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.
It’s simple. Advocacy journalism is not journalism.
This doesn’t mean a journalist can’t take off the journalist’s hat and use their talents to support an agenda …. It just ceases to become journalism.
𝐉𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐒𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐡’𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬
By: Lynn Greenky, Opinion Contributor ~ August 16th 2023
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4147827-trumps-indictment-goes-where-free-speech-ends-and-criminal-conspiracy-begins/
𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐎𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐨𝐱𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭
Whether it comes from the right or the left, viewpoint discrimination is poison to democracy. And these days, it is coming from both sides.
By: Lynn Greenky ~ August 8th 2023
[Link://] medium.com/@lgreenky/indoctrination-orthodoxy-and-the-first-amendment-bce3f99d5d0c
—
𝐒𝐚𝐦-𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐅𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝’𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐦 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬’ ‘𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥’ 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬: 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭
Sam Bankman-Fried’s mother helped craft a strategic memo that guided the Democratic Party’s 2020 election strategy – with shrewd tactics that proved to be wildly successful but which were also illegal, according to a bombshell report from a right-leaning political research firm. …
… But the new report from Capital Research Center reveals how effective the memo was with Democratic mega donors. Warren Buffett’s charitable foundation, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, donated $5 million to voter registration efforts while George Soros donated $10.4 million, the report adds.
By Lydia Moynihan ~ August 17, 2023
[Link://] nypost.com/2023/08/17/sam-bankman-frieds-mom-helped-craft-democrats-illegal-2020-election-tactics-report/
𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐖𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
Exposing a $120 million “nonpartisan” scheme that helps Democrats win elections
This investigation reveals the shocking true story of the Everybody Votes campaign—the largest and most corrupt “charitable” voter registration effort in American history—that may have decided the 2020 presidential election and could decide 2024. Commissioned by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, funded by the Democratic Party’s biggest donors, and coordinated with cutthroat Democratic consultants, the Everybody Votes campaign used the guise of civic-minded charity to selectively register millions of “non-white” swing-state voters in the hopes of getting out the Democratic vote for a 2020 presidential win. It worked.
By: Parker Thayer ~ August 15, 2023
[Link://] capitalresearch.org/article/report-how-charities-secretly-help-win-elections/
Report (.pdf)
[PDF://] capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/CRC-Voter-Registration-Report.pdf
𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐓𝐗 𝐂𝐨-𝐂𝐄𝐎 𝐑𝐲𝐚𝐧 𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐡, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐇𝐢𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 ‘𝐔𝐧𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬’
U.S. federal prosecutors have unveiled court documents indicating that ex-FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) is entangled in a web of allegations, with illegal political campaign financing being a significant charge. In light of these allegations against SBF, Ryan Salame, FTX Digital Markets’ former co-CEO, has expressed his intent to plead the Fifth if summoned, thus becoming “unavailable as a witness.”
By: Jamie Redman ~ August 15th 2023
[Link://] news.bitcoin.com/former-ftx-co-ceo-ryan-salame-to-plead-the-fifth-declares-himself-unavailable-as-a-witness/
Jonathan
A lot of people that i hang out with down at the homeless camp, well, all of them really, think that Joe Biden is a butt sniffing coward. He is also a serial liar and a pedophile. He wont debate anyone. He wont even give a press conference or hard hitting interview. He wont answer off the cuff questions and instead ridicules the reporter (as much as his small mind can). Like a coward, he did an interview with the weather channel. He probably has scheduling conflicts…i mean, isnt he due for a vacation?
Trump on the other hand, he has told lies on this very blog, but like a liar and a coward he just whistles on down to his next lie instead of answering the simple questions put to him.
By the way did i mention trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump
It must be so embarrassing to be proven to be a liar and a coward.
If you werent a paid hack for fox news, you could see that.
As always, i try to remain neutral and objective when it comes to Pedo Joe Briben.
Back to whiffyoga. But dont worry, i’ll be back with more useless drivel for you and your deluded readers.
Objectivity should be the most fundamental tenet of American journalism or the journalism of any democratic nation. However, journalism, the media, and any other form of public communication is so biased and continues to worsen to the point that Americans with any decent level of education are and will ignore journalistic reporting of any kind in this Country.
Just more evidence that the left if engaged in self delusion and self destruction.
I do not more generally share Turley’s concern – institutions that make poor choices FAIL.
My concerns are when Government puts its thumb of the scales – as it did in efforts to rig the 2020 electiont hat have expended since.
Bad ideas FAIL when people have sufficient freedom to walk away. But government force is at odds witht he freedom that results in the failure of bad ideas.
