.
Hannity and Tucker are opinion and analysis.
You should should shut up about topics you know nothing about.
Hannity claims to be a journalist.
“While Hannity has both denied being a journalist and described himself as such—“I’m an advocacy journalist, or an opinion journalist,” he said in 2017—The Washington Post struggled the following year to get a direct answer from his employer following the revelation that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen also represented the Fox News host. At the time, a network spokesperson would allow that Hannity is “an opinion talk show host.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/01/sean-hannity-january-6-committee-journalist
Tucker is more of an entertainer than a serious “analyst”. He’s a milder version of Alex Jones with a slightly more racist bent. He’s a firm believer in the big replacement theory.
Hannity admits he is an advocacy journalist yet Turley never criticizes him or the network. If he were Truly objective he would be critical of Fox and Hannity equally as he was of Hanna-Jones. That’s why he’s a flaming hypocrite.
That’s why he’s a flaming hypocrite.
While Svelaz is just a flame.
Choose your ad hominems wisely, hypocrite
There goes a free press idiot who went to J School.
Facts have no place in the news.
“Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.”
She isn’t wrong. Turley engages in activism all the time. His employer Fox News does it all the time yet he rarely and I mean RARELY criticizes Fox News for what it does best, advocacy journalism.
Wow, Turley either is oblivious or disingenuous with this article. Firstly his gripes about journalism losing it’s objectivity or not being objective enough are hypocritical. He works for a purely subjective media company. He engages in advocacy journalism all the time when he writes these columns for media companies such as The Hill and Fox News. Turley is a journalist and he constantly advocates for conservative and libertarian causes and narratives that include the very things he is criticizing on this column. It’s particularly interesting that he leaves out Fox News likely because he may have a non-disparagement clause in his contract.
Turley criticizes Hanna-Jones for peddling conspiracy theories while completely ignoring his own employer’s plethora of hack journalists who are ten times worse. Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and other “journalists” on Fox News have been doing what he claims as advocacy journalism for years. Turley is a hypocrite plain and simple. He’s a hypocrite of the worst kind.
I consider most things I hear from MSM as fiction because of their lack of objective reporting. For many years I have tuned out any of their stories and find I prefer reading something from real fiction writers I can find in the library.
Otherwise, tuning in to information coming from alternative media sources is now widely available on the internet and has become my option for “news” now.
The MSM journalist have done this to themselves and they do not seem to care. It is their choice. It comes with consequences. It seems they have joined the “tear it all down” crowd.
Thankfully, there are a lot more sane people left to continue to hold it all together.
Turley is a journalist and he constantly advocates for conservative and libertarian causes and narratives that include the very things he is criticizing on this column.
Turley is a Constitutional Law Professor. He advocates for the rule of law, and following Constitutional doctrine. You have yet to engage the Professor’s core findings, instead devolve into ad hominem attacks.
Iowan2, Turley is also an avid journalist. He writes columns for multiple newspapers and news organizations on a daily basis. I did engage his core findings. The problem is his own column is an example of what he is criticizing others of hence the hypocritical tone deafness of the column.
He engages in advocacy journalism all the time. He’s just as guilty as those he criticizes.
Do you even understand the difference between a “journalist” with MSM and a “columnist,” or “commentator?” These must be very big words or ideas for you to grasp. But you certainly have learned the word “disingenuous,” which appears in almost every one of your attacks against Turley.
Just what is your point, and why do you spend your whole day here? You are preaching to an empty choir stall, certainly not changing anyone’s views, if that is what you are being paid to do.
Turley is a legal journalist who is faithful to the law. One might not like his opinions, but they are consistent and well-thought-out. His ideological predisposition is to the left of center, at least in the past, identifying as a Democrat. His views are consistent, but with the Democrat Party moving in an Anti-American fashion, we can note fractures in his faithfulness to the party.
Svelaz talks a lot but is neither consistent nor well-educated. His responses can conflict with one another and sometimes do so in the same posting. He lacks knowledge of the difference between fact and opinion or right and wrong.
If Svelaz can continue to insult Professor Turley’s intellect, it is fair for others to state exactly what Svelaz is, a functional idiot.
“Turley is a legal journalist who is faithful to the law. One might not like his opinions, but they are consistent and well-thought-out.”
And very hypocritical. He claims objectivity in journalism has been a problem by doing exactly what he criticizes others of doing.
He practices advocacy journalism all the time and he engages in highly biased reporting of issues. He’s no better than those he criticizes.
S. Meyer loves to talk a lot, but only succeeds in making incoherent arguments that he pretends to make him look smart.
We are waiting for your proof Svelaz. You have none and you can’t make an argument. All you can do is insult the host and his reputation. You are not smart enough to present an argument that can stand. Based on your reprehensible action, no one can look at you as intelligent.
Svelaz talks a lot but is neither consistent nor well-educated.
SM,
Back in the 80’s, I worked at a command whose primary mission was deception. All warfare relies on some form of deception. It is a way for smaller forces to defeat larger ones. I believe Svelaz is representative on this blog of the “actual” percentage outside this blog that truly believe in the Leftist agenda. What they lack in numbers, they make up with deceptive tactics. This woke mob, while a true minority of the population, uses fear and intimidation to weaken the will of the majority and then their media army amplifies their actions to falsely portray them as a majority.
