I will be speaking today in Colorado on the “Rise and Fall of the American Fourth Estate.” The speech explores the legal and political history of the free press in our democracy — and its rapid decline in the age of advocacy journalism. This week, a poll was released that shows just how much ground has been lost by this generation of journalists. Gallup and the Knight Foundation found that 50% of Americans believe that the news media lies in order to promote an agenda. Only 25% of Americans reject that premise.
The view of bias and untrustworthiness increased across the political spectrum, including among Democrats who usually favor the media given the liberal bent of the coverage.
It is also striking that the media is losing young viewers and readers with its current approach to journalism.
I have written for newspapers as a columnist for over 40 years and I have worked as a legal analyst for NBC, CBS, BBC, and Fox for over 20 years. I have watched the industry change each year as open advocacy moves from opinion pages to news reporting.
This latest poll is consistent with other polls showing that people are rejecting mainstream media in growing numbers. In 2021, a survey by the global communications firm Edelman (via Axios) found only 46 percent of Americans trust traditional media. That mirrors earlier polls by Gallup showing an even lower level of trust. Now this poll shows overwhelming distrust in the media.
I wrote a column a couple years ago asking how the media expects to survive while rejecting half of the country with overwhelmingly liberal coverage. Most news outlets seem to have written off conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans.
We have often discussed the increasing bias and advocacy in major media in the United States. While cable networks have long catered to political audiences on the left or right, mainstream newspapers and networks now openly frame news to fit a political narrative. With the exception of Fox and a couple of other smaller news outlets, that slant is heavily to the left. What is most striking about this universal shift toward advocacy journalism (including at journalism schools) is that there is no evidence that it is a sustainable approach for the media as an industry. While outfits like NPR allow reporters to actually participate in protests and the New York Times sheds conservative opinions, the new poll shows a sharp and worrisome division in trust in the media. Not surprisingly given the heavy slant of American media, Democrats are largely happy with and trusting of the media. Conversely, Republicans and independents are not. The question is whether the mainstream media can survive and flourish by writing off over half of the country.
A 2021 study from the non-partisan Pew Research Center showed a massive decline in trust among Republicans. Five years ago, 70 percent of Republicans said they had at least some trust in national news organizations. In 2021, that trust was down to just 35 percent. Conversely, and not surprisingly, 78 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they have “a lot” or “some” trust in the media. When you just ask liberal Democrats, it jumps to 83 percent.
This latest poll shows that the problem is only getting more acute for the media. Yet, publishers and editors are still pandering to the mob in calling for more advocacy and less objectivity. For individual media figures, these woke policies protect them personally from backlash or criticism even as they undermine their respective publications or media outlets.
For example, we recently discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They 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.”
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.”
This move away from objectivity has gained steam even as Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting. Yet, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.
This movement has been building for years.
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 Cotton as inaccurate and inflammatory.
Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jennifer Rubin has also called for the media to abandon balance and impartiality. Rubin has become notorious due to her screeds against Republicans and even calling for the Republican Party to be burned to the ground. I have previously written about how her work has lacked not just of objectivity but accuracy.
All of these voices show a complete disconnect from readers and viewers who do not want advocacy journalism and no longer trust what they are reading in the media. Yet, these calls remain personally popular for writers and editors alike. It is reminiscent of how executives at companies like Disney have pursued woke policies to the detriment of their shareholders and the alienation of many of their customers. The same is true for the push for censorship on social media despite the clear preference of users for more free speech and fewer speech controls.
That is why the latest poll is unlikely to deter the movement of “new journalism” in abandoning objectivity and impartiality. As Downie explained “objectivity” is
“keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.” So they will do their job even when viewers and readers no longer are interested in their work. Perhaps the new media can find a way to exist not only without conservatives but customers in general. That type of vanity press will require increasing subsidies from billionaires like Jeff Bezos, but they may balk at a media that is increasing writing for itself.
Turley Ignores This Week’s Biggest Story
This week we saw extensive coverage of the Dominion Voting System’s case against Fox News. Deposition briefs were released showing Fox News personalities, including Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, did not believe the election lies promoted by the Trump campaign.
Yet Fox News aggressively relayed Trump’s election lies purely for the sake of TV ratings; a form of journalistic malpractice on a massive scale. But here Johnathan Turley completely ignores these revelations as though they have no bearing on this column.
To hear it from Johnathan Turley, one might think this week’s big story was the revelation that ‘mainstream media lied by reporting Trump’s defeat’. In fact, it takes a shocking level of audacity for Turley to ‘not’ mention Dominion Briefs while maintaining this charade that mainstream media is the problem.
This column could be used as Exhibit ‘A’ to prove Professor Turley dwells in a bubble completely sealed from the larger world. In this regard we can see exactly ‘where’ the media problem originates. Mainstream cannot possibly give equal weight to stories coming from the right.
Fox News deliberately promoted election lies to maintain ‘brand integrity’. So Fox viewers would not defect to Newsmax! Yet Johnathan Turley is telling us mainstream media had an obligation to ‘objectively’ report Trump’s lies. In other words, Johnathan Turley is essentially a sociopath!
Ladies and gentlemen, I present for your edification the above text, written by a carnival barker known only as Anonymous. We gaze into his abyss and yet remain unable to fathom how deep the insanity goes in… the Trump Derangement Zone.
Dioceses,
It sounds like you’re deep inside Turley’s bubble and all the coverage concerning Dominion Briefs never, ever got through
What you call a bubble is the world of truth and reality. You live elsewhere where room temperature is equated with high intelligence.
