Below is my column in The Hill on a victory this week for citizen journalists in the Supreme Court. The most interesting aspect of the case may not be the legal reasoning but the implications of the rise of new media in this country.
Here is the column:
This week, there was a little-noticed order out of the Supreme Court that decided a narrow legal question with much great implications for journalism. The justices tossed a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that barred a lawsuit by Priscilla Villarreal. Known online as La Gordiloca (loosely translated as “the fat, crazy lady”), Villareal is part of a growing number of new media journalists.
At a time when the public is rejecting legacy or mainstream media, the case is the latest reminder of a rising force of citizen journalists.
Technically, the court instructed the lower courts to review the case in light of the recent decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino. That decision relaxed the standards for citizens suing over retaliatory arrests. Villareal was not just a citizen but a citizen journalist who claimed to be performing the same newsgathering functions as conventional journalists.
Villarreal had alleged that she was arrested for seeking and obtaining nonpublic information from police as a journalist — the identity of a person who had killed himself — and publishing it on Facebook. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the police could claim immunity from the lawsuit she brought, and the justices just set that decision aside.
As I discuss in my book, “The Indispensable Right, journalism is in free fall in the U.S. as citizens reject the establishment media as biased and unreliable. For years, journalism schools have taught students that they have to abandon objectivity and neutrality for advocacy.
Advocacy journalism is now the norm. Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has declared that “all journalism is activism.” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, similarly announced that “Objectivity has got to go.”
After a series of interviews with more than 75 media leaders, Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, explained that objectivity is viewed as a trap and reporters “feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
The response of the public has been to look elsewhere for news. Indeed, the mantra “Let’s Go Brandon!” was embraced by millions as a criticism of the media as much as it was a criticism of President Biden.
Recently, the new Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis was brought into the paper to stop a collapsing readership and revenue. He told the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
They are, however, reading “the stuff” of figures like La Gordiloca, who is described as “a tattooed one-woman mobile newsroom who, until the coronavirus lockdown, often broadcast live while driving her car.” Her following on Facebook is now larger than her local newspaper. The New York Times described how La Gordiloca “reflects how many people on the border now prefer to get their news.” The paper admitted that she is is a “swearing muckraker who is upending border journalism.”
New media journalists are more H.L. Mencken or sometimes even Hunter S. Thompson but they are viewed as more authentic and independent. Millions of Americans now get their news from social media and blogs. Various traditional media outlets have either closed or are fighting for their existence. What they are not doing is seriously questioning their course in adopting advocacy journalism.
Journalism has become a ship of fools who increasingly write for each other rather than the dwindling numbers of actual readers. And they have written off half of the country with their plunge into advocacy journalism. As a consequence, many have come to view mainstream media as a de facto state media.
Today, over half of U.S. adults (54 percent) say they get news from social media. Only 27 percent now rely on TV as their first choice with only 6 percent preferring radio and only 5 percent preferring print.
The recent polling figures from Gallup show how much harm this generation of editors and reporters has done to the field. Trust in the media is at an all-time low, continuing a consistent decline. Only 31 percent express a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media. Adults with no trust at all in the media is greater at 36 percent.
In the 1970s, trust in the media ranged from 68 percent to 72 percent.
In some ways, the U.S. has come full circle. At the start of the Republic, citizens rejected establishment sources of news in favor of citizen journalists and pamphleteers like Thomas Paine. They are doing so again.
Ironically, Villareal’s victory will benefit mainstream reporters. The police used an obscure law that makes it a criminal offense to solicit nonpublic information if the person is seeking to “benefit” from the information. The police simply alleged that Villareal was seeking to benefit by getting a larger audience on Facebook. She argued that she is a different type of journalist. Facebook is her media.
The original panel decision of the Fifth Circuit viewed Villareal’s prosecution as the criminalization of journalism, with Judge James C. Ho writing, “If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what would be.” (The panel decision was then reversed in a re-hearing by the full court).
The Fifth Circuit will now have to reconsider its analysis. That is more likely than the media reconsidering its take on modern journalism. But if they do not, then they will be looking at the future in the face of La Gordiloca.
Editors and journalists continue to saw vigorously at the branch upon which they sit. The question is whether, if they fall and no one is left to hear, will it make a sound?
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
It says something when “Doctor Pimple Popper” gets loads more views than any of the failing network and cable news networks (Sandra Lee, M.D. is a kind and skilled surgeon who just happens to enjoy her day when she gets to remove lumps and bumps). She has a massive following.
The average age of their (network news) dwindling viewership is now in the 68+ age range. In contrast, Billy O’Reilly is getting exponentially more viewers since left Fox and went independent.
This dwindling viewership, audiences and readers is a statement that many people are tired of the biased Bull S*** that is spewed from these platforms.
Integrity in traditional news outlets has taken a beating. To the consumer of news, “caveat emptor.”
E.M.
Interesting observation about MSM aging demograph. Could be in another decade or so, one by one, MSM will either shutter or merge into one or two remaining news outlets. Even then I would expect those to take a back seat to independent media.
I read an article about Megyn Kelly who thought her career was over after she got canned by NBC. Actually she is even more popular now with her Triumph show on SiriusXM. She also said she has more independence.
Actually, while Mespo’s claim about people not
trusting government owned media may be true, basically as long as the government owning the media is one striving toward more democratic principles their information put out is more ‘objective’…, witness the fact that the most neutral source for world news relied on by intelligence agencies the world over is BBC.