The irony in this post today is that the deception has deceived the deceivers into believing they are in the majority. As a result, they now believe the are free to say the quiet part out loud. And they will be wrong.
Olly you’ve been playing army too long.
You’re like Biden when he goes off script.
My anchor device is Navy, not Army.
Maybe you think this guy was playing army too long as well?
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Sun Tzu
Iowan2, Turley is also an avid journalist. He writes columns for multiple newspapers and news organizations on a daily basis.
Turley writes opinion columns, and appears in broadcast media. Offers his opinion…based on the Rule of Law and Constititution.
You NEVER challenge his analysis. Always resort to ad hominems and “what about FOX”
How many times did you scream FOX just on this one post of our gracious host?
Iowan2,
“Turley writes opinion columns, and appears in broadcast media. Offers his opinion…based on the Rule of Law and Constititution.”
No, he bases his opinion on his own views. If he really did what yo claim he does he would be criticizing Trump as much as Biden.
“You NEVER challenge his analysis. Always resort to ad hominems and “what about FOX”
Don’t start lying now Iowan2. I challenge this analyses all the time. Hullbobby even complains about it constantly by keeping track how many times I post and rebut his claims and arguments.
It’s fair to bring up Fox News since Turley’s criticism is about the lack of objectivity in journalism. He mentions advocacy journalism and activism in journalism by citing examples only from the left when clearly and obviously the right is just as guilty and even worse. It would be objective to mention them as well. His criticism is consistently biased towards the left making his own column bereft of objective analysis which is exactly what he is complaining about. Therefore it makes Turley one massive hypocrite.
If you should ever come to acknowledge that certain activist journalists at CNN and MSNBC are just as subjective as those at FOX, you will come to appreciate how much you and Turley might have in common. While Turley may speak about objectivity not entirely to your liking, you too do not speak of it as wholly as you might. Objectivity is the concern, and it seems to me both you and Turley may share it.
Ron can you say the same about Fox or the other right leaning news media that they have abandoned objectivity for sensationalism? How about advocacy journalism? Hannity has admitted that he is an advocacy journalist in the past. He’s more ambiguous about what he really is now.
I don’t deny that left leaning media cast off objectivity. They do so because they have to compete with Fox News and right leaning media doing the same thing.
You do not seem to understand the difference between a news show and an opinion show.
Carlson. Hanity, Maddow are opinion shows – they are like the op-ed pages we expect opinions.
We expect bias.
Fox has striaght news shows and they are careful – though Fox has very few actual reporters.
Mostly getting and reporting news from sources like AP or other sources.
CNN, MSNBC, … all have straight news and opinion shows too.
Their straight news is not anywhere close to unbiased – it never has been, but it has become fully in the tank advocacy in the past decade.
Today we get the likes of Maddow on what is supposed to be straight news.
When we hit NYT and Wapo this gets worse.
Now were are dealing with reporters. They are supposed to search for Facts. They are not there for advocacy.
The paper has a page for advocacy. It does not belong in the rest of the paper.
I can, but not without agreeing that subjective journalists are featured on all the cable outlets for how they attract viewers who are equally as subjective. It’s a fact of life that ratings are crucial to the outlets’ survival. We wish it wasn’t so, but there seems no avoiding the reality that they are in part paid to opine as they do. That CNN/MSNBC employs them because FOX does or that FOX employs them because CNN/MSNBC does is of no comfort to those who long for whatever objectivity can be had. Because it is not easy to glean objectivity in their comments, the best we can do is weigh and measure with our own reasoned thinking what it is they advocate and how it meets with our own political, social and economic views.
I wish CNN/MSNBC enjoyed ratings competitive with FOX. With respect to CNN in particular, I long for the days when they were clearly non-partisan and quite nearly apolitical. If they could return to that branding and appeal once more to that mix of civil libertarians, classical liberals and conservatives that is not going to wither away anytime soon, they might just cause FOX to begin losing viewers. As it is, everyone in that mix has little choice but to keep FOX at the top of their bookmark tabs.
Did you consider that the issues Mr. Turley speaks of, are issues and positions that FOX News is not guilty of? Remember, Rachael Maddow has been the Russia collusion queen for six years. That’s not FOX’s News fault, that’s on MSNBC. Turley was long considered to be on the left. He did not leave the Democrat party, the party left him.
Hawaii Rod, Fox is just as guilty of what Turley criticizes left wing media of. If he was being objective he would have not only mentioned the Russia collusion issue but also Fox’s lying about the 2020 election fraud claims. An objective journalist would have pointed that out if they were truly being objective. Right?
FOX nerver lied about the 2020 election. You making the claim is a lie.
Iowan2, Fox made false claims about election fraud when they repeatedly claimed certain voting machine companies were deliberately changing votes. They keep repeating the false claims made by Rudy Giuliani and other Trump lawyers. Fox News is going to trial over the claims this year and they are facing a billion dollar punitive damage claim. The claims against Fox are credible enough to go to court.
That’s why after being hit by the suit. They stopped making such claims. Turley is silent about the issue because he’s contractually prohibited from discussing it. He’s a witness too.
“They keep repeating the false claims made by Rudy Giuliani and other Trump lawyers”
They reported the claims of others. That’s factual. The entirety of the Trump document negotiations is reporting the lies of others. FOX did not lie, accurately reporting what others have said.
Dumb.
M