Jonathan: Some people, well a lot, call DJT a “deranged narcissistic sociopath”. They point to DJT’s latest post about why he won’t be participating in the first RNC debate on 8/23 in Milwaukee:
“Many people are asking whether or not I will be doing the DEBATES? ALL AMERICANS have been clamoring for a
President of extremely High Intelligence ….Reagan didn’t do it, and neither did others. People know my Record, one of the
BEST EVER, so why would I Debate? I’M YOUR MAN. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” (condensed)
There may be several reasons DJT doesn’t want to debate: (1) He doesn’t want to give any of his opponents a chance to steal the spotlight; and (2) DJT has refused to sign the RNC’s “loyalty pledge” promising to support the eventual nominee–in the unlikely event he is not chosen.
Then DJT is facing a scheduling conflict. On 8/25 he is must appear at the Fulton County jail to be searched, photographed and fingerprinted. He has to prepare where all the world will be watching. And, naturally, DJT doesn’t want to take a Q at the first debate about his appearance in Fulton County as just another criminal defendant. That would be really embarrassing.
As in all my other posts, I try to be “neutral” and “objective” in all matters relating to DJT.
“As in all my other posts, I try to be “neutral” and “objective” in all matters relating to DJT”
That sounds whacked out.
As in all my other posts, I try to be neutered and obnoxious in all matters relating to DJT.
Jonathan: Ty Cobb. former WH counsel for DJT, had an interesting take on DJT’s on/off press conference–and I’m paraphrasing: “If Trump thought he had ‘conclusive’ and ‘irrefutable’ evidence of fraud in the Georgia election, why didn’t he present it to the Special Grand Jury before he was indicted?” Good Q. DJT knew he had nothing to prove his claims. They were all lies. There were not 70,000 dead people who voted, no 5,000 people under 18 who voted, etc.–none of that. All the recounts in Georgia confirmed the original results. So DJT had to back down–just like any coward!
A bit short in the critical thinking skills. If one counts illegal and legal ballots twice there likely will be no change in the number of votes to each candidate. If one looks for illegal votes and discards them, the results change significantly. Why don’t you know what a child can figure out?
Jonathan
I am smarter than you, better looking than you, more successful than you. I am here to repeat, uh, i mean, report the news. You dont have a impartial bone in your body. So let me handle this for you and your misguided readers. DJT is a coward and a liar. He’s a little orange man in my head, And he said, “you’re not going crazy, you’re just a bit sad”
“‘Cause there’s a man in ya, gnawing ya, tearing ya into two”.
Fanni is gonna spank that fanny for DJT. She gonna pile on him like he never been piled on. I dont have a clue what this has to do with the current topic, but if i cant take time out from whiffyoga to grace you all with my amazing analysis, then you should all have to sniff Rachel Maddow hourly.
I am running short of time right now, but rest assured I will be back soon to school you and your readers.
Does anyone on this blog think that Biden should have a press conference to explain why he met with Devon Archer in the white house in 2014 and what they talked about for 2-1/2 hours?
Rumbly: Great comment!
Jonathan: If we want to talk about “objectivity” in reporting the news here is my attempt to do just that. On Tuesday, after DJT was indicted by DA Fani Willis, he announced he was going to hold a press conference at Bedminster next Monday at 11 am in which he would present “CONCLUSIVE” evidence to disprove Willis’ allegations: “There will be a complete ‘EXONERATION’ “, DJT claimed.
So what happened? Apparently, DJT’s lawyers saw their client’s post. They were not happy. I can imagine the conversation when the lawyers talked to their client: “Donald, you can’t hold that press conference. Everything you might say could be used by Fani Willis against you. There is no evidence the Georgia election was rigged against you. Any of the defenses we want to offer for what you did should only be in our court filings–not in a public press conference. You will only hurt your case if you do that press conference. Don’t do it!”. Sage and prudent advice.
Now, this is probably the only time DJT actually followed the advice of his lawyers. So yesterday DJT posted another statement on Truth Social: ” Rather than releasing the Report…my lawyers would prefer putting this, I believe, Irrefutable & Overwhelming evidence of Election Fraud…in formal Legal Filings…Therefore, the News Conference is no longer necessary!”. Woops!
The problem is that both of DJT’s statements could still be used by Willis in her case. DJT’s continued false claims about “Election Fraud” in the Georgia election could bolster an obstruction charge–further evidence that will be offered in evidence at trial. Will DJT learn from this episode and just keep his mouth shut? Unlikely. He has already threatened a witness in the case–telling former Georgia Lt. Governor Jeoff Duncan not to testify. That’s witness tampering and a basis for Willis to file another charge against DJT. Piling on by Willis? You betcha. Because if you violate Georgia’s laws Willis will charge you.
I keep scratching my head. Why does DJT continue to dig a bigger legal hole for himself? All this shows DJT is not only a liar but a coward! Anybody on this blog thinks DJT should have go ahead and held the press conference?
“All this shows DJT is not only a liar but a coward!”
