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.
251 thoughts on ““Objectivity Has Got To Go”: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism”
The Press in a Free Society
This recording combines two radio interviews in which Ayn Rand responds to questions from university students about the role of the press in a free society. Rand touches on a variety of topics including the role of objectivity in news reporting, the importance of freedom of the press, the immorality…
Rightwing Media Buried Objectivity
Here we have Johnathan Turley decrying the death of objectivity in political coverage. The ‘same’ Johnathan Turley who works for Fox News. The ‘same’ Fox News that stands a very good chance of losing a huge lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems.
Fox News was founded, in the 1990’s, with the principal objective of pushing conservative talking points into the national conversation. In that regard Fox News became wildly successful. Too successful, in fact! Fox News became the tail that wagged the dog with regards to the national conversation.
For years mainstream media felt an obligation to give equal weight to conservative talking points; most of which originated on Fox News. Mainstream media felt that obligation based on historic standards of ‘objectivity’. Consequently conservative talking points essentially got a free ride. Points were echoed by mainstream media while Fox News felt NO obligation to give equal weight to mainstream views.
This lack of balance came to a head in the 2016 presidential race. Mainstream media felt obliged to scrutinize Hillary Clinton’s email dilemmas which received extended attention due to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, Donald Trump was treated as a legitimate candidate when, in fact, he had no experience in public office. What’s more, Trump was uttering so many falsehoods, mainstream media could not possibly document them all.
After Trump managed an Electoral College-only victory, mainstream media realized that historic standards of objectivity were ill-suited for Donald Trump. Trump was playing by his own rules and totally disregarding conventional norms. So conventional norms no longer applied. Trump’s rigged election claims became the last nail in the coffin for media objectivity. No self-respecting journalist could possibly give equal weight to said claims.
The newly seated Republican House plans to spend the next 2 years investigating Democrats as payback for the January 6th committee. The idea seems to be that January 6th was not worthy of congressional hearings. So now it’s Jim Jordan’s chance to go after Democrats! The entire purpose of these hearings is to shoehorn conservative talking points into daily news coverage. But mainstream media may not cooperate. They have no obligation to take part in Made-For-Fox events.
Jeez what’s up with crackpot responses requiring multiple paragraphs to explain their flawed logic
Anonymous, Fox news has both news shows and opinion shows and we know the difference. Thats why Fox is number one in television media. Professor Turley presents his blog as an opinion blog while CNN promotes itself as a news not an opinion outlet which they have unquestionably become. Foxes popularity has proven that their existence and not your alter of worship is more respected by the American people. One would think that you might ask yourself why this is so but you have shown that self reflection is not among your strong points. We’ve heard from you and we understand who you are.
If you think 2020 and 2022 were conducted fairly, you are not a critical thinker. Period.
So let me get this straight; you’re saying that journalists should throw out objectivity and just lie to their audience. Is that right?
“Rightwing Media Buried Objectivity”
You are remarkably ignorant about the death of objectivity in journalism. That death began some 130 years ago with “yellow journalism.” And that rejection of objectivity came from American academics who imported the German philosophies of Kant and Hegel.
You do know the differnce between actual news shows and opinion shows ?
Fox was created because BOTH regular news AND opinion programs had ALREADY lost touch with the mainstream.
Fox was successful because massive numbers of people were tired of getting a daily dose of the left with their news.
And because they wanted to see opinion programming that was more than just two lefties debating how far left to go.
I would further note that conservatism is by definition inherently OBJECTIVE.
Conservatism is the resistance to Change. It is the acceptance of reality AS IT IS.
It is inherently objective.
Liberalism and progressiveness particularly are about what MIGHT be, not what IS.
Change is a necessity for improvement – though change is extremely difficult and most change is bad.
Regardless, the left is inherently NOT objective.
News is NOT about talking points – if your News show is offering ANY talking points – it is NOT News, it is an opinion piece.
The odds of Fox losing to DVS is about as great as Trump winning against the media over RussiaGate – ZERO.
The standard for defamation for the press and public figures is too high – and if you are involved in an election you have made yourself a public figure.
No Talking points should be present AT ALL on a news program. Not conservative ones not those of the left.
Conversely opinion shows are all about the analysis of the news from the perspective of those on the show.
Fox has numerous programs that it includes voices from the left. Turley is often one of those.
