We have discussed the rise of advocacy journalism where objectivity and neutrality are discarded in favor of social justice. Despite public trust (and profits) crashing in the media, faculty members are plowing ahead with the new model of journalism to the peril of their profession. The latest such example is found in the “Solidarity Journalism Initiative” at the University of Texas at Austin.According to its website, the new initiative is being financed by tech companies and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations to help “journalists, journalism educators, and journalism students improve coverage of marginalized communities.”The College Fix reports that the program was brought over from Santa Clara University after UT hired Professor Anita Varma. The school is pushing students to use their “lived expertise” and to “leave[] neutrality behind.” Instead, of neutrality, they are pushing “solidarity [as] ‘a commitment to social justice that translates into action.’”
In 2021, Varma wrote an article titled, “Solidarity Eclipses Objectivity as Journalism’s Dominant Ideal” in which she explained:
“objectivity as an aspirational ideal ends up encouraging journalists to avoid addressing what matters. . . . In coverage of issues like immigration, Covid-19, police brutality, and housing instability, the idea that observations will objectively speak for themselves is quickly off the table.”
That view has been in vogue within the mainstream media for years. We have often discussed the increasing bias and advocacy in major media in the United States.
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 polling 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 polling 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 example, we previously 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 recounted 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.”
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.
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.
As with brands like BudLight, the abandonment of actual consumers will not deter media executive in pushing this “new journalism.” As Downie explained “objectivity” is “keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.” So they will do their jobs even when viewers and readers no longer are interested in their work. While this type of vanity press can count on subsidies from billionaires like Jeff Bezos and George Soros, the public may balk at a media that is increasingly writing for itself.
“While this type of vanity press can count on subsidies from billionaires like Jeff Bezos and George Soros, the public may balk at a media that is increasingly writing for itself.”
It’s a shame that Professor Turley doesn’t really seem to appreciate that perhaps Trump’s greatest accomplishment to date — one that cannot be legislated or prosecuted away from him — has been turning the spotlight that was on him around, and pointing at the “Fake News” media that was covering him.
That’s an under-appreciated, world-class Jiu Jitsu move, and it’s the REAL reason the corrupt media blowhards hate Trump — because they resent anyone pointing out the OBVIOUS truth about them — that they are ignorant, corrupt, and lazy pretenders lacking morals, standards, and talent.
It’s been a LONG fall for reporters, from being portrayed by Hollywood as the relentless, heroic FICTIONAL truth-seekers in All the President’s Men to being seen with clearer eyes for what they have become (or maybe always were), which is the hired hitmen and toadies of a handful of degenerate billionaires who, all “green” pretense aside, really could not care less about this planet or the struggling population thereof, because the ONLY green they really care about is the color of money.
UT–henceforth to be known as the Texas Shorthorns.
The media ended the Viet Nam war, and Richard Nixon. That power went to their head and they have only grown more corrupt
Advocacy journalism is really Narrative Nazism.
Here Turley seeks to intimidate mainstream media.
The idea seems to be that mainstream media must relay conservative talking points with exactly the same narratives used by rightwing media.
And if mainstream media doesn’t relay conservative talking points, mainstream sources should be shunned and scorned.
No, mainstream media “should be shunned and scorned” (sounds like a good plan to me) because they are as stupid and misinformed as they are condescending and dishonest — and those are some pretty obnoxious qualities singularly, let alone rolled up into one package.
If their heads weren’t shoved so far up their own behinds, the puppets of mainstream media could have seen their own demise coming YEARS ago. But they were too busy giving each other awards and testimonials — beholding themselves as geniuses in their own adoring eyes — to look around and notice what was actually happening in the world and, more locally, in their own profession. Not noticing what’s happening in the world is kind of a fatal mistake for people that are supposed to be reporting “news.”
The scorn already exists and is growing. Without objectivity, there can be no truth, only opinion, ideology, and biased advocacy.
How about reporting verifiable facts? Who, What, When, Where, Why. “Just the facts ma’am.”
If it can’t be verified then don’t report it or state that it is under investigation and will be reported when it can be verified. It is not rocket science.
Larkin, your so-called theory that Turley is trying to intimidate the media is laughable. It is true that today’s media is comprised of a bunch of little girls and boys that are triggered by hearing anything with which they disagree, but it is farcical to think that these brain washed weaklings even know what Turley is saying or even who he is. All the little kids care about is Twitter and Tic Toc.
Most of us don’t want news (or sports, reviews and even recipes) to be shot through with progressive or rightist talking points. We want what once was called straight news but which nowadays is a quaint notion. I was taught in journalism school (back in the days of typewriters and hot type) that readers/viewers didn’t care what I thought. They just want to know what the Legislature or city council voted on, or what the school board is doing. All but the most partisan still want that type of news, but the rapidly disappearing mainstream media would rather hasten their death spiral than give up trying to show “wrong thinkers” via advocacy and activism just how wrong and uninformed they are.
4th Indictment of Trump Destroys the First Amendment, Warns Robert Barnes
6,862 views
·
Aug 18, 2023
6
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
https://banned.video/watch?id=64dffedc4e506ac6f54e5c2b
Did they ever have neutrality or are they leaving merely the mask of neutrality behind?
“Did they ever have neutrality . . .”
About 40 years ago, the NYT partly did. Abe Rosenthal, its great executive editor, held fast to the distinction between reporting (just the facts) and editorializing (opinions). To instill that objectivity in journalism, he famously quipped to his reporters:
“OK, the rule is, you can [sleep with] an elephant if you want to, but if you do you can’t cover the circus.”
The Biden administration is doing to Trump what the Putin administration has done to Navalny, or what the Stalin administration did to Nikolai Bukharin. Democrats accuse Trump of a plot just like how Bukharin was accused of a plot against Stalin as a pretext just to eliminate the threat that Bukharin posed. The charges against Trump are trumped up, to justify a desired outcome.