Let’s set aside the fact there really isn’t, nor has there ever been, such a thing as completely objective reporting in the media, tempting as it may be for Turley to try to subtextually hook that myth into his MAGA lite rhetoric. Bias is after all a core human principle. It’s just a matter of how much one has and if ther is a desire to expand beyond it.
Fact is, privately owned media, without a more central Beacon (such as a source like BBC) to adhere to, always slides further and further into tabloidism…
Witness Turley’s employer Fox News. They’re the prime example of biased media.
Now…, cue up the magats that will wail on with their government is evil rhetoric. They, of course, won’t address my point about the government owning the media outlet needing to be driven by a striving toward democracy. To magats, that doesn’t fit their narrative because their goal is nothing less than a Mussolini type autocracy, thinking their going to come out ahead in that equation.
The black Hoodie comes for everyone though without an active striving more openness.
Libtard says what? ^^^
Witness Turley’s employer Fox News. They’re the prime example of biased media.
And how could you possibly tell that you’re reading the words of a spite filled, seething with rage Kamala Useful Idiot failed CNN journalist?
And why does it bother coming here to be offended and sent crashing into another psychotic episode?
Journalism has become a ship of fools who increasingly write for each other rather than the dwindling numbers of actual readers.
“Witness Turley’s employer Fox News. They’re the prime example of biased media.”
Actually, CNN and its biased reporting predates Fox News by several years.
Children arguing over “Who started it?”
Adults are supposed to stand above the fray, and teach the angry, aggrieved children how to get along with each other. They cannot function in that role if they take sides with one bickering child over the other.
Adults are supposed to stand above the fray, and teach the angry, aggrieved children how to get along with each other. They cannot function in that role if they take sides with one bickering child over the other… The question is whether he’s (Trump) be willing to put aside his double-standard, and have to stop waging his own deceitful infowarfare (e.g., his big lie).
pbinca, here you are pitching the lie of “Trump’s Big Lie”, courtesy of CNN, Biden, Newsom, Pelosi, etc. Doing so for your Democrat side. The politicians bureaucrats and news media that worked to make the 2020 election the least transparent in history, in order to put their fingers on the scale of that election.
Now here you are, repeating their claim that is Trump with The Big Lie – not Democrats claiming it was transparent and fair.
That you generally are a polite purveyor of lies doesn’t equate to credibility or not engaged in double standards hypocrisy.
what a dense comment. Pointing out a factual error is not playing “who started it?” Look it up, CNN is considerably older than Fox News, and both are cable networks with varying degrees of bias, as is common on cable.
The BBC has many outstanding programs which I often watch but as a news source they are heavily biased to the left and have been for decades. That they are subsidized by the UK government is often a point of contention during elections and as yet have not been kicked out into an independent arena but it is often discussed and may someday come to pass.
Bias is a human trait. But it is also one that free markets drive to eliminate.
The BBC is NOT some beacon of unbiased enlightenment. Nor is it the gold standard for the world.
It has historically had significant problems with bias, and I am hard pressed to think of a time in my life when it was accepted as the most trusted source for world news.
And World news should be one of the least biased as it is MOSTLY unentangled in local politics and biases.
We see plenty of tabloids, but the FACT is they are still a nice market. The National Enquirer in the US is profitable, but it has not even come close to suplanting even minor national press much less the scions of the news.
WE likely will see the collapse of traditional media giants, and the tabloids may survive – but we are in absolutely no danger of their replacing the media.
Tabloids are like sports cars – some people buy them, but they are a niche – not what everyone wants.
That is actually how free markets work – if something people want is not being provided – it will rise in the market.
You champion the British model. How well has that worked ?
Britian used to be the worlds sole superpower, No more.
Government ownership of everything did not work out very well for Britian.
Government is force, it is a necescary evil.
As British Lord Acton noted – Power Corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.
Or as Adam Smith noted.
Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.
Do not see government owned press in “peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice”
@Anonymi
There is idiocy, and then there is you. Pfft. Quite literally. nobody cares.
“The biggest reason for ‘low trust in mainstream media’ can be directly attributed to Trump.”
The Left is like that Nat King Cole song: “The Trouble With Me Is You.” (with apologies to that great singer) —
The trouble with the botched Afghan pullout is Trump.
The trouble with inflation is Putin (and Trump).
The trouble with immigration is R’s.
The trouble with public education is parents (and stingy tax payers).
The trouble with free speech is dissenters using it.
The trouble with democracy is recalcitrants who don’t kowtow to D’s.
The trouble with immigrant crime is those who report it.
The trouble with the economy is “greedy” corporations.
The trouble with the Harris campaign is misogynistic black men.
The problem with Tim Walz is men who are masculine.
There you go. You got most of them right. Trump is a source of a lot of problems.
Its called TDS, George
journalism is the cancer of society anon.
Sam,
HAHAHA! Good one!
UpstateFarmer
Why aren’t you out tending to your livestock.
Please tell us about your livestock.
Are they in the room with you now??
Upstate’s donkey ^^^
George didn’t get the memo…
“feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work” Perhaps these unfortunately mis-educated tools do not comprehend the difference between reporting the facts and editorial opinion. They can’t seem to appreciate the essential sharp line between the two and they MUST BE either re-educated as to that fact or they (and their faculty indoctrinators) need to be driven from the profession.
Whimsicalmama,
It is the narcissist in them. It is about the news. Not about them. Them, like their DEI friends, will either have to grow up and join us adults or go back to their careers as baristas and living in their mom’s basement.
whimsicalmama: Appreciate what you say, but the problem has been the refined approach in media reporting that allows it to survive the “facts” vs. “editorial opinion’ paradigm: selective fact reporting.