It is Fox, so the there are more conservatives.
It is rare for Opinion shows in the rest of the media to give any voice to those not on the left.
That is Slightly changed at the moment because a Republican controlled house means that What Republican leaders in the house say is News. Also because the MSM does much better in ratings when their shows involve real controversy’s.
Such as when Trump was present. Reporting on Biden’s constant failures is not news that draws an audience.
Of course the media felt the need to scrutinize Clinton in 2016 – just as the public did.
Clinton did have more experience in government – BAD experience. shouldn’t people be judged on the BAD job they have done ?
She was a disaster with here National Healthcare under Bill Clinton. She had no consequential accomplishments as a Senator from New York. She was a piss poor Secretary of State. She Botched Benghazi, and had no accomplishments – again.
She massively mishandled classified information – did so KNOWINGLY and recklessly and behaved entitled.
She did so for personal gain, as well as the benefit of her cronies.
And finally the DNC email scandal you referenced – The Clinton email scandal was Govenrment and Classified documents and had nothing to do with Wikileaks – If you are going to rant about objectivitiy you should get the facts straight.
The Wikileaks scandal was a leak of DNC emails that showed the DNC collaborating with Clinton and with Reporters to sabotage the Sanders Campaign.
Clinton’s PROBLEM was her experience – all of it BAD. Clinton is tied directly to nearly every political scandal in the US for the past 30+ years.
The press payed plenty of attention to Trump. His comments were constant prime time news – the left wing MSM gave him plenty of air time – beleiving that he was hanging himself. Except that his message resonated.
His scandals were covered – everyone was aware of the Access Hollywood tape.
Further Trump may not have had experience in politics – though he beat Clinton who clearly did. He was very successful in multiple private domains – which is a very very strong predictor for success in the future.
While Trump was not the great president he thinks he was, he was the best president in he 21st century – which is not high praise as Bush Obama and Biden are among our worst.
Regardless, Democrats needed everything to go their way in 2020 to beat him AND they needed a miracle.
You impeached him twice on bogus nonsense – clearly targeting a political opponent is NOT actually an impeachable offense – otherwise why is Biden in office ? That was not enough.
You got incredibly lucky with Covid, and were able to leaverage that to on the fly mutlate elections in democrats favor,
engage in massive nationwide ballot harvesting. censor the crap out of anything harmful to Biden, censor the crap out of your political oponents, actually use the FBI to thwart the re-election of the sitting president.
And after all that you expect everything that the only immoral conduct you are NOT willing to engage in is Ballot Fraud ?
A plurality of people beleive the 2020 election was likely stolen.
Regardless you needed ALL of that to eek a narrow victory – 45,000 votes in 3 states would have fliped the election.
100,000 votes would have flipped the house, senate and presidency all Red.
The FACT is that the TRENDS are all running RED. Democrats would face obliteration without:
A fawning media,
Massive ballot harvesting.
Massive media censorship.
And likely large scale Fraud.
Recent AZ Senate hearings found 1/4 of a million mailin ballots in the 2020 election did not have valid signatures.
Most were not even close. Many did not have the same name, many had no signature at all, Many had “SS” as the signature – no matter who the voter was. Many signatures were lust a line, some were so tiny as to be illegible.
None of these 1/4 M are “judgement calls” – they are all obviously invalid – yet they were accepted.
We had similar problems elsewhere – the GA Cobb County signature audit found that 300 out of 5000 ballots had invalid signatures and 30 out of those were obvious fraud. But that damning result did not trigger a signature check for all of Cobb county or of Fulton county which was with near certainty WORSE.
Signature missmatches are a GIGANTIC red flag for Fraud.
But that is OK with those of you on the left.
“Nothing to see”
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”
You do not seem to grasp that the immoral activities you get caught at, drive us all to beleive all the claims of misconduct you have NOT bee caught at.
“mainstream media realized that historic standards of objectivity were ill-suited for Donald Trump.”
And that is what is wrong with the left.
The test of a person’s character, their integrity, their morality – is not whether they are honest, decent, objective when it is easy,
When good behavior produces immediate good results.
It is doing so when it is hard. When doing the right thing may mean losing.
The left has told us all exactly who it is – starting long ago as the media became less and less objective – more than 40 years ago.
