Former New York Times editor Adam Rubenstein has a lengthy essay at The Atlantic that pulls back the curtain on the newspaper and its alleged bias in its coverage. The essay follows similar pieces from former editors and writers that range from Bari Weiss to Rubenstein’s former colleague James Bennet. The essay describes a similar work environment where even his passing reference to liking Chik-Fil-A sandwiches led to a condemnation of shocked colleagues.
An opinion-section editor, Rubenstein was involved in the controversy over publishing Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R., Ark.) op-ed where he argued for the possible use of national guard to quell violent riots around the White House.
It was one of the lowest points in the history of modern American journalism. Cotton was calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House. While Congress would “call in the troops” six months later to quell the rioting at the Capitol on January 6th, New York Times reporters and columnists called the column historically inaccurate and politically inciteful. Reporters insisted that Cotton was even endangering them by suggesting the use of troops and insisted that the newspaper cannot feature people who advocate political violence. One year later, the New York Times published a column by an academic who had previously declared that there is nothing wrong with murdering conservatives and Republicans.
Rubenstein noted:
On January 6, 2021, few people at The New York Times remarked on the fact that liberals were cheering on the deployment of National Guardsmen to stop rioting at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., the very thing Tom Cotton had advocated.
Instead, he describes an environment in which the staff routinely rejected conservative viewpoints, subjected conservatives to added demands and editing, and faced staff opposition to working on such pieces. He noted:
Being a conservative—or at least being considered one—at the Times was a strange experience. I often found myself asking questions like “Doesn’t all of this talk of ‘voter suppression’ on the left sound similar to charges of ‘voter fraud’ on the right?” only to realize how unwelcome such questions were. By asking, I’d revealed that I wasn’t on the same team as my colleagues, that I didn’t accept as an article of faith the liberal premise that voter suppression was a grave threat to liberal democracy while voter fraud was entirely fake news.
Or take the Hunter Biden laptop story: Was it truly “unsubstantiated,” as the paper kept saying? At the time, it had been substantiated, however unusually, by Rudy Giuliani. Many of my colleagues were clearly worried that lending credence to the laptop story could hurt the electoral prospects of Joe Biden and the Democrats. But starting from a place of party politics and assessing how a particular story could affect an election isn’t journalism. Nor is a vague unease with difficult subjects. “The state of Israel makes me very uncomfortable,” a colleague once told me. This was something I was used to hearing from young progressives on college campuses, but not at work.
What emerges from the interview is all-too-familiar to many of us on this blog.I have long been a critic of what I called “advocacy journalism” as it began to emerge in journalism schools. These schools encourage 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.’”
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.”
It is easy to see how this was a “strange experience” for Rubenstein. He objects that “our goal was supposed to be journalistic, rather than activist,” but he found reporters actively working to advance the political interests of the Democrats and Joe Biden.
It was a strange, not a unique, experience. It is another account of the orthodoxy of American media, which increasingly functions like a de facto state media.
In his description of the sandwich controversy, Rubenstein describes how he was introduced to the culture of the New York Times at his orientation meeting. When asked about his favorite sandwich in the group meeting, he committed the offense of naming Chick-fil-A’s spicy chicken sandwich.
That led to a shocked hush before the rep leading the orientation said: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” That statement was met with the snapping of fingers from the staff in agreement in a communal condemnation.
It is clear from the account that, at the Times and other major outlets, there is much of traditional journalism that they “don’t do . . . here.”
OT – James egging on Trump…
Turley points out that the actions by both James and Engoron are [censored]…
Now if the courts find James had engaged in malicious prosecution… she loses her immunity.
Engoron however doesn’t.
I guess to a point.
Assuming that Trump appeals and wins.
Gets the whole thing tossed while this costs him millions in both legal fees and the cost of getting the bond.
Could he sue Engoron for he court costs?
There’s a precedent in Pulliam Not sure if it would apply.
While Trump couldn’t sue Engoron for damages, he could sue for the costs he incurs to appeal Engoron’s decision and refusal to waive the bond requirement for his appeal.
Any lawyers want to comment?
-G
Gumby – If he wins the 2024 election, his attorney fees could be considered a campaign expense, since each indictment and trial makes him more popular with the voters.