This dangerously allows reporting to wholly circumvent the need to be labeled as “opinion,” while appreciably and subliminally affecting a reader’s/viewer’s developing understanding and perception of what is being reported.
Like the headliner- Forty experts lay Virginia Pippeline’?
In some ways, the U.S. has come full circle. At the start of the Republic, citizens rejected establishment sources of news in favor of citizen journalists and pamphleteers like Thomas Paine. They are doing so again.”
************************
I’ve made this point many times: When the government controls what is said, nobody believes it. Instead, we believe each other. Thomas Paine would be proud.
Another insightful, informative and important piece of news information. Keep them coming Prof. Turley!
Well there are many new avenues to get the truth in news. The problem is that many tech corporations don’t like unbiased reporting any more than the mainstream media. A recent example was Parler getting blanked from the internet by the Apple App Store, the Google apps store and the unable to get space on Amazon internet services. All 3 of those corps have competing news services that parrot the Mainstream Media or are the MSM (Amazon). You need the independent journalists to write but you also need the internet freed from monoplies that support the MSM and cripple the independents through tech support because “they don’t adhere to our “community standards” or “Values”.
This is fun to watch. They keep stepping on rakes and rather then pick up the rake, they toss a few more out there and walk around again, not understanding why they keep getting smacked. I can also understand why even traditional liberals are ditching MSM. MSM articles are nothing more than opinions on a news subject that is added in as an after thought. I was taking my parents to the airport one morning, we were listening to NPR morning edition. At the end of the hour my father commented that there was not one news article in the whole hour.
MSM is dead! Long live alternative media!
I prefer to call it Morning Sedition.
James McCarty,
Good one!
James McCarty-well said and with humor
“MSM articles are nothing more than opinions on a news subject that is added in as an after thought.”
Hmmm just like your comments here on a daily basis.
The reason distrust of MSM is so high is because George / Svelaz / Gigi / Dennis McMacAttack dont cite them enough. For the love of all things greasy and acid-indigestion producing, they need to cite them more, not less. That will easily increase their
troll earningsMSM sources trust rankings….provided the observer does crack every 20 minutes🤠
💊💉💨
Source:
Hunter Biden used crack ‘every 20 minutes or so’, court hears
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw55ngde0qwo
The biggest reason for “low trust in mainstream media” can be directly attributed to Trump. He’s the one who pretty much started the whole distrust of the media shtick Turley seems to be hanging his hat on.
When Trump started calling it “fake news” and claimed the media was “out to get him” he. Did so because he did not like being fact-checked and called out for his BS. He’s still doing that and his supporters like being fact-checked and called out for his BS. He’s already called them the enemy of the people and demanded broadcasting licenses be revoked because of “bad reporting” or fact-checking him.
This distrust of media and local newspapers is nothing more than an exaggerated narrative used to undermine media in favor of ‘news from Facebook’ by whacky conspiracy theorists and nut jobs on the internet.
Media has its problems, but that is not because they are engaging in advocacy journalism, a form of journalism created by Fox News to counter ‘liberal’ news. Turley seems to lament the journalism of yesterday when it was purely just reporting the news. But with the arrival of the internet and real-time fact-checking, bloggers, pundits, podcasts, and the explosion of expert panels and all that. Turley doesn’t seem to realize that like everything else. The concept of journalism has changed dramatically because of the internet and the instantaneous dissemination of the news by way of public opinion and perception. There are a LOT more voices being heard than it used to be pre-internet. That is going to lead to a very different kind of journalism. Turley’s criticism of journalism is the absence of a style of journalism that has been rendered obsolete by the internet or as John Say would argue, journalism has been changed by the free market. Because those who publish the stories that get the most attention get the most profit. Objectivity is not profitable, advocacy and bias are. Sad, but true.
George
The MSM went full throttle of attacking Trump for the last 8 years. They printed falsehoods after falsehoods, they cherry picked his interviews and spun them to fit their masters wishes. Sorry, but you’re a liar or extremely challenged.
George and Traveler
And they were awarded a Pulitzer Prize for reporting falsehoods and fake news. As stated by the Pulitzer Prize committee, the award was “(for) deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.” (Received jointly with the Washington Post.)” Totally missed by the NYT and WP was that this was a “big lie” fabricated and paid for by the Clinton campaign. Why has this “Prize” for reporting such a clear falsehood not been voluntarily returned by the recipients? That it has not been gives insight to the dishonest nature of the recipients.
Vincente
Obama won a Pulitzer Prize for….being a mulatto. The Pulitzer means nothing anymore. What they did with their lie was subvert a duly elected president for his entire term. It is apparent they ARE no longer news but the propaganda arm of the cabal.
“The Pulitzer means nothing anymore”
Yes, it is very sad when a Western cultural touchstone such as the Pulitzer Prize is no longer meaningful. The Nobel has also been flushed into the same sewer.
Yes! That was my error with Obama, it was the Nobel that they gave away. The Pulitzer is its sister, my bad. Thank you for allowing me to correct myself!
* falsehoods? What the H is that? Lies? Seriously
For my special friend:
IMO:
A lie is an outright untrue or false statement.
A falsehood can be a lie or a series of misrepresentations of facts to deliver someone to a false conclusion.
MSM did both.
Vincente: NO it wasn’t. Russian hackers did help Trump by spreading lies on social media in key districts in certain key states. A Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee found this to be true. From “Law and Crime” dateline 8/18/2020:
“The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday completed its multi-year investigation into Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election, issuing a bi-partisan report that found extensive contacts and connections between Russian officials and the Trump campaign. The panel’s findings undercut several of President Donald Trump’s most oft-repeated claims, including that Russia did engage in a comprehensive campaign to interfere in the presidential election and did so with the intention of helping him win.