But particularly in dealing with Trump.
Trump is not the problem – You are.
You beleived – and are STILL OK with massive lies about Russian Collusion, and Russian bots, and Russian influence in the 2016 election – even though all ofthat has been thoroughly debunked.
YOU LIED – massively, and still you lost.
for 4 years – you told us all it was real – that Trump did not win in 2016 – that it was Russians.
That was all HOAXes on your part.
In 2020 you said that any leader with 200,000 covid deaths was a failure and should resign.
Biden has almost 800,000 Covid deaths and no talk of resignation.
You censored the Truth about the misconduct of the Biden syndicate accross the world
Then you doubled down and lied about it.
You riot when black police kill young black men.
You right when Down and Out black men die of drug overdoses while diminutive white officers watch.
You do nothing when white women are beat to death by black cops for protesting a stolen election.
You do nothing when White women are shot to death by black cops for protesting a stolen election.
You make new rules – it is only OK for those on the left to protest.
If your on the left, you can protest, you can riot, you can destroy property, you can kill police,
you can commit arson.
If you are on the right – protest is sedition, insurrection, worse than 9/11.
On gaining power you have targeted your political opponents – secretly subpoenaing their phone records.
You weaponized law enforcement to go after not just your political opponents – but their supporters.
People who protest abortion. Parents angry because a school allowed their child to be raped, or upset because their children were being taught to be racists.
You weaponized NARA, when that did not work you weaponized DOJ – when that does not work, you find a friendly magistrate, fail to tell them the whole truth, and stage a shock and awe raid on your political opponent.
All the while YOU are doing exactly what you accuse your oponents of – but more egregiously.
And this is just a short version of the moral failures of the left.
All this because Trump might tweet mean tweets at you and win an election.
You are condemned by your own words and actions, by your own double standards, by your own hypocrisy.
Very good John, but what you say doesn’t register with leftists. They are blind to reality and won’t engage in the process of finding the truth.
It is going to take far more than 2 years to fully investigate the misconduct of those on the left.
regardless, it is not getting swept under the rug.
The MSM may report it. Maybe it does not.
Regardless, house republicans will seek the truth.
They have promised and I expect the 14,000 hours of
capitol Video from January 6th.
Let the chips fall where they may.
I expect the communications between the Capitol Police the Sargents at Arms, and the house and senate leadership
regarding security for Jan. 6th to be made public.
Lets know the truth – whatever it is.
The banks have submitted over 100 suspicious activity reports regarding Biden family banking transactions.
Lets bring this to light – whatever they are they are.
Lets find out if Hunter Biden had access to classified materials.
Lets find out if the Chinese could access they classified material Joe left in the Biden Center.
Whatever the Truth is – lets know it.
You are convinced Trump’s business dealings are shady – without evidence and manufacture fake crimes to investigate him.
Lets put the same microscope on Biden’s business deals. How did the Biden’s get rich ?
Was it all legal ? Was it above board ?
Lets find out what documents Trump had at MAL – and what ones Biden had scattered all over.
Were Trump’s documents Declassified collusion delusion documents – or something else ?
If so what ?
We can know what the subject matter was without compromising national security.
What were the Biden docs ?
We should learn the truth.
Why is DOJ/FBI targeting parents, and pro-life protestors ?
Why is it ignoring Antifa, those threatening supreme court justices, an those vandalizing and burning pro-life clinics.
Why is any of the US government actively engaged in media censorship ? Especially why are they engaged in poitical censorship ?
This must come to light, those involved must be fired.
This must never happen again – not left, not right.
Maybe House republicans will manage this – and more.
If not, we will have to elect others who will.
You seem long winded, confused and against objective journalism.
How did so many professing to be professionals become so fragile?
Jonathan: In the 19th century “objectivity” was hard to find in the press. “Yellow” journalism was the name of the game. Newspapers were openly biased. Hearst newspapers openly called for a war with Spain over Cuba. William R. Hearst famously said: “You furnish the pictures, I’ll provide the war”. That changed in the 20th century. Journalism schools started advocating “objectivity” in reporting–presenting facts in a neutral way allowing the reader to decide. When covering the news journalists shouldn’t convey their feelings or bias. That has been the standard ever since.