Anonymous – in fact, Tucker Carlson did question the validity of fraud claims by Sidney Powell. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-election-fraud That is far more skepticism than anyone at MSNBC or CNN showed toward the Russia-Trump Collusion hoax.
Edward,
That Carlson video enclosed with your link seems a little nuanced. I’m not seeing any clear denunciation.
link seems a little nuanced.
Translation; It’s out side my preferred narrative so I ignore simple words forming simple sentences.
Anonymous – Conservatives by and large do not think of “denouncing” people they disagree with. As a serious journalist, he allowed Sidney Powell the chance to prove her case, and expressed as clearly and politely as possible that he did not accept her claims. His private opinions may have been stronger, but he did not shun someone who had bravely fought to clear General Flynn’s name.
It’s not just that his private opinions were “stronger” or that he “disagreed with” her. He repeatedly called her a liar. Why would any host choose to have a liar lie to their audience?
This is why Fox is facing a costly defamation suit and why discovery is so damning: they knew that the claims about Dominion were lies and they broadcast them anyway.
You’re spreading conspiracy theories. I saw Tucker raise doubts on national TV about the claims against Dominion. I remember it clearly. Not to mention that a judgement would violate past jurisprudence on the 1st Amendment. You will not get a judgement against Fox that will hold on appeal.
Good grief. After years of Russian-collusion theories, etc. etc. etc. do you guys ever get tired of telling everybody this time is different??
I’ve tried three times to post a relevant excerpt from the motion, appropriately edited because it includes some profanity from Fox employees, but WordPress keeps rejecting it despite the edits. I suggest that you read pp. 40-43 of the motion: https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/D8File/2023/02/16/2023-02-16-redacted-dominion-opening-sj-brief.pdf
“You’re spreading conspiracy theories.”
Please do quote what I said that you believe is “spreading conspiracy theories.” I doubt you can.
As for “a judgement would violate past jurisprudence on the 1st Amendment,” no civil defamation suits aren’t contrary to the First Amendment, which is a constraint on the government, not on a private party. People sometimes win defamation suits against news media, sometimes lose, and other times, the new media settle out of court. But defamation suits against news media are not contrary to the First Amendment. Dominion simply has to show that Fox knew they were broadcasting lies, and multiple employees said so.
You people act like spoiled brats, thinking if you throw just one more tantrum, this time you really will get the whole candy store.
He says “That’s a long way of saying we took Sidney Powell seriously, with no intention of fighting with her. We’ve always respected her work and we simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention.”
But while he was posting that, behind the scenes he was texting to Laura Ingraham that “Sidney Powell is lying, by the way. I caught her. It’s insane.” You would think that since he knew she was lying, then he wouldn’t be saying “We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention.” Not only that, but he played a tape of her repeating her allegations, and he pretended that he just wanted more evidence.
So no, it’s not “more skepticism.” It’s Carlson pretending to be skeptical while repeating claims he knew to be false.
Dominion has a very strong defamation case. I doubt that the judge will agree to summary judgment, and I look forward to people like Carlson being questioned under oath. It will be very entertaining.
What have the revalations got to do with anything ?
The case is about defamation.
This has no bearing on that case.
This also has no bearing on much of anything else.
Many people – including republicans do not beleive some or all of the claims of election fraud.
Facts and truth are not changed by the oppinions of those who think the election was stolen – or by the oppinions of those who think it was not.
You rant about what Turley has not reported – a Democratic expert on cyber security and election integrity who has been active in the issue since 2004 testified to the AZ Senate that it is triival to rig election computers to get a 51/49 result in any election, and that we do not have close to the security need to prevent that.
Prior testimony in AZ demonstrated that every Maricopa 2020 voting machine could have been hacked by a “script kiddie” – that is a novice hacker, within 10 minutes, and that a skilled hacker could do so inside of 60 seconds.
With respect to the FACTS of the 2020 election – at this time it appears to be unlikely that the Sidney Powell theory that DVS voting machines altered the outcome of the election is correct. While Inquiries arround the country have found LOTS of problems with DVS and other electronic elections equipment – sometimes serious problems. None of those problems have thus far been found to alter the outcome of any races.
That does not alter the FACT that Powell’s allegation was Plausible at the time – and remains plausible regarding future election.
Just recently a CA official was arrested for massive ballot fraud in the 2020 election. A raid of his home found something like 40 forged 2020 Ballots and evidence of larger numbers of phony voter registrations.
The 2021 Berline Mayors race was just overturned by the German courts – because of problems with voting machines that were minor compared to those in Maricopa County in 2020 and 2021.
Anyone who beleives the outcome of any post covid elections are trustworthy is delusional.
These are SOME of the requirements for a trustworthy election
1). an official ballot being printed at public expense,
2). on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
3). being distributed only at the polling place and
4). being marked in secret.
These only address hove voting must take place, not how counting must take place.
“Turley Ignores This Week’s Biggest Story”
The totalitarian Left presumes to dictate any given week’s “Biggest Story.”
I note that several commenters here are expressing the opinion that most media tell “lies.” I’m not certain that’s frequently true. As I and others have often mentioned, it is the “selective” fact and “selective” reporting that advances their agenda.
Here is a hypothetical (totally created by me) example: Let’s say, Big headline: ” 63% think Biden is better than Trump.” That’s not a lie, and the pollster will show you the Internet results. The poll results are reported and repeated on ABC, NBC, CNN, etc.
—What the pollster failed to tell you/did NOT report is that the pool of participants was purposely drawn from Democratic and/or minority populations.