While the report stopped short of declaring that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government, the panel uncovered a great deal of previously unknown communication between the Kremlin and Trump advisers, many of whom were open to receiving the assistance.
“No hoax about it. They wanted Russia’s help. They got Russia’s help,” wrote former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics Walter Shaub.
https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1295757757388390403?s=20
The panel confirmed that Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort sought to give internal campaign data to Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik, saying Manafort posed a “grave counterintelligence threat” to the United States.
“The Committee found that Manafort’s presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign,” the report stated. “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”
The report also contradicted Republican politicians’ dubious claims that Ukraine, not Russia, may have been responsible for meddling in the election.”
Gigi told her carefully selected slices of her version of the truth:
Russian hackers did help Trump by spreading lies on social media in key districts in certain key states.
Always assume that anyone only telling a small, skewed slice of the entire story and truth is almost certainly a pathological liar attempting to deceive by lies of omission or commission.
In the end, there were no Russians, hackers or other, indicted and brought to trial by Mueller’s “investigation” of those hackers and the “Russia Dossier”. He did indict some – and then rapidly withdrew the indictments when those Russians did the opposite of what he anticipated – they informed him they would indeed appear before him to be deposed. And as part of their defense would catalogue all their efforts on behalf of Clinton, not just Trump.
But the other Special Counsel, John Durham, didn’t withdraw any of his multiple indictments of Clinton/Obama/DNC operatives and their Russian spy they worked with to write their illegal “Trump Russia Dossier”.
In the end, the only “Russia! Russia! Russia!” fines, prosecutions and convictions were of Democrats like Clinton and her campaign and Obama/Clinton/Biden/DNC operatives illegally paying Russian spies to write their Russia Dossier. Not a single one involving Trump working with Russians/social media.
Gigi is lying (as always) to claim those ads totaling a few ten thousands of dollars were in key districts in key states: As Democrats themselves said, many of those ads were in Texas and neither one of them was a key swing state. Gigi also hides the fact the report she references says those Russians helped Clinton at the same time with similar lies. And most of the viewing of those ads was AFTER the election.
And that report by that “Republican led committee”? The one ran by a Democrat because the Republican head was absent from Washington in hospital with health problems?
Gigi hopes nobody remembers that final report she’s so in love with was headed and authored by the notorious Mark Warner of earlier “Trump Russia Dossier” fame.
There’s still little evidence that Russia’s 2016 social media efforts did much of anything
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/28/theres-still-little-evidence-that-russias-2016-social-media-efforts-did-much-of-anything/
Gigi’s obsessed with the idea that Trump worked with Russians.
NOT OBSESSED THAT OBAMA/CLINTON/BIDEN ILLEGALLY SPENT $30 MILLION HIRING RUSSIAN SPIES BEING INVESTIGATED FOR ESPIONAGE TO WRITE THEIR “TRUMP RUSSIA DOSSIER”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/read-durham-report/index.html
Old Airborne Dog: I CITED a piece written by someone else–I didn’t write it, but it proves that Russian interference is NOT a hoax. John Durham is a joke–a MAGA hack with NO credibility. The Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee are NOT hacks and their conclusions have not been refuted or disproven. From “Time” magazine (11/15/19):
“Since his appointment in May of 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller racked up a lengthy record of court wins, but none of them answered some of the central questions the public had about his investigation into potential collusion between President Donald Trump or his campaign and Russia.
Along with a team of experienced prosecutors and attorneys, the former FBI director has indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. The charges, which Mueller referenced during his opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee on July 24, range from interfering with the 2016 election and hacking emails to lying to investigators and tampering with witnesses.”
Bear in mind that Trump REFUSED to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and that Bill Barr gave a false summary of the Mueller Report BEFORE Muller had an opportunity to release it. The so-called “Russian dossier” had NOTHING to do with Russia helping Trump cheat. From “Fact Check.org”, dateline 3/27/19:
“In an interview about the special counsel’s report, Rep. John Ratcliffe said that what “started all of this” was “a fake, phony dossier.” But a House Republican intelligence committee memo said it was information about a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser that sparked the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the election.
Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican who is a member of the House intelligence committee, said in the interview on Fox Business Network that “I had seen every classified document that any member of Congress was allowed to see. So I wasn’t surprised at all at the findings” of the special counsel investigation, as revealed in a four-page memo on March 24 by Attorney General William P. Barr. He then turned to the dossier.
Ratcliffe, March 25: That this was a fake, phony dossier that started all of this, funded by the Democrats. … It wasn’t real and now Bob Mueller says it wasn’t real.
The “dossier” is a series of memos compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele on supposed contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign. It alleged the Russian government had compromising information on then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Steele was hired by the research firm Fusion GPS, which had been hired by a law firm representing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. (See “Q&A on the Nunes Memo” for more information.)
We don’t know what special counsel Robert S. Mueller III said, or didn’t say, about the dossier in his report to Barr. For now, Mueller’s report remains confidential. But we do know, according to Barr’s summary of it, that Mueller’s report said: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Barr wrote in his memo that “the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
But Ratcliffe is wrong to say the dossier “started all of this.” Competing memos from the Republicans and the Democrats on the House intelligence committee both say that information about George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, had prompted the FBI investigation in July 2016.