As much as I look forward to reading JT’s posts, I’ve come to the conclusion he’s trying to fight a raging forest fire with an axe and garden hose, one tree at a time. Sure he has 70 billion or whatever unique views and a comment section can accumulate a couple hundred comments, but why are things getting so much worse? What’s the point? His soon-to-be-released book, that is 30 years in the making, better devote a great deal of time addressing this thing that has evolved since WWII, but more over the last 20 years being referred to as the blob, or otherwise known as the censorship industrial complex. That’s the root problem.
https://youtu.be/uaOlDV4IDOQ?t=160
OLLY,
I see it as the good professor is trying to point out the corruption of what was once the party of JFK.
The Democrats at the top, those seized with the wokeism disease and those with TDS have twisted their party into something all the other, sane, normal Democrats recoiling in horror.
He is trying to warn everyone of what kind totalitarians they really are.
And we get confirmation of that with all the attacks by our woke leftist friends here on the good professor’s blog. Everyday.
That’s all true Upstate. But the current Democratic party is just a symptom of the blob that has consumed them. Nothing either party does is unaffected by the influence of the blob. The difference between the two parties is the there still exists a resistance to that influence in the GOP.
Things are getting worse because we have passed peak woke, and while progressives still hold the overwhelming majority of power they are losing it, and acting increasingly desparately to cling to it.
The increasingly desparate measures they are taking are both dangerous and when they fail increase the rate of collapse of the left.
I agree with part of what you said. Woke Peak has been passed as far as transing kids, and “Let’s not punish shoplifters!”, and electric vehicles must replace ICE vehicles. Even this, from Mayor Breed,
“In perhaps her strongest rebuke yet of harm reduction, a strategy to combat drug addiction that critics say enables people to continue using, San Francisco Mayor London Breed said the policy has played a role in fueling the city’s fentanyl crisis.
“Harm reduction, from my perspective, is not reducing the harm,” said Breed during a rally in front of City Hall on Monday afternoon raising awareness about the city’s fentanyl deaths. “It is making things worse. I will not apologize for the stances I have taken that are controversial. For the people who are selling poison on the streets of San Francisco, that’s taken life.”
———–
But that still leaves the first, and biggest, elephant in the room – the civil rights/Great Society conflation. Knock that elephant out, and there goes white guilt, affirmative action, DEI stuff, and hopefully welfare, as we know it. But I do not see that happening in the foreseeable future. The only thing that can end that, is when black people themselves walk away from the Democrat party. And when blacks stop making excuses for their own behavior, in a collective sense. Until and unless they do, the white liberals will tie themselves into knots to hold onto what they see as the moral high ground.
Eric Hoffer said, in 1959 – “For the less justified the [African American’s] alibi, the more passionately will he cling to it, and the louder will he voice his grievances.”
Which could be mirrored, over on the White Liberal Folk’s side of things, as, “For the less justified the White Liberal is in blaming racism for the African American’s problems, the more passionately will they cling to racism as the cause, and the louder will they voice their delusions.”
“The media’s the most powerful entity on Earth. They have the power to make the innocent look guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the mind of the masses. And white liberals control the media.” –Malcolm X
OT – NEWSFLASH
“It’s the [Nazi Hags banning books and Rosa Parks], stupid!”
– James Carville
BIG SURPRISE FOR PHANTOM-GUILT-RIDDEN MILQUETOASTS: BLACKS ARE RACIST
“Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis subjected her employees to mandatory race training, forcing the entire office to rate “Black” or “White” skin colors as either “Good” or “Bad,” according to training slides and video exclusively obtained by Breitbart News.”
“If you didn’t participate in the quiz, you got fired,” a source exclusively told Breitbart News about Willis’s policy.
– Breitbart
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/02/27/exclusive-former-employees-reveal-fani-williss-extreme-dei-training-forced-to-associate-white-with-bad-judges-ranked-on-skin-color/
“Judges Ranked on Skin Color”
One element of the training described by a source was a slide test where users had to choose to move an image of a “white” person to a block that said “bad” in order to complete the program:
It had a word on the left, and it’s a box, a word on the left, a word on the right, and an image. I needed to connect the image to one side, which determines your bias. Until you said that the ‘White’ guy was ‘Bad’ it wouldn’t let you move on.