The tactic is immaterial. The result, as Prof. Turley notes, is to advance an agenda.
Lin,
Right you are.
the 2016 presidential election highlighted the bias of certain polls to show that Clinton would win by a land slide.
Reality showed something different. Fact is, the Clinton campaign believed their own biased polls and tried to use that to give the impression of them winning.
Thankfully, Clinton lost.
Lin, I pointed out in the last couple weeks, that polls are ALWAYS commissioned by someone creating are driving a narrative. The pollster delivers exactly what the customer wants.
A certain commenter here accused me of lying. But, as you point out, delivering pools to fulfill results is the norm.
Pollsters can ask a series of questions, in a precise order and get almost everyone to answer against their wishes. Its nothing but psychology.
Iowan2: Sorry I missed your post “in the last couple weeks; sounds like I would have agreed with it.
(re: your sentence, “Pollsters can ask a series of questions, in a precise order and get almost everyone to answer against their wishes.”– a lot of us do the same thing in cross-examinations, ha ha! Are you following the Murdaugh trial?
Lin, if people are intentionally lying by omission, wouldn’t you call it a lie?
Yet when I claimed “cherrypicking is a common form of disinformation,” you disagreed. You seem to have very inconsistent standards.
If someone is providing a list of facts, it isn’t disinformation. It depends on intent.
hello there S. Meyer: Yes I would generally call it a lie by omission. But No, I would not call it an ACTIONABLE lie by omission if there is no correlative duty to disclose. (My response is narrowed to “people” in your question as media journalists/reporters/news anchors, etc.?)
So, the bottom line, in application, is this: is there recourse available to the general public for a broadcast medium that has omitted facts in a broadcast program?
Or must it publicly correct a false statement made by a guest or interviewee on one of its broadcast programs?
I do not believe there is a dispositive yes or no answer applicable to all instances. But, my leaning is that generally speaking, the answers are no/no duty.
The FCC generally shies away from these “content” issues, leaving wrongs to to be exposed/corrected/countered by MORE speech, including from other (often competing) broadcasters/sources, and/or/including private lawsuits, as in the Dominion/FOX case for alleged wrongs resulting in alleged injury.
Importantly, that being said, I know the FCC may sanction broadcasters upon a finding of a deliberate intention to mislead the public in matters of national import/public interest. I think that is why we often see news and broadcast media issue “corrections” to avoid investigations/sanctions–even though the intended effect has already been achieved….
“I would not call it an ACTIONABLE lie by omission”
Legal talk. Now I understand. That is the problem. Frequently we aren’t all on the same page.
” wrongs to to be exposed/corrected/countered by MORE speech”
That is where I differ from my leftist friends. They want to censor “MORE speech.”
I’m not trying to be legal at all, I’m just sayin’ this is how I see it. You are right about the “censoring”
Lin, I didn’t mean my comment as criticism. I liked your comment because it enhanced the definition.
In the most brazen cases, it’s lying. But almost routinely, journalists leave the wrong impression by:
– omitting relevant information that would undermine the preferred narrative or its dramatic punch
– using vague, non-quantitative nouns and verbs for purposes of greater arousal of fear and disgust
– setting low expectations for problem-solving to enhance alarmist sensationalism; fatalism
– exaggerating to strengthen a preferred narrative
– refusing to cover counter-narrative events, rationalizing them away as “not newsworthy”
The black box that news producers and editors refuse to open for public inspection is news selection.
Much of it arises from activists who got jobs in journalism. They are self-appointed “ministers of information” (propagandists). To them, “the truth” is that which is in my tribe’s interest for you to believe. When such a person ascends to the rank of producer or editor, it’s time to run.
Audience abandonment is our major tool for disciplining news media. Our major weakness to overcome is habitual consumption. Our strength is finding trustable, objective news sources and rewarding them with our attention.
I sense these corrective forces at work.
As new candidates enter the 2024 race, pundits who immediate jump on superficials to oppo-brand a candidate they don’t like will be “Don Lemoned”. Leadership selection must be treated seriously.
Pbinka, Don Lemoned, Chris Cuomoed, Charley Rosed just to mention a couple more. Funny post.
pbinca: I was writing my little comment as yours was posting, sorry I missed it, yours is much more thorough (and true)
Just 50%!
Bob, only 25% think that the media doesn’t lie to us. We have several posters on this blog who are among the 25%. Fox News excluded of course. These posters bow down to the god CNN and the goddess MSNBC every morning before they’ve had their first sip of latte as they rub the board from their eye.
The leftist media lie to us all the time. They try to tell us how good we have it under the governance of the left. I offer a piece of information from The Los Angeles Times that explains further how their policies are a benefit to us all. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-15/california-natural-gas-bills-expensive-socalgas-pge-long-beach. I stand aghast that The Los Angeles Times would be so objective in their coverage.
Thinkitthough, that is what you get via the governance of the market, usually not considered to be leftist. Do note that it is Econ 101 that increased demand is met by increased prices in the face of imperfectly elastic supply.
“Reality has a liberal bias.”
I am yet again amazed. For such a long time the Mainstream Media assured us that they were being objective in their reporting. Now finally they admit that they are not objective at all. They lied to us year after year and now they try to tell us that they are doing the moral thing and expect us to listen to what they have to say without even getting a kiss. They say we’re going to rape your mind and you better like it.