Wow, you would think that someone had asked him about a lie he told on this blog, and then he ran away and wouldnt answer any questions. That would definitely make trump a liar and a coward.
Look at Trump run off and peddle more lies, instead of addressing the lie he already told. I agree dennis, Its disgusting
I am scratching my head as well. But now, back to yoga!!
“One might compare Republicans to a flock of lemmings running off a cliff.”
Lets take a look at major legislation passed in the last 10 years and see what the voting records say about who the lemmings are.
So you would have the GOP candidates not support the nominee??? Just hand the election over, eh and suffer thru four more years of this crap? One might start to think thats what this is all about.
Dennis
And did Biden also say this?
“The consensus is A), we must take back the streets,” Biden said, “It doesn’t matter whether or not the person that is accosting your son or daughter or my son or daughter, my wife, your husband, my mother, your parents, it doesn’t matter whether or not they were deprived as a youth. It doesn’t matter whether or not they had no background that enabled them to become socialized into the fabric of society. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re the victims of society. The end result is they’re about to knock my mother on the head with a lead pipe, shoot my sister, beat up my wife, take on my sons.”
And was it his bill that led to “mass incarceration” of black people?
And is this part of the “historical racism” that you mention? Because for this old guy, it doesn’t seem that long ago?
For the record Dennis, would you say that Joe Biden is racist or ant racist?
Jonathan, please tell us all, where did you get your journalism degree, pot???
Jonathan: Your column is a rehash of previous columns in which you deplored “advocacy journalism”. Now it is your complaint about the “Solidarity Journalism Initiative” at the U of T at Austin.
I’ve been a news junkie for about 60 years. I have never seen a time when the press was entirely “objective” or “neutral”. If you look at the history of journalism in this country there has never been strict “neutrality”. In the 1890s William Randoph Hearst’s newspapers were notorious in sensationalizing the news. Hearst openly advocated for the US invasion of Cuba and the Philippines.
Fox is now the modern day equivalent of Hearst’s “yellow journalism”. Fox hosts on nightly TV don’t even pretend to be “journalists”. They are advocates for Rupert Murdock’s talking point of the day. They are the least ethical, professional or neutral in their reporting. But when Fox News covers a breaking story it can even be objective. Take the story about the Texas woman who made the death threat against Judge Chutkan. Fox staff reporter Elizabeth Prichett reported the story (8/17/23) in a pretty objective manner–no sensationalism or embellishment or editorial comment. Same with the WP, NY Times, etc. So “objectivity” in reporting the news is still practiced–even by Fox News.
You are least qualified to call for “objectivity” or “neutrality” by journalists. You are a regular on Fox as their “legal analyst”. You are not there to be “neutral” or “objective”. You are paid to provide an echo chamber for the Fox hosts. So all your complaints about “advocacy journalism” are nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black!
What do you call MSNBC?
Dennis
Would you say that Joe Biden is a racist or anti-racist
“complaints about “advocacy journalism” are nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black!”
Hey Jonathan, I didnt realize you were a journalist???!!
By the way, Dennis, is Trump “ the only one calling for violence these days”?
“I’ve been junkie for about 60 years”
That explains a lot
But please, can you explain to us what joe biden meant when he called obama the first bright, articulate, clean, black politician?
Was that racist or anti racist?
And what did you think about CNN saying it was an “unfortunate gaff”?
Hoping for a dialogue here.
“I’ve been a news junkie for about 60 years.”
Based on your typical content, your statement is hard to believe.
So much of today’s journalism is ill at ease with complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, I.e., the reality of human experience. Instead, what is preferred and regularly offered are simple solutions to complex issues, whether on the left or on the right. It all brings to mind Mencken’s comment: “there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”
“Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to ‘free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.’”
Why don’t they just announce:
The unwashed masses are incapable of thinking for themselves. We, who have a superior method of insight, will tell them what to believe and what to value. We, the journalist philosopher kings, are the Masters. You are the slaves.
That, at least, would be more honest.
“So when Johnathan Turley tells . . .”
How, exactly, is all the GOP stuff relevant to JT’s *argument* about modern media?
Hint: It’s not.
It is, though, par for the course — a deceptive deflection.
For the Record. NONE of my associates and friends nor I subscribe or otherwise give any credence to ANY News source in the USA today. Why pay for fake news, lies, and agenda promoting from people whom I would not invite into my home or consider friendship? The so-called “conservative” media is almost as guilty as the dishonest mainstream media
You dont seem to understand how things work. If this is your objective take, I’d say you’d fit right in with advocacy journalism.
Five years ago we were praising feminism. Five years ago natural gas was a clean burning fuel. Now boys are competing with girls and changing in their locker rooms and natural gas is toxic. Things are always changing nothing stays the same.