It said ‘White Bad’ on one side of ‘Black Good’ on the other and an image of a person came up and if you didn’t drag it to the “White Bad” category — the white man pops up in the middle — If you couldn’t pass the test. They put an X in it and it won’t let you move on.
– Breitbart
LMAO Criminal clown world, racist to the core
Buncha people who cheered on boycotts of Bud Light and Disney for idiotic reasons the last couple of years worried about people boycotting Chik-Fil-A.
Silly comment. Nobody is “worried about people boycotting Chick-Fil-a.” There’s a major difference between boycotting something, and being forced to boycott something by being ostracized for not boycotting it. But that difference apparently eludes you.
Politico, a usually unseen Soviet Democrat Woke Useful Idiot from the Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe, tested the waters with this: Buncha people who cheered on boycotts of Bud Light and Disney for idiotic reasons the last couple of years worried about people boycotting Chik-Fil-A.
Most of the ‘worrying about boycotting Chik-Fil-A’ was done by Birthing Person Woke Soviet Democrats like Politico – screaming that there wasn’t enough boycotting to put that franchise out of business. Predicated on the Soviet Democrat Woke lie that the franchise discriminates against Politico’s Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe crowd.
When Disney decided to spend money as function as political activists involved in Florida politics to sexualize children and demand that kiddy porn and black racism be allowed into schools… Woke Useful Idiots like Politico like to claim it’s idiotic for people to oppose that by boycotting Disney due to the kiddy porn business leaders running the company.
It would be so simple to put an “opinion” label on stories that have the narrative they want to push. Of course that might leave some black columns on stories they don’t want to publish that might fault their narrative. They could just put in a label, “We do not want to cover this subject of this story factually. Please go to some other media outlets.”
William,
I use one simple tool. I look for named sources. Lots of stories present statements that look like a fact, but then no name is ever attached to them
The entirety of the Russia, Russia, Russia Russia, Russia, Russia Russia, Russia, Russia Russia, Russia, Russia hoax was delivered by the media with no named sources.
Other huge clues are whether the article cites facts or actual speech or whether the “evidence is the reporters.
Trump said ….
is NOT the same as Trump said “….”
You can pretty much guarantee when the reporter does not cite the actual words in context or something that they are engaged in spin – narative, lying.
Let’s start out with Chick-fil-A.
“Chick-fil-A is well known for its conservative views. Its restaurants are closed on Sunday for religious reasons and it has donated to anti-LGBTQ organizations in the past (a decision that it reversed in 2019). In 2012, former Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy spoke out against America’s legalization of same-sex marriage, which sparked boycotts from the left. The company has deep Christian roots.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/02/business/chick-fil-a-fake-controversy/index.html
More recently, the Company, under criticism and pressure, established a DEI dept. and made other changes. Perhaps a name-change is coming?
“Chick-Filly?”
“Chick-fil-ALGBQT?”
“Chicken-Less?”
Any more ideas?
I seem to recall that the so-called “anti-LGBTQ” organizations it had donated to were the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which are not exactly involved in anti-LGBTQ activism. They just happen to hold traditional Christian beliefs, or at least they did at the time (I’m not up to date on whether anything has changed with them). Chick-fil-a also donated to Christian organizations combatting homelessness and hunger.
yes yes and yes. See my comment below, we were obviously writing at the same time.
It does not matter. What matters is that YOU understand that the use of terms like “anti-lgbtq” often do NOT mean what the claim to.
There is a reason that we have all the 1984 newspeak observations going on.
Because nothing said by the left conforms to the ordinary meaning of the words.
The consequence of the lefts word manipulation has been a decline in the trust of those who try to amp the meaning of words.
As the impact of words like racist, nazi, totalitarian is muted by misuse, even more extreme words and rhetoric must be used to gain the same impact.
Now an election that will determine whether 10M additiona illegal immigrants enter the country it he next 4 years,
is a choice between life and death, between democracy and totalitarianism.