All we know is that you’re “speaking in Colorado.” Where in Colorado??
https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/447888/Jonathan-Turley
Speaking Fee:
Live Event: $20,000 – $30,000
And there’s WWSG:
https://wwsg.com/speakers/jonathan-turley/
Anonymous, thanks for letting us know that you don’t like it because Professor Turley makes money for speaking. It’s obvious an attempt to infer that he is sold out to the right. His fees are miniscule in comparison to the speaking fees for your favorite lady. https://www.salon.com/2016/10/08/in-paid-speeches-hillary-clinton-said-she-represented-and-had-great-relations-with-wall-street/
TiT,
As we have seen here on the good professor’s blog, a number of commenters comment on how Turley’s reputation, or credibility is in some how in decline.
I would say getting paid speaking engagements around the country is direct evidence to the contrary.
As with the popularity his blog sees.
Speaking of lies … Turley is lying, because the survey didn’t ask people whether the news media lies, and it didn’t conclude that “50% of Americans believe that the news media lies in order to promote an agenda.”
What they actually asked was whether the person agreed or disagreed with “In general, most [national news organizations/local news organizations] do not intend to mislead, misinform, or persuade the public.” 50% disagreed. But the question conflated dishonesty (intends to mislead or misinform) and persuasion (intends to persuade), when they are not the same thing. Someone could easily believe that media generally seek to persuade without believing that media generally seek to mislead. It’s a poorly designed question. And Turley exacerbates the problem by misrepresenting the conclusions.
I believe that some media seek to mislead and misinform, and other media do not. Unfortunately, I’d place Turley in the former category, and this column is an example.
Anonymous once again fails to think it through. If 83 percent of Democrats trust the media it must then follow that a large percent of Republicans and independents must not trust the media in order to offset an 83 percent skew by the left. Regardless of the evidence Anonymous believes that most other people think like she thinks. Delusion is a such a hard thing to overcome for Anonymous. One would think that considering this fact that Anonymous would question her viewpoint but she never does. She can be dishonest to herself but she needs to not be dishonest with us.
You once again demonstrate that lying about people is your favorite form of trolling.
Anonymous, we all dislike you, something I am sure you are used to dealing with every day.
Sorry, you are not Turley, you will never be Turley, you can’t even grasp Turley and therefore you hate Turley. I would say it was sad if you weren’t such a jerk.
LOL, I don’t want to be Turley (yet more lying on your part). And I don’t hate him. I do hate that he’s regularly dishonest with his readers. I think it’s bad for the country that people like Turley lie to their readers.
As is common with you, you lie about me and ignore the substance: you cannot deal with the fact that Turley misrepresented what the survey asked.
Sorry, hulllbobby, I wasn’t paying attention to who’d posted that, and I mistakenly assumed it was Thinkitthrough, as — like him — you responded by lying about me and ignoring the substance. My mistake.
Anonymous, have you ever seen a psychiatrist about your continuous lying?
… Allan the Stupid says, looking in the mirror.
Anonymous the Stupid, it was a sincere question. Your lying is pathologic.
You continue to describe yourself, Allan the Stupid.
ATS, we can link comments like this to similar comments throughout the blog, and from there we can link the other comments to still other ones. Eventually the picture of dots becomes visible and everyone can recognize that you are Anonymous the Stupid and what is known about you is correct.
On the contrary, Allan, what becomes clear is that you’re obsessed with liberal Anonymous commenters and that you freely lie and insult, and you’re insults describe you much better than the people you’re insulting. Even your fellow conservative, Estovir, calls you out on it.
We have already established my target is mostly you, ATS, and a little bit toward your fellow liars.
“Even your fellow conservative, Estovir, calls you out on it.”
Estovir has his hang-ups. I agree with much of what Estovir says, but sometimes he sounds like he wishes to replace the Lord above. Not in being but in having the ability to throw lightning bolts at anything lacking familiarity.
Either intending to mislead or intending to persuade violates the purpose of the media, to wit, provide all of the relevant information of a story and let the reader decide. Persuasion belongs on the “editorial page” while misleading has no place in the media. Anonymous might want to do some investigation into the life of Joseph Goebbels.
Is omission of fact, a lie, or persuasion?
are unnamed sources, a lie, or persuasion?
Is a clipped quote, a lie, or persuasion?
Is an edited video, a lie, or persuasion?
I can keep going, but it is clear whats happening
According to you, people “can ask a series of questions, in a precise order and get almost everyone to answer against their wishes. Its nothing but psychology.” Is that what you’re trying to do?
The answer to your questions is: it depends on the details, and the actual answer may be “neither.”
“But the question conflated dishonesty (intends to mislead or misinform)”
ATS, you might not realize it, but when one intends to mislead or misinform, one is being dishonest. Persuasion is slightly different, but when one is misleading or misinforming, persuasion becomes dishonest.
Your interpretation is wrong, but you are dishonest, so we should not expect more.
” It’s a poorly designed question. And Turley exacerbates the problem by misrepresenting the conclusions.”
These types of questions always have design flaws because a one-sentence question can’t include the nuances. All interpretations of this type of data are interpretive. Turley’s interpretation was reasonably accurate and probably among the best. Your interpretation was based less on the survey and more on your wanting to diss Turley. Why? Because you are dishonest.
What Turley lacks in his article is a solution.
How does the 4th Estate get back the trust that it has lost.
Once lost, that trust is hard to regain and will take years if not generations to rebuild.
Those who are proponents of the activist journalist need to be removed from the system before trust can be returned.
(While they are still there. They will not be trusted. )
-G
Ian Michael Gumby,
Great question.