Papadopoulos had contacts with Russian intermediaries during the campaign, according to the Justice Department, and later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about those contacts. While he was a Trump campaign adviser, Papadopoulos met with a professor with connections to Russian government officials who told him “about the Russians possessing ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of ‘thousands of emails,’” and he tried to arrange a meeting between the Russian government and the campaign, the DOJ’s statement of the offense said.
A memo released Feb. 2, 2018, by the Republicans on the House intelligence committee raised concerns about the use of the dossier in an application from the DOJ and FBI under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct electronic surveillance on Carter Page, another Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. But it said the “Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016.”
The Democrats on the House intelligence committee agreed with that, saying in a memo released Feb. 24, 2018, that the FBI investigation started “more than seven weeks” before the FBI received Steele’s intelligence reporting in mid-September of that year.”
You need to stop lying about the so-called “dossier” starting the Mueller investigation–it is undisputed that it DID NOT; and you MAGAs need to stop saying “Russia, Russia, Russia” or call it a “hoax”, because it isn’t. WHO can say what effect the spreading of lies about Hillary Clinton had on the outcome of the election–SHE STILL BEAT TRUMP BY 3 MILLION votes, but lost the Electoral College.
Gigi just needs to quit getting her information from third-party media, and go to the source.
Gigi, here is an actual quote from the Mueller Report: “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” Look it up, Gigi. thanks anyway, lin.
You’re confusing “attack” with “criticism.” Being fact-checked by the media, reporters, or pundits is all part of free speech. Trump has been “attacked” by the media because he peddles constant BS or makes really stupid remarks. Being “attacked” is a direct consequence of Trump’s exercise of free speech.
So what if they cherry-pick? Fox News does it all the time. I don’t see you complaining or criticizing them for their obvious editing and outright lying like when they had to settle with Dominion for lying. Right?
Calling me a liar doesn’t change the facts. You just want to avoid the uncomfortable truth that the right engages in the same thing. Trump is guilty of perpetrating the lie that the media is out to get him while at the same time complaining that the media isn’t covering him as much as they should at times.
Turley wants the media to be like it was back in the 60’s. That era is long gone for various reasons and Turley ignores the biggest factor changing media, the internet. People are reading less print media and MSM because everything is pretty much disseminated through social media platforms, blogs, podcasts, and streaming that allows you to customize your sources of information instead of relying on old-fashioned TV.
News is not about objectivity because it’s been privatized. John say says often that the free market determines the better source and right now the internet has made it much more difficult to compete for relevance in the news when just about anyone with a microphone and a few good followers can be a journalist too. News is no longer about just the news. They have to offer more than just the news to stay relevant AND profitable.
I see both of my assessments of you are correct. Thank you for again proving it daily.
Do you think more likely that “George” dons lace panties, a bra, and falsies before posting as “Gigi”, or “Gigi” a strap-on penis prosthetic to post as “George”?
George,
Calling you a liar does not change the facts.
you are a liar.
I find the word play amusing.
When Trump “attacks” – that is magically violence and a threat to democracy.
But media “attacks” on Trump are OK ?
I do not care if you use the word attack to refer to speech,
But you are NOT then free to equate it with violence.
Absolutely the Press is free to “attack” Trump.
They are free to attack Trump honestly or deceptively.
You are free to beleive them or not.
The rest of us are free to decide hose attacks are the actual lies and to attack back.
It is all free speech.
Free markets work because bad conduct gets punished – not by government but by the markets.
If as you claim Trump constantly lies – the media will punish him with attacks, and he credibility will go down and he will be unable to get elected dog catcher.
But if the media attacks on Trump are themselves mostly false – they will be punished by others attacking them, and their credibility will decline.
You seem to think that free speech and free markets only go one way – that Trump can speak and the media can push back.
And that we are all obligated to accept that push back as truth.
But that is not how it works.
Trump is probably the most attacked by the media figure in history. yet he is still going to win the upcoming election, and probably the popular vote.
If as you claim he was a crook, a liar, a threat to democracy, the judgement of the media would have been accepted by the people and he would be a paria.
Yet that is clearly not the case.
Frequently you then respond that somehow that is because Trump supporters are all cultist zombies.
But you never explain why the cult of Trump ? Why not the cult of the left, or MSNBC or … ?
Only those who have weighed the facts and dedicided that it is the media that is constantly lying – something that is really pretty much self evidence even without Trump, only those people are in a cult.
Those who slavishly buy outlets that can’t even get the weather right, Those are to be trusted ?
Your a massive hypocrite.
Its turtles all the way down.
“ When Trump “attacks” – that is magically violence and a threat to democracy.
But media “attacks” on Trump are OK ?
I do not care if you use the word attack to refer to speech,
But you are NOT then free to equate it with violence.”
Huh? You’re confused. Turley refers to criticism by the media as an “attack” because he wants to imply that it is personal when it is not.
Trump attacks his critics by insulting them and making false claims.
“ Free markets work because bad conduct gets punished – not by government but by the markets.
If as you claim Trump constantly lies – the media will punish him with attacks, and his credibility will go down and he will be unable to get elected dog catcher.”
Free markets don’t always work. Bad conduct also gets rewarded, especially when the “free” market is rigged. Free markets don’t always hold someone accountable for their actions or choices.
If Trump lies all the time the media doesn’t punish him. It points it out through criticism and fact-checking. That’s what Turkey wrongfully labels as “attacks.” They are not personal. Trump feels they are.
Your criticism of my post is flawed and adding ad hominems makes it even worse. Nothing I’ve said is untrue.
You’re going to be distrustful of anything that doesn’t align with your preconceived notions. Nothing outside your information silo will be credible. That’s a recipe for willful ignorance.
Calling me a liar doesn’t change the facts.