We are facing the most existential crisis the country has ever faced worse than the civil war., worse than WWI, worse that the great depression, than perl harbor, than vietnam.
Somehow it Trump is re-elected in 2024 – he will not govern much as he did in his first term, but he will mysteriously make himself president for life, and he will live for 10,000 years and democracy will be over.
“A term that means nothing can, by definition and by design, encompass anyone and everyone depending solely on the needs of the moment.” -Glenn Greewald
(I love Chick-fil-A. Biscuit instead of bun; crunchy topping on mac-n-cheese. Sorry that they bowed down to pressure. (Think Budweiser in reverse.) I would rename them “Chick-ND-Out.”)
Lin,
Love me some Chick-Fil-A!
My town recently considered allowing a Chick-Fil-A restaurant to be built within town limits. There was a little push-back from residents over traffic concerns. There was more vociferous push-back from liberal residents over Chick-Fil-A donating to Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
I told my townspeople: “Look, I disagree with Ben & Jerry’s politics, so I might choose not to buy ice cream there. But it would never in a million years occur to me to agitate not to let them open up a store in town. That’s absurd.” In reply, my townspeople just looked at me blankly, unsure of what to say.
Wonder if this is real? Ukraine plotted to assassinate Tucker Carlson:
Something that I think needs pointing out, because I forget it sometimes. In one sense, there is no such thing as The New York Times. There is no such thing as The Washington Post. Or Facebook, or Exxon. Or the CIA. Or Twitter. Or the ADL or ACLU. Or, the American Psychological Association. They are all corporate or corporate-like entities – legal fictions, and artificial persons.
As such, they can not have an opinion. The New York Times can not tell you that the Chicken Fried Steak at the Haughty Cuisine Gourmet Restaurant is the best in the world! Because the NYT don’t eat. It doesn’t have a mouth. Or a brain. Any “opinion” is simply that of the people who run the organization. Bob, the food critic, might love the chicken fried steak, and call it a treat for the palate, but that is just Bob’s opinion. And if Bob has a good track record of being right, he becomes credible.
But, it sounds so much authoritative for deceivers to make their pronouncements through an organization. The Communists were great with that, and used “front organizations.” For example, who and what sounds more trustworthy? Carl “the Communist” Blavatsky said today, that the U.S. should not station missiles in West Germany, or The American Society of Bible-Believing Christians said today, that the U.S should not station missiles in West Germany? Know who runs the American Society of Bible-Believing Christians? Carl “the Communist” Blavatsky. It goes hand in hand with manufactured consent.
So, there is nothing wrong with the people who run the NYT saying what they wish. If they think Biden is great, or that the laptop story was Russian disinfo, great! But is that even what they think, or is it just what they say? Because they are loyal Democrats. They run a risk, and sure enough, respect for the Legacy Press is somewhere down there with used car salesmen, politician, and slime mold.
@Floyd: Re: “Something that I think needs pointing out,..” It goes without saying. That which carries a ‘by line’ is the opinion of the creator of the piece, including under the heading of ‘editorial’. News articles absent a by-line containing nothing more than fact may be deemed ‘reporting’. Anything in the content of such writings which smacks of ‘opinion’ or ‘analysis’ acquires the ownership of the editors, authorship notwithstanding. Ultimately, it is the province of the reader to judge the content and decide the path forward in the use of ‘the information’.
“I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies.” –Winston Churchill
I am biased too, biased against slavery, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, injustice, homophobia, transphobia, misinformation, poverty – the list goes on and on. Lock me up and throw away the key like they do in Russia.
Uh, how can you be biased against misogyny, and against transphobia at the same time??? Lia Thomas, for just one example, is one of the biggest misogynists out there, and trans women regularly engage in beating women in unfair competitions.
Please explain how your personal biases are relevant to the way the “objective” media covers the news.
Let me guess, you also “believe in science ™”
Nobody cares what you like or think or believe or are biased against/towards…until you try to force others to go along with your fantasy world.
It’s AOK to have biases, imo. However, if NYT, WaPO, msnbc, etc. are confirming those biases, you may want to reevaluate your critical thinking abilities…IOW, reevaluate your critical thinking abilities.