I think it would take a large pool of independent journalists, whom focus on the facts, can back up their investigations with solid sources, and get wide distribution, exposure.
Problem with that is we have cancel culture, censorship, and the misinformation, disinformation that MSM promotes that 50% of America believes.
See Russiagate.
@UpstateFarmer,
While there will always be some journalists that you trust, there will always be a distrust of journalists as a whole.
Those who benefited from their activism will continue to support them and that’s part of the problem.
Their industry as a whole has to condemn the practice. And that’s the rub. They won’t until its too late.
If you were to ask them… they believe what they are doing is ethical.
Gimby, the socialist will always be with us. The solution is to continually expose their lying. Even though they told us that they were being objective for years we knew that they were being deceitful all along. They will not disappear and we must allow them to speak but we must continue to point out they are acting only to serve themselves. To sell it as a form of form of altruism has nothing to do with morality.
Four years of Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, dang near everything about COVID and masks, balloons, Afghanistan, and more, of course half the country thinks the media lies to promote an agenda.
Heck, MSM calls for advocate journalism. They are going to advocate for their party. Why else do we read alt-media and independent journalists.
‘I will be speaking today in Colorado on the “Rise and Fall of the American Fourth Estate.”’
To whom will you be speaking?
Reading through Professor Turley’s specific names and places, one thing is obvious: the globalized, urban coasts are the hivemind. The geographic divide is alarming, and the ruling classes who live in these urban centers are so unhinged, it feels like a recipe for open conflict. No wonder people are fleeing to the hinterland. The war refugees have already arrived.
China and other countries have similar issues. Massive wealth disparities on the coasts and universal despair in the heartland. Beijing thinks the secret sauce is fascist Marxism. The internal contradiction is its strength. Their dictator has a buffet of repressions to choose from. That it makes little ideological sense is beside the point. The point is power.
So our globalists often sound illogical and hypocritical. Welcome to the buffet. You can serve but you can never eat.
For China, geography is destiny, and she has to import a lot to survive. She’s on this path of globalism and suppression, wherever it takes her.
Americans are more fortunate in that our rich geography affords a choice: submit to the coastal oligarchs or rejuvenate the heartland.
But America’s oligarchs have a nuclear option even Beijing shudders at: massive immigration. While many Americans are fleeing to the heartland, the oligarchs are making sure there is nowhere to escape.
It’s very nonlinear, so I don’t know how it will end, but it looks bad. One thing is for sure. If the globalists in Bejing and D.C. win, they will hardly become allies. Nothing is more reckless than a bunch of desperate oligarchs. Just look at Ukraine and Russia.
A very good analysis. As for the globalists’ nuclear weapon of immigration, and there being nowhere to flee, my hunch (which may be wrong) is that there is a mix of wheat and chaff in those who are coming across the open souther border, and if that mix goes into the interior the chaff will gravitate toward the cities, so for American citizens (or permanent residents) perhaps settling in small towns or the countryside is the way to go . . . ? This is not an academic question for me.
Kansas, you make an interesting point I’ve been thinking about for some time. The southern border has been the national prism. The chaff refracted left to the land of free stuff (Kalifornia) and the wheat stayed in Texas or went east to find work. The wheat knew that in the East one could find jobs but little enthusiasm for deadbeats. I think this tendency has contributed to the geographic division.
One can argue that Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Cuban refugees were a significant part of the Desantis miracle, but you’ll never see a Desantis in California, New York, or Illinois. The national prism has the opposite effect in those states.
Still, an America with 600 million unassimilated people will be an unstable place and an environmental disaster. But like I said, logic isn’t driving the process. The self-interest of a small, privileged minority is driving the process.
To your point, what is true about California and Texas will be doubly true about the cities and small towns.
I fear the cities want the small towns to become their Helots (slave class). Societies where one had that kind of urban-rural tension often failed relatively quickly. I’m thinking of Sparta (crushed by Thebes) and Carthage (sacked by Rome). The Thebans and Romans quickly found allies among the rural elements of Sparta and Carthage.
That analogy probably won’t apply to America. China is no friend of America’s small towns.
For myself, I would much rather live in small towns with folks like yourself, but I don’t know how much longer we have. I hope your optimism proves correct.
I live in an urban area in a state that has coastland, and “the globalized, urban coasts are the hivemind” is BS. All you have to do is sit down with people from the area and talk to them, and you’ll learn that.
Anonymous, I learned that already. I vacation in such places, and what I saw is that the urban coasts linked heavily to global trade are radicalized. Those that aren’t are more traditional. The difference in attitude is obvious.
Clearly, I’m talking about the coastal, globalized urban centers, but I’m willing to qualify my comments somewhat. Thank you for your input.
One could argue that my opinion overstates the impact of globalism on the media. One could argue that it’s pure and simple academic brainwashing that drives advocacy journalism.
I would argue who funds the Democrat party? Who owns the Washington Post? Who owns The Atlantic? Who is funding the radical universities? The oligarchs. The oligarchs are driving this because their privilege depends on globalism, and it will get harder and harder to sell that to a democracy. Democracy is their problem. Leftist authoritarianism, censorship, and advocacy journalism are their allies.
“I live in an urban area in a state that has coastland, and “the globalized, urban coasts are the hivemind” is BS.”
What ignorance-laden trite. I have a home in “an urban area in a state that has coastand”, and it is the largest city in the US. The hive mind is one of the best words to use for that city’s population. It doesn’t mean 100% of people have a hive mind, but most do. You fit in well with them. They virtually inhale and exhale at the same time, and no, you can’t talk to them unless you are part of the hive.