Now considering the polarization of opinions in this country is it even possible to be really “objective”? Take Fox News. When Rupert Murdock decides on a story for the day does he apply an “objectivity” standard? Hardly. He is pushing a hard right conservative political agenda. Is that your idea of “objectivity”? You work for Fox. When Murdock puts out a story you dutifully follow up with a column that acts as an echo chamber for Murdock’s views. When Murdock complains about a proposed wealth tax in California you follow up your column echoing his views. Now to be fair you are not strictly a “journalist”. Your job is to try to mold public opinion in support of conservative causes. But shouldn’t you still try to be “objective”? Lack of bias is not your strong suit. You can hardly complain when some in the media think journalists should be more partisan. Working for Fox is the supreme act of “partisanship”.
Now “objectivity” and truth went out the window when Trump came to power. Trump spent 4 years attacking the press. He deemed any article that displeased him as “fake news”. Do you remember Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. 2017? I do. I remember the NY times and other papers printing photos, side by side, of the crowds at the Obama inauguration compared to the one at Trump’s inauguration–much smaller. At his first press conference Sean Spicer excoriated the press–claiming the crowd at Trump’s inauguration was much larger. That’s when I realized truth and accuracy was going to suffer under Trump. I was proved right. Over 4 yrs Trump made over 30,000 documented false and misleading statements. He still does that on his Truth Social and will probably on Twitter..
So back to the main point. “Objectivity” should be the gold standard in journalism. But so to should be truth telling and the facts. For 4 years Fox gave Trump a platform for his lies and disinformation. They even offered advice and talking points for the administration. They were in effect the “state media”–rivaled only by the press in Russia under Putin. Never once did I hear you criticize Fox for not being “objective” in it’s reporting. So instead of complaining that some in the media want to do away with “objectivity”, you need to sit down and have a long talk with Rupert Murdock. That’s where you should start in trying to bring “objectivity” back to journalism.
Truthtelling and facts according to you and your fellow leftists. Which means rarely truthful or factual, based on *objective* standards
DennisMcIntyre, Professor Turley always provides his opinion on Fox and you provide your opinion on this blog. No one expects you to be objective nor should they. All that we expect of you is an intelligent expression of your opinion rather than your daily attack on Professor Turley. You somehow don’t understand that each day you sully your reputation when you attack the person rather than his ideas. There are obviously no mirrors in your house.
They’re Influencers, not journalists.
If it’s not objective journalism, than it’s an editorial, an opinion piece, or activist propaganda.
Somewhere in Hell, William Randolph Hearst grins.
So at least they are honestly telling me not to trust them. Noted. And I won’t believe their bulls**t any more. Good job ladies and gentlemen. I will promptly think they are lying their booties off every time they open their pie hole.
The Left Wing media surrendered any pretense of objectivity and honesty long ago…I would say definitely since Nixon and Reagan presidency and went into hyper drive under Obama (to his favor) and Trump (to his disadvantage). That’s why the media has progressively lost their credibility. Very few Americans listen to what they have to say anymore as the faux patina of objectivity cracked long ago!
Truth is that the Left/Globalists infiltrated media long ago. Cronkite was a liar and spinmeister. The internet has allowed us to expose them via alternate sources providing better information and ‘fact checking’ for real (not Snopes et al). While they are more radical now, and less dishonest about it, many in the media have been socialists since the close of WWII.
Cronkite hid his Lefty-ness well until he reported on the Tet Offensive. The reporting part was accurate, US military was clobbered by those events. Only when he spoke of his personal disdain for the results of the ‘offensive’, then more openly about the war as a whole, did he ‘out’ himself as just another opinion-ist playing the role of reporter/journalist. I don’t blame his perspective; it matched what a lot of people in the States already ‘felt’ about Vietnam. But he was wrong to spout his personal, political views in the name of journalism.
“Advocacy Journalism” = PROPAGANDA
“Eliminating objectivity” = INDOCTRINATION
Where Collusion and Litigation collide
Has the U.S. has become such a Litigating environment that Publishing (Independent and Corp.) the Journalism is not viable [?],
and that Journalism must be presented as an Ad in order to gain Publicity [?]
Anyway, Journalism for Advocacy, sound narrowly like Journalism for Advertising Dollars.
A Journalistic form of the Infomercial.
The Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder. Some People read the Journalism of the WSJ, Forbes, The New Yorker … Some People read the Journalism of People Magazine, Cosmopolitan, Vogue …
Lots of flavors out there.
Jury Acquits Clinton Campaign Attorney, But Prosecutors Prove Corporate Media Guilty
“…Journalism for Advocacy, sound narrowly like Journalism for Advertising Dollars. A Journalistic form of the Infomercial. …”
Journalistic Infomercial – That would be NPR
You regularly cite to articles, which do not uphold the objective standards of journalism, to which, here, you claim to subscribe. Your countless posts concerning the Hunter Biden laptop story cite to Fox News and other right-wing articles, which fail to properly authenticate the documents, which are the focus of the “news” story. Without proper journalistic standards for authentication, there is no objective journalism. These articles then become advocacy journalism.
You are correct to point out the issues with the left. But that should not absolve the issues on the right, as well.
Dear “Anonymous” Bot, The Hunter Biden Laptop and the therein contained emails have been properly authenticated with statements by Hunter’s business partners and Hunter himself who has admitted it was his laptop. You should work for the lying NY Times, Washington Post, NPR, AP, CNN or MSNBC, yours is the direction they are heading!
Anonymous decided that he/she/it would have a heaping helping of “bothsidesism” (because it’s convenient in this case).
He/she/it also decided that facts (and the arduous task of finding them and knowing them) is for the other guys.
The Hunter Biden laptop story is a real as real gets. So says your FBI. That’s why they’ve been sitting on it for years. Get a clue.
Wow! Not to understand the Hunter laptop authentication after this long a period of time demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills. Somewhere you got lost. Maybe you can tell us how you made this decision and then maybe we can help you.
I want to know the “who, what, where, when, why, and how” and nothing else. More than that is editorializing. Save that for some column.
The “why” is all opinion. That is where all advocacy comes in. News should be just “who, what, where, when”. The “why” should go in opinion pieces.
Mitun– I agree with Bill in Houston. The “why” can be very important to communicate essential information for the public to understand what has happened. For example, in an article about a mass shooting, it would be important to know why it happened, i.e. was it a random act by a mentally deranged person or the result of gang activity?
It is not common to know why people do bad things.
Even when they tell us – we then have to decide if we beleive what they say.
Professor Turley, You work for/contribute to GW, Fox, NY Post, Hill newspaper, and USA Today (perhaps others) so what is your views on the state of journalism at these places and what does your colleagues at these places say about the state of journalism? Thanks.
Under the Constitution, Americans enjoy freedom, free speech, free press, free enterprise, free competitive markets, etc.
Under the Constitution, Americans enjoy a pervasive absence of regulation by a government that is severely limited and restricted by that fundamental law.
The consumer describes “journalism” like it describes every other product.
In freedom, Mr. Market is King.
People adapt to freedom; freedom does not adapt to people, dictatorship does.
The problem is illicit, invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional governmental bias.
Government gives people “free stuff” so people vote for it.
If there were no “free stuff” unconstitutionally provided by government, people would have no reason to vote.
Government would be infinitesimal and the Constitution would prevail, as it was designed and intended to.
The unconstitutional welfare state provides so much unconstitutional assistance and favor, the unconstitutional beneficiaries vote for it.
The unconstitutional welfare state must have been immediately struck down by the Supreme Court upon each emergence of its increments, leaving its beneficiaries unable to vote for it.
Congress may tax for ONLY debt, defense and “…general Welfare…,’ distinctly not individual, specific and particular welfare, or favor or charity.
Affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., must have been struck down by the Supreme Court from their respective inceptions for being individual, specific and particular, not general, Welfare, and for being favor and charity, not general Welfare.
The only problem here is ‘people’. If it weren’t for those pesky humans, everything would be fine. Unfortunately, we are not a nation of laws but are a nation of political will. Always have been, always will be. Unless and until you find a way to change humanity at it’s most base level, (thinking DNA here), we’ll keep making and repeating the same mistakes. We’re a fallen people, not meant to live in paradise on earth. That part comes later.
The Founders designed a society of laws – the Constitution and English Common Law.
America is an asylum that has been illegally taken over by lunatics.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional and cannot be voted for by every illegal alien invader and dependent parasite in the world that can make its way here.
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln took America off of its fundamental law by military force with a gun to America’s head – none of Lincoln’s legacy is constitutional or legitimate.