Claiming you aren’t a liar both by omission and commission doesn’t change the fact that you do that every day: whether it’s Professor Turley or Trump that is the object of your hatred.
Traveler: LIST some of what you consider “falsehoods” about Trump. The TRUTH about him is very damaging, but MAGAs like you have been conditioned not to believe such facts, but to believe the deceitful spin MAGA media puts out–which is the reason for their existence. Rupert Murdoch has said that he started Fox to push back against mainstream media after Nixon was forced to resign. He has said he believed that if there was pro-Nixon and pro-Republican media to attack Democrats and spin the facts about Watergate, Nixon might have been able to avoid being forced to resign. Part of the deceitful spin of MAGA media is to convince people like you that mainstream media are the ones who are lying. Have you noticed that all of the pro-MAGA/Trump posts on this blog and elsewhere spew opinions, but are light on actual facts? The TRUTH about Trump proves he is unfit to serve in public office. Take the case of his charitable foundation–people who donated got tax deductions because the money was supposed to be used for charitable purposes. It is undisputed that Trump used the money for his campaign–which was fraudulent–so he was sued by the NY AG for fraud, the foundation was shut down, it had to pay back the money and was fined several million dollars. In a real world without MAGA media a scandal like that would end a career, but that’s why billionaires are financing MAGA media–to influence public opinion. They want Trump in office to give them even more tax breaks, so it’s an investment. That’s why Turley is paid to spew out his anti-mainstream media bile–to influence public opinion and to defend Trump and Republicans.
Then take the Access Hollywood tape–again, in a real world, a candidate who ADMITS that he kisses women he finds beautiful without their consent and who brags that he can “grab them by the puxxy”, all while his 3rd wife is home caring for his latest child, would be career-ending. But, that’s what MAGA media are for. These are just 2 examples in which the actual FACTS cannot be disputed. The paper trail in the “charitable foundation” scam can’t be disputed, and neither can Trump’s own words in the Access Hollywood tape.
Then, there’s the Arnold Palmer genitalia skit Trump performed in his vaudeville show over the weekend in Pennsylvania. Can you even begin to imagine how that would play out if Kamala Harris ever said anything as vulgar as this? Can you imagine what other world leaders think about Trump saying things like this–or that they could take him seriously–if they ever did? Trump is a performer, he never has, and never will, take seriously the responsibilities of the Office of the President of the United States, because, to him, it’s all about the power, glory and attention. THAT’s what he seeks and has always sought. Just look what he did with the successful economy Obama handed to him, that he lies about when he takes credit for it. Trump created the worst recession since the Great Depression, and all reputable economists say that his economic plan would again tank our economy and drive inflation. BUT, that’s not what MAGA media preaches–they instruct you disciples that MAGA media are lying. Those of you on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should seriously think about your vote because Republicans plan cuts to these programs to pay for the tax breaks for the very wealthy. Can you get by on less monthly income and if you are forced to pay more for Medicare premiums and deductibles and co-pays?
Gigi,
I would be happy to have a rational fact based exchange with you.
But that has never been possible.
You constantly assert the most absurd claims as if they are facts – often parroting our demented president.
No Biden did NOT inherit a mess. Virtually every claim you have made about conditions on Jan 20,2021 is not merely false but dramatically so.
How can we possibly have any kind of reasonable discussion when you make things up ?
This is not a disagreement between sources – there is not a single credible source that indicates US inflation above 2% on Jan 20,2021.
If you have such data provide it.
For as much as I can I use non government sources that have been providing economic data for decades using the same methodology and who when they change that methodology are obligated to explain how and why.
While Republicans play less data games than Democrats and do a better job of explaining why they make changes, whether under republicans or democrats – and especially when making long term comparisons there are problems with Government data.
As an Example when Biden took office the FBI changed the rules for local police departments reporting for the National Crime Report.
On a survey that is purely voluntary they demanded 4 times as much data. As a result many police forces opted out Compliance went from something like 63% to 28% or less. The FBI tried to correct by doing as they always have done and interpolating data for the places that did not report – but that is far more challenging when you are change from almost 2/3 of data to less than 1/3.
Further but unrelated to the FBI many major cities changed their charging as a matter of politics and this alters crime data.
The NCR data treats all crimes with a gun as violent crime – but as an example Bragg in NYC (and many other DA’s) ceased reporting and charging gun use in crimes. This creates a radical drop in the aparent violent crime in the largest city in the country but it is purley a change in charging and reporting, Nor is NYC the only place doing this.
So while the FBI Crime data in SOME areas was showing a drop in crime – the completely independent NCVS – National Crime Victims Survey – a survey of crime done by the government calling approximately 250,000 people each year and surveying them about their expeirence with Crime was showing a dramatic increase.
While the NCVS is more trustworthy over the Biden administration – because it is uneffected by changes in reporting requirements or by charging decisions by local DA’s it is still government collected data and subject to problems – though it thoroughly undermines the claim that Crime went down since 2021. Infact it has gone up – and in October the FBI revised their crime reporting which though reporting increases lower than the NCVS is atleast undermining the lie that Crime has gone down.
There are haowever some independent sources of crime data – thrid parties – including some media outlets using media clipping services to track the number of murders in the US – murder is a crime that is relatively immune to reporting error.
Dead is dead. Murders only rarely get downgraded to Simple assaults. DA’s are generally under a fair amount of pressure to convict murderers. Media reports on pretty much all murders.
I would further note that as with everything – the data is complex – overall there has been a rise in violent crime during the Biden administration. But there are also many parts of he US that ever experienced significant drops in crime.