“like they do in Russia.” Ask Julian Assange if there are political prisoners in the West. Or, ask the Q-Anon Shaman, or ask any of the other J6 prisoners.
Will you marry me?
So, NO FREEDOM?
Freedom of speech, press and assembly included presenting things some people didn’t like.
Freedom includes choice and making one’s own decisions.
Freedom is deciding whom or what to accept and whom or what to reject.
Misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, MAPphobia, are valid and legitimate positions taken by free persons.
You don’t get to control the world as a despot, dedicator, tyrant, general secretary, or democrat in once-free America, comrade.
For the last few years, I have been reading the newspaper like the Russian people have done for years…. read the back first.
The media’s left leaning bias has suppressed so much news detrimental to their cause. It is my understanding that if Trump wins in the fall, they
are encouraging the Vice President to not certify the election. Isn’t this what they have accused Mr. Trump of attempting to do? Democracy is in trouble… from the Left!!
They’re so wrapped up in their own “feelings” and their own notion of “social justice” that they can’t even contemplate that other people also have feelings and maybe a different sense of social justice. This is all part of the “culture of narcissism,” and no group is more narcissistic than the lib-left.
Jonathan: It’s cut and paste time. A repeat of your frequent complaints about the NY Times, the Tom Cotton op-ed and so-called “advocacy journalism” –that “objectivity” is no longer part of reporting in the Times. In your skewed view the Times caters only to its “base” and shuts out “opposing views”, i.e., conservative viewpoints. Nothing new in your column.
I think you need to look in the mirror. You work for Fox and have columns in the NY Post–a salacious tabloid that can’t be accused of “objectivity” in its reporting. Working for Rupert Murdock means pushing his conservative agenda. The almost $800 million defamation settlement with Dominion speaks volumes about how Fox doesn’t care about “objectivity”.
So what just happened at the NY Times you missed in your column? Back in 2018 the Times had an article entitled “Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches from his Father”. DJT didn’t like the unflattering article so he filed a SLAPP lawsuit against the Times–even though the article was based on “objective” reporting. DJT lost the lawsuit on 1st Amendment grounds and back in January he was ordered to pay the Times $392,000 in legal costs. DJT just got around to paying the judgment–another indication he is having trouble finding the money to pay all the judgments against him.
In his decision on Friday Judge Reed pointed to recent amendments to NY’s anti-SLAPP law: “The revised anti-SLAPP law was specifically designed to apply to lawsuits like this one. In fact, among other reasons, plaintiff’s history of litigation–that some observers have described as abusive and frivolous…” Seems DJT’s history of filing frivolous against his critics are legend in NY. NB: Judge Reed did not dismiss DJT’s niece Mary Trump from the lawsuit so those claims will proceed.
So, you are celebrating another legal victory in New York City. That is like celebrating German victory over Denmark in WW II. Not too surprising.
Edwardmahl: I was not “celebrating” DJT’s loss in his defamation SLAPP lawsuit against the NY Times. I was simply pointing out the fallacy in Prof. Turley’s claim that the Times lacks “objectivity” in it’s reporting. The Times 2018 article was based on a long investigation of DJT’s finances. DJT didn’t like the facts the newspaper uncovered so he sued them. DJT has always preferred fawning reporting–like he gets from Fox and other right-wing media. DJT lost his lawsuit because he couldn’t prove the Times lied and defamed him. That’s also why DJT lost before Judge Engoron. He could offer no credible evidence against the undisputed evidence put on by AG James.
Biased lawfare and crap from liars in black robes and pressed jump suits is not proof of objectivity.
Then you go straight to another gigantic lie clown court – when it is overturned and thrown in the dumpster will you be screeching no credible evidence again ?
Every person in the real estate business that has stood up has said it is done everywhere and always, and frankly every adult American homeowner knows this, lest they be, an imbecile.
It’s long past time every American relies on any court verdict as proof of anything. The best we can say is it was corrupt, no matter what. Pretending otherwise is imbecilic.
The New York Post got the Hunter Biden laptop story correct while your lying idiot marxist commie intel agency copy paper rags got it 100% wrong.
It’s amazing you are so stupid upstairs and so devoid of facts.