“inhale and exhale at the same time”
Good turn of phrase.
Thank you. I learn from the best.
Thanks.
Diogenes & S. Meyer, breathing in through the nose and out through the mouth is called circular breathing. It is practiced by the best oboe players to sustain ultra long notes.
Thank you for the insight, David. I hope it’s easier than bagpipes. Doesn’t sound easy 😉
Diogenes, much harder than bagpipes. The bagpipes have a bag to provide the air reserve for the drones.
“Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.”
She was right. Turley continues to avoid the fact that right wing media does exactly that. It’s activism. Fox News chose to lie to its viewers because Newsmax was engaging in full on BS in support of the president’s false voter fraud claims. Newsmax was syphoning off Fox News viewers at an alarming rate. They were engaged in full blown activism for Trump and his BS. Fox News clearly wasn’t going to let their most precious viewers be ‘stolen’. They needed to keep them where they wanted, with them. Because their brand depends on the easily led, and gullible idiots, fools, and those who can’t get enough of conspiracy theories to keep the all important ratings up.
Fox News went harder on journalistic activism to save their brand, not because they had a responsibility to provide objective and ethical journalism, because they feared losing their brand to another outfit who was laying on the BS harder than they were while knowing full well that Trump’s claims were pure BS. Turley is just as guilty. He’s enabled, coddled, and ignored his own employer’s abysmal failure at journalism. He’s become a caricature of his former self. He’s succumbed to the very type of journalism he hypocritically criticizes others of doing. He would fit right in with the likes of Alex Jones and WWE commentators.
There is no ‘right wing’ journalism. There is no ‘left wing’ journalism. That’s all in your mind.
*There is only Journalism.
Turley disagrees with you. Clearly he’s separating the two. Otherwise he would be chastising Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN for the same. He has avoided criticism of those “news” organizations.
Which raises the question, who are the 25% that are either so oblivious or so intellectually challenged as to believe the MSM doesn’t lie to promote an agenda?
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
This column is oozing with hypocrisy.
“While cable networks have long catered to political audiences on the left or right, mainstream newspapers and networks now openly frame news to fit a political narrative. With the exception of Fox and a couple of other smaller news outlets, that slant is heavily to the left.”
Fox News is the organization that started the problem. Turley conveniently leaves this out. It is because of Fox News that other media has largely left out objectivity and journalistic integrity. As we have been learning in the past 24hrs. Fox News is a veritable BS factory. When is Turley going to address his employer’s clear failure at journalism? They knew. They knew Trump was peddling BS about voter fraud. They chose to carry Trump’s lying because they didn’t want to lose ratings to a two bit News organization called Newsmax who was doing the same thing.
Fox News deliberately peddled BS to its viewers, gullible conservatives, MAGA nutties, and the weak minded, people who could easily be mistaken for WWE fans who believe the fights are real instead of entertainment. Fox News fed all these poor gullible idiots these lies and clearly nutty conspiracy theories knowingly because they needed to keep their precious ratings from falling.
Turley is just as guilty of being a part of it. He has been lending his rotting credibility to prop up Fox News and the type of “journalism” they have long promoted, peddling BS as News.
Fox News has been dishonest and clearly chose to perpetrate Trump’s BS voter fraud claims. We can easily assume with a high degree of confidence that they are being just as dishonest with the Hunter Biden “scandal”. It wouldn’t be surprising at all that they are doing exactly the same thing. The “Hunter Biden laptop”. Reeks and of the same BS as the Trump voter fraud claims. Fox News is clearly peddling lies to keep their precious ratings and their gullible viewers. That’s not journalism. That’s a news version of WWE drama and fake fights. Turley is that guy ringside stoking up the crowd and feeding the narrative of the fake drama on stage. Like those who believe it’s real, Turley is “simply” reporting what he’s seeing. A $hits show that viewers believe is real while still they acknowledge it’s fake.
Turley needs to seriously reevaluate his relationship with Fox News and it’s choice to peddle BS for ratings instead of journalism.
Turley has sided with the poor losers, the deniers, and the rabble of discontented folk whose lives did not turn out as they anticipated.
You misread the column. He sided against the liberals in the media and elsewhere.
“Fox News is the organization that started the problem.”
You’re delirious.
Propaganda posing as reporting started some 120 years ago with “yellow journalism.” Which was then boosted by the NYT in the 30’s, and supercharged by the NYT some 30 years ago.
“Fox News started the problem”? Ah, Walter Duranty on line 1.
Sam, Fox News is the organization that started the whole 24hr news cycle. They were on constantly and always as a “counter” to mainstream media. They were all about the brand rather than the news. Fox News was successful because they promoted the BS punditry and blurred the lines between opinion and fact. Other news organizations such as CNN and MSNBC changed their formats to compete with Fox News. Fox set the standard along time ago when they were claiming the highest ratings and with slogans as “fair and balanced’ and the news with the most viewers. Fox News built upon that success and it continues to this day.. They changed how news is disseminated. They started what Turley is complaining about now and he’s either deliberately ignoring it or he’s being naive.
(Sam, sorry to step in here. Svelaz, as usual, has created his own reality. Of course, disciple GiGI had to chime in her agreement.)
It was CNN that started the 24-hour cycle. Here’s an article from left-wing WBUR, touting this.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/05/12/cnn-ted-turner-lisa-napoli
“Fox News is the organization that started the whole 24hr news cycle.”
That would be CNN (1980).
Paddle harder. You’re sinking fast.