Gun ownership has strongly inversely correlated to crime. But Gun Carry permits have correlated even more strongly.
There is less crime in states with more carry permitts. They data on this is strong enough that we even know how the amount a state charges for a carry permit effects the crime rate.
But 2020 was a watershed year. Covid changed all kinds of policies accross the country. One of those was Gun Permitting.
2020 saw a massive shift to what 2A advocates call “constitutional Carry” – state legislation that allows open carry without a permit at all. This occured because many states with permit systems shifted to Constitutional carry because of the difficulties ofpermitting under Covid and have not had any reason to shift back.
Those states are showing a reduction in the rates of violent and property crime.
As I have been saying repeatedly – intentions do not matter.
Incentives do. Crime drops when criminals beleive they are more likely to encounter victims or good samaratians with a gun.
My point is that real data matters.
And that understanding the driving factors behind that data also matter.
But when you just make up data – which you do all the time.
Or you repeat data without understanding the factors driving that data,
you make meaningful discussion impossible.
And the Data is actually very important.
Prior to about 2013 we have had 3 decades of negative crime trends.
There has been a great deal of debate over the causes for that.
Starting in 2013 that Trend started to reverse and now crime rates are rising again.
By examinging what has changed and what has not, we can likely find out what REALLY worked to drive crime down,
and what is really causing it to rise.
But doing so requires being honest.
One thesis was abortion – the thought being fewer poor babies means lower crime.
But abortion rates have not changed.
Another thesis of the right is that long sentences drive crime rates down – but we have seen no shift to shorter sentences that correlates with trends.
If we are capable of being honest we can work out some of what has worked, and some of what has not.
But that requires drawing conclusions from the data – not ideology
And I have seen no evidence ever that you are capable of that.
“But that requires drawing conclusions from the data – not [from] ideology”
I like that, John Say.
(from lin. Sorry, hit send instead of login)
Your head is obviously in a anatomical location which prevents you from seeing clearly.
“anatomical location which prevents you from seeing ”
I understand that there is a now a surgical procedure available to install an optical peephole in the patient’s navel…
Dan: I asked for a list of alleged “falsehoods”–what are they?
Gigenius
You lie more than Trump.
Why did you lie about being an attorney and a nurse?
Uh George, it WAS fake news and they WERE out to get him. The Russian collusion hoax earned them Pulitzers but did they return them when it was proven false by the Mueller investigation? Nope. The Hunter laptop was 100% real. Did they apologize for censoring the story and anyone who actually told the truth about it? Nope. The NY Post was right all along but was banned by Facebook and Twitter and suppressed by Google. The media brought this on themselves, Trump was just able to cut through the fog of censorship and so the people could see it. As the Washington Post says, “Democracy Dies In Darkness” but it was Trump who turned on the light – not the media.
Trump’s ability to say BS when he sees it is why they hate him. Sure, he stretches the truth a bit on some level, but remember he’s a marketing based business man. His “lies” are typically about cutting through all the BS and spin propaganda to arrive at the common sense landing zone of logical reasoning. The other side, blatantly issues crazy delusions of Hitler and dictatorship, even veiled calls for his assassination simply to retain power by manipulating their crazy base through incitement and calling for the promise to deliver mo fweeee chit!
Traveler: You say Trump is “logical”–give me one example–not the consistent conclusions you are repeating that you got from MAGA media. What is “logical” about setting up a fake charitable foundation and then stealing the money to be used for your campaign? What is “logical” about bragging about kissing women without their consent, grabbing womens’ genitals, or repeating a vulgar story about Arnold Palmer’s private parts? What do these kind of public statements say about the person who spouts them? To me, it says that they are a performer, that they don’t understand what it means to be a role model or the leader of the free world, that they like to entertain people and brag about how important they think they are. Then, there’s the darker statements–calling Democrats “the enemy within”, saying that Haitians and brown-skinned people are “poisoning the blood” of America–this is EXACTLY the kind of rhetoric Hitler DID use–hence the comparison–which is NOT crazy. Then, there’s the threat to use the National Guard or the military to go against his perceived enemies. And, the only modern-day politician who ever made “calls…to retain power by manipulating their crazy base through incitement” was Trump. Did you sleep through the insurrection–explain how or why it is OK for Trump to sit by for over 3 hours while his fans were hunting for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, intending to kill them, and ignoring requests from family and staff to call off the violence.
He puts the salt on the McDonalds french fries before bagging them. Howzaboutdat?!
Gigi you are unworthy.
Gigi says, “why it is OK for Trump to sit by for over 3 hours while his fans were hunting for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, intending to kill them, and ignoring requests from family and staff to call off the violence.”
(Oh, now it’s THREE hours, ha ha!) then she says, “intending to kill them.” Did you notice how she says this all as factual?
Gigenius
Why did you lie on this blog about being an attorney and a nurse?
Are you sure about that? They were just reporting on what was being alleged. Just as they always do. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are allowed to control the content that is on their platforms. Anyone signing up agrees to their terms. They are not news organizations. Trump didn’t cut through the fog of censorship. He just made more allegations without proof.
We have a media literacy problem and a reading comprehension problem in this country. Most people can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion or follow complicated issues.
No, YOU might “have a media literacy problem and a reading comprehension problem…[YOU] often can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion or follow complicated issues.”
This is because (IMO) you fail to appreciate that selective facts have been omitted, leaving you with an imbalanced opinion of the truth. You constantly reference sources and facts that clearly indicate a surgically-excised summary of facts, alongside the use of descriptive adjectives and adverbs that subliminally enhance the biased reporting. I base my opinion on the sources you cite, including today’s reference to a CBS article instead of an actual court opinion.
lin: list some “selective facts” that you claim “have been omitted”. Again, as I’ve repeatedly said, all you MAGAs do is spout opinions, but not facts.