This might be too subtle for you Dennis, but the point is, Turley never has pretended to objective. He always has been an opinion writer. The NY Times touted itself as the “paper of record” a fraud as big as it gets. I preferred the era when newspapers declared their bias for labor, Wall Street etc. then I could read their stuff with the filter required. Finally, 2K years of philosophy informs us conclusively that objectivity in humans does not exist.
This is all rather goofy because everyone pretends to forget, or hasn’t a clue, that before this new insane clown posse took over the world both republicans and democrats of the USA parties had liberals and conservatives on their own sides.
People bring up Walter Kronkite as the way news used to be, but it turns out he was a raving mad liberal lunatic, and went on to prove it, messing in the medias big post vote exit polling schemes. So I suspect a lot of the crazies were kept under wraps because being a full blown nutjob openly wasn’t publicly accepted so close to the McCarthy anti communism era and the national debt hadn’t entirely exploded and real news was controlled 100% without the internet and the insider stories popping up all over the place.
So even raving lunatic demoncrats were kept in check. Well, that’s all out the window. Now we have seen most of the USA fell for the covid jab like the clueless morons they are. So not are things not tamped down, but millions of literal idiots have a big say in things, and so many others are coerced and corrupted by the commie cancel culture, which should long ago have been stopped.
Dennis McIntyre, Bribery Biden’s serial liar assigned to Jonathan Turley’s columns, arrived at work late today to claim Turley and not he should look in the mirror:
“I think you need to look in the mirror. You work for Fox and have columns in the NY Post–a salacious tabloid that can’t be accused of “objectivity” in its reporting.”
Dennis, posting as Biden’s equivalent of Baghdad Bob posting for Saddam Hussein, hopes normal Americans don’t realize that Turley is also paid for his columns appearing in “objective” Soviet Democrat propaganda outlets like The Hill, USA Today, etc.
Same Soviet Democrat Dennis McIntyre that regularly refers to “news” from reputable Soviet Democrat outlets like CNN, MSNC, NBC, CBS, etc.
If Dennis didn’t have lies, misdirection, and distractions, he’d have nothing to post. And his paycheque from Bribery Biden and the Soviet Democrats would disappear at the same time.
Why do the Soviet Democrats hate us so much that they curse us with such infantile and boring propagandist apparatchiks like Dennis McIntyre? Brian Stelter was at least amusing. The yentas on The View are at least as amusing as watching a circus freak show.
Thanks, Dennis. I made an earlier post that was taken down, mostly likely because it included an epic take-down of Turley by Joe Patrice, published in “Above the Law”. It is hilarious–check it out. How Turley has the audacity to complain about “objectivity”, given his purchased punditry that includes the same themes pushed by his employer, Faux News, is beyond me–to wit: “Hunter Biden Scandal”, attacks on Joe Biden, attacks on Democrats, attacks on non-Trump media, attacks on any judge or prosecutor who tries to bring Trump to justice, and constantly trying to make the case that the Biden Administration is engaging in censorship. To try to make his points, Turley engages in the usual hedge wording, like: “alleged”, “a source says”, “apparently”, “it appears”, “it is claimed”…the list goes on. Turley knows that the disciples he is feeding don’t notice the hedge language that makes clear that Turley is not relying on facts. Turley has lost any semblance of dignity.
Gigi
The comment was deleted because your posting of it on this website likely violated copyright law.
Here is a quote from this website’s civility rule page:
“…Also we will delete long reproductions or copying of the work by other authors or publications without their consent.”
Oh really? MAGAites routinely post lengthy quotes and even clips from films and cartoons that don’t criticize Turley that aren’t taken down. What about copyright infringement? I’ve seen offensive sexual insults and childish sexually based comments that don’t get taken down, not to mention the name calling and insults. But when a piece is critical of Turley, you worry about copyright infringement? Not buying it.
So now we have the era of the ‘citizen journalist’.
This is due to the fact that when journalists lose their objectivity, they also lose the trust of their readers.
When the facts come out and do not support the narrative, the trust erodes even more.
Eventually, you get to the point where the ‘journalist’ is regarded as a #meToo voice and thus offers no value.
No value, no readers… no revenue… then no jobs.