The real conspiracy is the conspiracy that is being committed against Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Bukharin
Only 1 thing to do. I am announcing my candidacy for the presidency.
… of the Hair Club for Men?
What amazes me, people – students and their parents – will think it is a good idea to get an advocacy journalism degree. The might as well call it journalism studies – it will be as valuable as other studies degrees. Fun fact – most journalism degrees do not require math or science electives – so that journalist speaking with such authority on “science” has a high school understanding of math and science.
Journalism is what people study after they’ve flunked out of every other major — including English.
Anon., What makes you think that they took any science or math in high school?
The US is becoming Nazi Germany with all the propaganda to turn citizens against each other & become easy to control. Only the power grabbers benefit!
“Journalism,” as a profession, has been cutting it’s own throat for a LONG time, doing a sort of slow-motion version of what Budweiser did by going trans. What Budweiser forgot was that there are LOTS of other beers out there (forgetting about pot and other highs), and nobody really NEEDS Budweiser. Same goes for the professional “journalists” of big media.
There are LOTS of other ways to get information. So good bye, so long, and adios — and don’t let the door bite your butt on your way out.
It’s all about their superior morality. You know, the morality that wants to perform double mastectomies on 13 year old girls and wants to perform castration on young boys. The same morality that wants to teach 10 year old boys how to give blow jobs. Being objective just doesn’t facilitate their agenda. Don’t you understand that they only want to operate with good intentions??
It’s a shame. Journalism is supposed to dig out truth, provide facts on both sides so reader can make an informed choice.
My brother and I argue about this issue ad nauseum. He says, “It’s all about the clicks and the money.”
“You’re looking at a 1998 model of the media,” I say. “Dan Rather would allegedly come unglued when CBS honchos tried to turn CBS News into a profitable machine. “We’re the news division, we shouldn’t have to worry about profits,” he’d say. This, I argue, is the current mindset. Politics is too important to worry about clicks, money, or profit.”
Much of the leftwing extremists view advocacy journalism as virtuous, noble, and the socio-political equivalent of defeating Adolf Hitler. Left-wing extremists toss that extreme analogy around willy-nilly. “If you could kill Hitler, wouldn’t you do it? Some estimates suggest that 70 Million people lost their lives in WWII. If you could save 70 Million people, wouldn’t you do it?” they ask.
“I don’t see the connection,” we say.
“Of course YOU don’t,” they say.
““Dan Rather would allegedly come unglued when CBS honchos tried to turn CBS News into a profitable machine. “We’re the news division, we shouldn’t have to worry about profits,” he’d say.”
Too bad Rather’s bosses didn’t immediately say, “Then perhaps you should care about your credibility, Dan. People only watched and trusted Walt because he hid his contempt for the Nixon and Ford administrations while he was on the air. You didn’t mimic his style close enough to fool anyone, Dan. You didn’t even try. You thought your home-spun colloquialisms were clever enough to get past that contempt shown on your face. Your alleged “exposé” of Bush’s Guard service blew up in all of our faces. The people didn’t much care for Bush prior to that, but boy howdy, they certainly recognize when media tries to destroy a candidate by creating the flimsiest of ‘evidence’ now, eh Dan?”
The left loves to add an adjective to change the meaning of a word, like “advocacy” journalism or “______” justice.
They love to lie to your face.
Support alternative and independent media! Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and The Free Press (paid subscriber here!).
👏👏👏
Has Bari Weiss learned the meaning of “toady” yet?
I think a Ministry of Truth would be in order too! We have to protect the rubes from themselves and guide the already enlightened progressives on the right path. It is important protect public from misinformation.
antonio
Coloring a news story to fit one’s opinion is one thing, but what about the other articles that don’t make the “Everything that is fit to print” theme? How many of those stories are left on the cutting room floor? Then, we have the introductions of character, “Statesman, John Kerry says …” “Right-wing extremist Newt Gingrich argues …” I remember a British linguist saying, “Perhaps it’s because I’m British, and a student of language, but you Americans reveal your biases so blatantly through language. I know where all three of you stand on the political fulcrum,” she said, referring to anchors Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings. This new phenomenon in advocacy journalism has been building for a long, long time.
We have editorial pages for those in the news to express their opinions.
We have talk shows and talking heads, and lots of programming where we expect media spin.
Ordinary news stories should not engage in spin, or have discernable bias, The language should be neutral.
“Advocacy journalism”, today’s ‘in’ thing and tomorrow’s unprofitable outcast.
Aw, heck, let those kiddies (journalism students)) drink the kool-aid from their non-job seeking ‘journalism’ school profs (e.g. “Professor” Nikole Hannah-Jones). When the tide changes, as it usually does, those profs can easily change their tunes or at least continue to hide whereas their students (now labeled as irretrievably ‘biased’ reporters) will have to be looking for a career change.
Combine that tide change with a shrinking pool of job opportunities because of loss of news source credibility and what you will have is only the most rabidly biased reporters employed by an industry that is forced to abandon any sense of job security.
So pick your career wisely kiddies! And drink the Jimmy Jones joy juice!. But remember that, though the Kool-aid may look good and taste good, in the long run it may not be good for ya!
If you are going to be an advocate, that’s fine. Those publishers should get zero NYT v. Sullivan protection.
👍
OK Uninvited, but losing Sullivan-status puts some deterrence in place for publishing lies that defame (e.g., Nick Sandmann). It leaves the barn door wide open for pushing out public frauds, whoppers with no defamation target, more just to dupe the public (e.g. the laptop was Russian disinformation). So, we’ll additionally need Public Frauds torts law w/ rapid-due-dilligence (RDD) courts.