Of course, secession was and remains fully constitutional as that which the American Founders availed themselves of.
The wholly unconstitutional principles of communism have been incrementally implemented since “Crazy Abe’s” unconstitutional “Reign of Terror.”
America must find its way back to the maximal freedom and infinitesimal self-governance of the original intent of its Founders.
What passes for a journalist today – with precious few exceptions – are legacy/digital media malpractitioners who couldn’t score higher than a ‘D’ from my parsimonious Journalism 101 professor & I’m not kidding!
“Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.” Is he essentially saying that social justice cant exist under the guise of truth?
If objectivity is no longer fashionable, perhaps we should reconsider the standards for slander and libel. Is it still appropriate to require plaintiffs to prove malice?
bobdog– Ironically, as you suggest, the push to have reporters follow “advocacy journalism” removes the justification for the heightened defamation standard in New York Times v. Sullivan. Perhaps the media should be careful what they wish for. They may find their publications / broadcasts judged under a mere negligence standard like the rest of us instead of the much heavier burden requiring a defamed person to prove the media bore actual malice.
Did you say truth?
Social Justice – Deceit – Wily Subterfuge – Ruse (Merriam-Webster)
Hyphenated Non-Americans Desire The Possessions of Americans – Other People’s Money
End My Failure – Guarantee My Success
The Pitiable And Illegitimate Flimflam Supplications Of Leeches, Dependents and Parasites – Not To Put Too Fine A Point On It
Who Listens To This —-?
Tell ‘Em To:
Get Up On Olde Paint And Get The —- Where They Ain’t!
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
There may not be one universally-accepted perspective, I get that. I think about how much my perspective changed through my life experience, first a dependent child, then a single, then married and a parent. First an employee, then owning my own business. First a student, now a teacher. Do you know what did the most to change my perspective?….the level of responsibility I was shouldering.
Another difference in perspective is short-term vs. long-term concerns. Much of political difference between left and right is the conflict between what’s good for right now vs. later on.
Then, there are perspectives about humankind vs. the physical/chemical environment. Here, only the former hold any perspective. The physical environment of Earth which we depend upon has its own rules, and failure to understand them and live within them is low on survival value. In this case, it’s hard to argue that there are multiple truths, only that some truths of nature have yet to be revealed. That leaves open multiple speculations, and willful ignorance as grounds for different perspectives.
So, I get it….there are differing perspectives. That’s natural. If that places some limit on objectivity, I can accept that. But, to jettison the entire concept of objective truth is foolish.
That’s because civilized life requires the constant bridging across perspectives to resolve the conflicts that arise among them….between men and women, between youth and parents, between boss and employee, between teacher and student, between environmentalist and short-term-comfort-seeker. Truth is a meeting point…it’s that which we agree upon in our perceptions. It’s an essential ingredient to resolving conflict. Unless we want to settle disputes with guns, knives and bombs (primitivism), truth-seeking and logic are requirements for peaceful living.
And this is where the abandonment of objectivity is an irrational overreach. It leads automatically to factionalization, tribalism and the islanding of infospaces. “You can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts” devolves into “You can have your own facts”. And this leads to irreconcilable conflicts — you’ve taken away the bridge that crosses over between differing perspectives. Facts become symbolic notches on totem poles, and the challenging of facts becomes flaccid or simply withers away.
This leads inevitably to violence and warfare. And, there is no guarantee that things will somehow be better under the side that wins. There’s no guarantee that the environmental equation gets improved. Why?…Because the truth got subordinated to “the cause”. Future mistakes are the cake being baked.
That was a interesting and thought provoking comment.
I had to go into town today. I listened to NPR (I know) on the radio on the way. Based off what I heard, they are the ones driving the abandonment of objectivity. They are the ones driving from their opinions, to only their facts.
I fear the violence and warfare are the mistakes are already baked in the cake.
My God, what a pile of self-indulgent preening and nonsense.
Relativistic journalism is self contradictory; assume the anti-objectivists are correct, then that just means “Your feelings vs my feelings” “facts and reality not included”. lol Therefore by necessity they ate wrong.
The guidelines for journalism are old and established and been proven to work many times over. What has been violated by the new bunch is that they have no ethics, no integrity, no honesty and zero common sense.