The citizen journalist can go online. Set up a web site… and report on their own.
If their information is accurate, trustworthy and doesn’t push a narrative… they supplant the ‘journalist’.
But will the journalist and their editors learn from this?
No. They’ll find some excuse or reason for their failures.
-G
Well thank goodness ‘Blue No Matter Who’ and ‘no objectivity’ don’t resemble cult-like behaviors.
Otherwise democracy might just die in the darkness of an eclipse of their own making.
That said, it’s actually surprising when some truth does still slip through in the MSM. Rare, but happens.
The problem is “journalists” no longer discern the difference between the noble pursuit of investigative journalism and advocacy reporting. The former requires hard work and risk and the latter allows sitting in a newsroom or behind a keyboard and posturing.
Mr. Turley reports that Kathleen Carroll, former AP Executive Editor at the Associated Press, has said: “It’s objective by whose standard? … That standard seems to be White, educated, and fairly wealthy.” Dear Kathleen: you’re not thinking clearly, even for a journalist. You imply that objectivity means “White, educated, and fairly wealthy.” But objectivity, like truth, is not a function of–indeed, is independent of–one’s race, or educational level, or social status. When one’s heart stops beating, one is generally considered to be dead, no matter one’s racial identity, degrees, or social status. The same can be said when one’s brain ceases to function.
When did the fiction of the “impartial” press begin? The press has never been free of bias. The newspapers of the founding days were ferociously and unapologetically partisan. Even in the lead up (and during) the Civil War, there was no pretense to “impartiality”. One of the first things Polk did when he went to Washington and was considering a run for the presidency was start a newspaper, which no one on Earth expected to be impartial. The bias somehow went underground at the beginning of the 20th century, but that doesn’t mean it was gone. Coverage of Germany and Japan in US newspapers, for example, had little to do with the truth. FDR enjoyed very positive press relations, that covered up many of his left-leaning actions, even though that sort of activity was very much dampened and restrained by wartime duties. Similarly, the kid-glove treatment JFK received was a kind of bias. “Selective” journalism is bias. The problem is that, during this era of so-called and fictional “unbiased” journalism, the leftists were able to take over almost the entirety of media without anyone become sufficiently aware to prevent it, or do much more than object to it. But now that the alternative media has come into its own, the lack of objectivity can no longer be concealed.
I must also remark that it is inconsistent for a free-speech-absolutist to find fault with advocacy journalism. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the impartiality of the press, or comes anywhere near doing so. Honesty is the best policy. If you’re a biased journalist, say so, as some of them have done. It is those who dishonestly pretend to impartiality that are the problem.
The answer is in the late 50’s early 60’s going forward students started getting “journalism” degrees. The J schools were attempting to “credentialize” and make flacking a profession to get more respect and more money. It worked-the schools tried to foist objectivity but the students always were Activists and now we see the results. I got my degree in
“mas media” in 1980 and every classmate was a far left thinker. I was the sole conservative.
Ellobowolfman,
“I got my degree in
“mas media” in 1980 and every classmate was a far left thinker. I was the sole conservative.”
How the heck did you survive being surrounded by leftists?
Althouse has picked up the same pieced today.
Rubenstein was the primary editor of the Tom Cotton op-ed that caused an uproar in 2020. This long article is mostly about that experience, which, he says, “was never about safety, or the facts, or the editing, or even the argument, but control of the paper and who had it.”
This was deeper in the Atlantic piece.
I found this needs to be the proper focus.
Not the precise content. But rather, who controls the content.
The Tom Cotton event revealed, the Mean Girls, control the content
They believe in advocacy journalism as long as what’s being advocated is what they agree with.
O T
If this story is true, it is one of the biggest stories ever. See Wendell Husebeo: “‘Blood Money’: The Biden Family Bagged $5M from Business Partner of ‘White Wolf’ Chinese Criminal Gang Leader Who Helped Create the Fentanyl Pipeline Decimating America” https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/02/27/blood-money-how-the-biden-family-bagged-5m-from-business-partner-of-white-wolf-chinese-criminal-gang-leader-who-helped-create-the-fentanyl-pipeline-decimating-ame/