Fox certainly contributes to the problem, but it didn’t start with Fox. Garbage peddlers have been around as long as the media have been around.
Anonymous, they certainly perfected it. They are still credited with changing the news into what it is today. Turley still chooses to ignore the significance of what Fox News has done since it’s inception. If he were honest about his criticisms he would be focusing on Fox News more often than not.
Yes, absolutely, Turley is ignoring the big news about the Fox opinion hosts’ many lies in the Dominion defamation suit. I wouldn’t be surprised if his contract with Fox has a non-disparagement clause.
I encourage everyone to read the quotes from Fox employees in Dominion’s motion: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf
Apparently Maria Bartiromo and Lou Dobbs knew in advance that Powell’s “evidence” for her Dominion claims was from a source who wrote in the very same email that Scalia had been murdered on “a weeklong human hunting expedition” at the Bohemian Grove, and that “The Wind tells me I’m a ghost, but I don’t believe it.” Powell had a nut for a source, but that didn’t stop Fox from hosting her to repeat lies. Tucker Carlson tried to get a fact-checker fired for telling the truth because of he values money more than truth: “Please get her fired. It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”
Shouldn’t non-disparagement clauses be considered a form of censorship?
According to Turley and many republicans it should be. It’s no different than a person agreeing to SM terms and conditions and they cry foul and censorship when they are subjected to terms that agreed to.
” I wouldn’t be surprised if his contract with Fox has a non-disparagement clause.”
You haven’t the slightest idea if Turley has one, but you take the opportunity to diss him. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were previously in jail for abusive behavior toward women. That statement is similar to yours, and the intention is the same.
You continue to diss other people with beliefs lacking fact and base your dissing on their suppositions. You complain about actions of others that didn’t occur while committing those same actions without a pause in your complaints. There is no end to your hideous and confused comments.
Fox isn’t perfect but it moved the dial in the right direction.
Svelaz: amen, brother. I truly don’t know how Turley has the chtuzpah to whine about lack of objectivity in media in view of the revelations from emails disclosed in the Smartmatic lawsuit against his employer, and somehow leave them out of the discussion. Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham admitted, in writing, that they KNEW Trump’s Big Lie was false, but promoted it anyway, and the reason was because whenever a guest said something that cast doubt about the veracity of Trump’s claims, viewers would turn to News Max for their daily affirmation. THAT should be the big story–why does the MAGA crowd need to hear lies and conspiracy theories and why are they willing to believe that other media cannot be trusted, another drumbeat of Fox and other alt-right media? What emotional needs do such lies address? Somehow, according to alt-right media, a science superstar like Dr. Fauci becomes a villian who is pushing an unsafe vaccine against a disease that he somehow helped create–all because he wouldn’t go along with Trump’s downplaying of the seriosness of COVID and that Hydroxychloroquine was a cure. The long view of this current crisis in public- media relationships is, IMHO, Trump and that massive ego of his–first and foremost–his jealousy over the success of Obama, a black man, who not only got elected POTUS but was re-elected, both clear victories, and was highly successful both domestically and abroad. He left a booming economy and enjoyed universal admiration of our international allies when his term was over Trump, a racist and narcissist, couldn’t stand it, so he pandered to White Supremacists and non college educated whites who felt threatened by successes of educated blacks and women and threatened by foreigners, especially Muslims. He had to cheat his way into office, of course, because most Americans don’t like him, and once he got into office, made a shambles of our economy, our public health and our international relations, all because he has no leadership abilities and truly only sought the office for the adulation and attention. Pandering to that ego is what fueled alt-right media, IMHO. He still won’t go away. He still won’t stop lying about a nonexistent “landslide victory stolen by a rigged election”. And, despite the revelations from the Smartmatic lawsuit, the disciples still believe the Big Lie. That’s what’s worrisome. But, instead of addressing this, Turley chooses to ignore the fact that his employer is one of the main purveyors of lies, and that the reason is advertising revenue.
Gigi, wah, wah, wah. Fox News is number one and it sticks in your craw. The consensus by the American people is that Fox is more reliable than your socialist friends on CNN and MSNBC. Its obvious that you are so convinced of your superiority that you have no concern for what the rest of America thinks. You just go to Wal-Mart to smell the Trump voters. The subject of the post that we are discussing is the loss of objectivity by the media. How about if you address the subject instead if repeating the CNN talking points. The tooth fairy really doesn’t exist.
Why don’t you respond to the ADMISSIONS of Ingraham, Carlson and Hannity that they KNEW Trump was lying when he claimed his “landslide victory was stolen by a rigged election”, instead of repeating the claim by Fox (fake) News, that it’s “number one”? Since, by their own admissions, they are liars, I don’t believe that one, either. Another recruitment tactic used to reel in disciples, like you and Karen S–“we watch the number one show”.
“The consensus by the American people is that Fox is more reliable than your socialist friends on CNN and MSNBC.”
That’s what Fox News says. Reliable as in reliable peddling lies to their viewers because it’s good for their ratings.
Like Turley and everyone here, you’re in denial. You’ve been lied to and taken for a fool. Nobody likes to admit they’ve been taken for a ride. Turley is in the same boat as you are. Adrift and wondering how you got fooled into getting on that boat.
Once upon a time there were two sections in the media – news and opinion. With journalism professors like Glasser change does not appear to be in the cards. Personally, I find that often foreign media does a better job of reporting U.S. news than domestic sources. A sad state of affairs.
Only 50%? No one asked me. Yes they do, that’s a no brainer.
Stating that objectivity gets in the way of truth tells you all you need to know about them.
This is why talk radio and Fox have been successful: there is an unmet market demand for non-ultra-liberal news and discussion. My only question is why the market is failing to fill this gap in broadcast or cable news with more sources like Fox at the national level, and the NY Post at the local level. The market demand is there, and even though most billionaires are liberal, there are enough conservative ones to fund more centrist or right-leaning startups. I find it hard to believe that the liberal slant of journalism schools is solely to blame for this situation.
It’s important to note that FOX News has both news programs and opinion programs. I believe that the 6:00 p.m. new program is much more objective than ABC, CBS or NBC. It is one hour long, and typically features a panel of commentators with diverse viewpoints.
Catherine Cassidy: I agree.
Moreover, among cable networks, FOX, inviting opposing viewpoints, has ranked No.1 for the past seven years, well over CNN, MSN, MSNBC, etc.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andymeek/2022/02/01/fox-news-channel-has-now-spent-20-years-in-the-1-spot-on-the-cable-news-rankings/?sh=d45586a72f2f
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/12/15/the-five-leads-fox-news-to-big-win-in-2022-cable-news-ratings-as-cnn-msnbc-have-worst-years-ever/?sh=68118eb342c0
Lin and Catherine and that’s, sadly, because we have, in this country, way too many MAGA disciples like you, who tune in like clockwork for their daily affirmation, which is really what Fox peddles and the reason for watching. You don’t watch to get any “fair and balanced” approach to reporting actual news–you watch to hear the latest attacks on Joe Biden and Demcrats, whom you’ve been taught to hate by the sort of rhetoric employed by Mark Levin, as just one example, who has the arrogant gall to play the “Star Spangled Banner” to the opening of his radio program on the “Patriot” channel (how utterly ironic for someone who constantly lies and supports an election loser who fomented an insurrection against the United States) and who regularly refers to a “Biden Crime Family”, even though no crimes have been proven or even charged. You tune in to hear the latest name-calling of his opponents and critics by the fat hog who cheated his way into office, plus the daily antics of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Josh Hawley, Lauren Bobert, whom you think “tell it like it is”,–which is to feed into your hate and paranoia, even though these people are a disgrace to the Congress of the United States of America and regularly lie. Anyone who thinks that the programming at Fox even slightly approaches fairness is delusional. Note that the ratings to which you refer are “cable” programs, so the so-called “ratings” don’t include mainstream media.
GiGi: I don’t get a Fox channel where I live. Indeed, the only TV I watch is the morning/evening news. Your fiery diatribes are actually quite more entertaining than TV. Would you like to apologize?
p.s. those who, on a regular basis, repeatedly refer to others (more accomplished than they) as “fat pigs” and “fat hogs” are generally projecting their own self-image, especially of “hate and paranoia” (your words), don’t you think?
So, what qualifies you to “agree” with comments about Fox, like you just did if you don’t even get the Fox channel? Oh, and I refer to your hero’s obesity because that’s how he refers to women he doesn’t like–“fat pigs”, plus he claims to be a “perfect physical specimen…a very stable genius in astonishingly good health”, which is truly amusing. You resent that I call your hero a “fat hog”? I really don’t care. You think your hero is “more accomplished” than me? What a joke! It all depends on how one defines “accomplished”. I don’t claim to be a self-made billionaire, and I’ve never taken bankruptcy once, much less 6 times. I’ve not been sued by anyone for not paying my bills. I haven’t been called a “chronic, habitual liar” or “narcissist”, and haven’t been accused of sexual assault. I don’t go around claiming to be a “very stable genius”, when, in truth, my businesses are utter failures because they generate losses, year after year. I do pay my taxes. I didn’t cheat to get into public office or lie about losing an election because my tender ego can’t handle rejection, either. I haven’t been married 3 times, nor do I support the Proud Boys, White Supremacists, the 3 Percenters or other fringe groups.
It’s likewise important to note that many more people watch Fox News’s opinion shows than its news program:
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/these-are-the-top-rated-cable-news-shows-of-2022/521247/
WE know what you are implying but what is your point?
There’s plenty of real news outlets. Tucker Carlson & Prof Turley are about the only people I hear from the old media.
https://usawatchdog.com/nato-over-raquels-brief-illness-fed-raising-wrecking/
Banned.Video
Talk radio and Fox suceed only in fueling the daily affirmation needs of the MAGA crowd, which, sadly, includes White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, the Proud Boys, the 3 Percenters and others who are easily swayed because they resent educated people, especially blacks and woman, they are xenophobic, racist, anti-LGBTQ and paranoid, believing they have some Constitutional right to swagger around with Glocks strapped to their leg, to prove their pathetic machismo. They’ve been proselytized into disbelieving science and distrusting government. The majority of the swill put out by Fox (fake) News is ultra-right-wing propaganda, and all of the claims of Trump’s “stolen election” are not only lies, but, by their own admissions, Fox “hosts”, KNEW they were lying, but feared the loss of ad revenue by telling the truth. Does this admission dissuade the disciples? Of course not.
“It’s objective by whose standard?”
The “whose” in that quote illustrates the fundamental problem.
They are taught by their professors (following Kant) a twisted view of “objectivity” — that it means socially subjective, i.e., that what is “objective” is determined by the group’s feelings and desires.
It’s a language scam, practiced by some on this blog: Don’t reject a legitimate concept or idea. Instead, inject it with a malicious virus that transforms the concept into its opposite.
It all starts in the universities, where budding “journalists” are taught that success can be secured by shedding their integrity. And it’s not just a problem on the left.