Gigenius
Stories are not sources. The end.
Lin, that’s odd because the source I used provided more detail than Turley. Weirdly you describe what Turley does, I just fill in the omissions of fact that when applied undermine Turley’s intended narrative which is often on the dishonest or misleading side.
Turley left out a lot of details that would have made it a criticism of republican government officials who are engaging in civil rights violations. Turley never fails to mention the party associated with government officials when Democrats are involved, but if Republicans are the culprits he goes out of his way to omit party affiliation. That’s why companies ranking websites correctly claim Turley is heavily biased towards conservative views and positions. Turley bristles at the notion that he’s biased and “attacks” these companies and claims they are censoring conservative websites by ranking them poorly.
I am free to use sources I feel are relevant to the issue.
“the Washington Post says, “Democracy Dies In Darkness” ”
Speaking of that illustrious bastion of absolute, unadulterated truth and it’s owner, Jeff Bozo:
WaPo’s Favorite Environmental Group Uses ‘Political’ Research To Link Climate Change to Natural Disasters. It’s Also Bankrolled by WaPo Owner Jeff Bezos. ‘The motivation is entirely political,’ NOAA’s former chief scientist says.
https://freebeacon.com/media/wapos-favorite-environmental-group-uses-political-research-to-link-climate-change-to-natural-disasters-its-also-bankrolled-by-wapo-owner-jeff-bezos/
WHAT was “proven false by the Mueller investigation”? Provide a citation–not the conclusory spin you got from MAGA media. NO ONE cares about Hunter Biden or his laptop–that ship sailed a long time ago. Republicans tried, but failed, to prove that JOE Biden ever took bribes or did anything wrong. Exactly WHAT did Trump allegedly do to “cut through the fog of censorship”? I’d like to see actual FACTS–not opinions.
Gigenius says she wants facts and not opinion as she cites a story and not the source.
Farooking brain damage!
Gigi is not worty of my time.
So we should just accept it? What if giving up on journalistic standards of objectivity means we’ll be living in an authoritarian dictatorship (with sympathetic media helping maintain it) in 20 years? There are smart moves we can be making now, rather than just accepting decline of the culture our parents handed us.
princa says: The question is whether he’s (Trump) be willing to put aside his double-standard, and have to stop waging his own deceitful infowarfare (e.g., his big lie).
As far as I’m aware, The Big Lie is the lie promoted by Biden, Harris, Newsom, Pelosi et al that there was no rigging of the 2020 election. The FBI didn’t hide the Biden laptop while agents working within social media censored attempts to report on that while deplatforming dissenting voices. Marc Elias didn’t unconstitutionally get voting laws changed in critical battleground states. And of course, Zuckerburg didn’t dump $430 million for “get out the vote” into safe Democrat voting districts in those states while withholding those funds from Republican districts.
Your honesty and impartiality is highly suspect pbinca… tell us all what Trump’s Big Lie of deceitful infowarfare is that you’re referring to. Is it as big or bigger than the Democrat Big Lie that this was the fairest election in American history?
pbinca, the most important smart move you can make now, is just to make better choices.
Patronize media sources that you trust.
I am not that worried about a future authoritarian dictatorship.
The left is failing everywhere. China, Europe, the US.
That is dangerous as failing powerful nation states often lash out and start wars to distract from failure.
in the US we hit peach woke about 2020. We are in the midst of the left lashing out as they slowly lose power.
Even if By hook or Crook Harris manages to win in 2024 – I expect that will be the last left wing presidency,
That is will be a disaster, and that it will be mostly impotent.
Even people who hate Trump – do not want anymore of Harris/Biden progressivism.
If you are worried about Trumpian authoritarianism you do not live in reality.
Trump can not amass enough power to accomplish his platform much less pose any real threat to democracy.
No, we shouldn’t just accept it. But that also means we should not dismiss it out of hand either. Especially just because a source has an association with anything labeled “liberal” or “woke”. It’s an easy excuse to hang on to ignorance.
People have been declaring a “decline in culture” for years without their worst fears ever being realized. Progress is always going to trump conservatism. Change will always irk conservatives. Nostalgia and longing for the “good ol times and simple life” are nice. But they are also not realistic or practical in a progressing society.
We can adapt instead of denigrate and spreading fear because of ignorance. The internet has made news more accesible and also much harder to discern truth from fiction or separate the ridiculous from the credible. Remember Dan Rather? His career went down the tubes because bloggers using the internet found out his story was not accurate. Before the internet the only source of news was the media and anything that seemed credible was not always questioned. Now we can fact-check. for ourselves but we also have more responsibility to determine who is telling the truth and who is not with so many sources and options at our disposal. We can even reinforce denial by simply seeking only information that supports a preconception. People flock to their information silos to reinforce their denial or certitude about an issue. Trump just muddies the waters to hide from fact-checkers and being called out on his BS like any grifter would.
* I had to roll over onto my other bed sore.
Are they less painful than the syphilis sores?
The TDS is strong in this one.
Decline in trust of the MSM started BEFORE Trump came down the escalator.
Trust in the media has been an issue throughout my life.
I still recall the major stories – such as the fraudulent records regarding George Bush’s NG service that resulted in the rapid decline of major news pundits.
Things got much worse in 2014 – as documented by Fire and Heterodox academy as the first Woke generation hit the marketplace – particularly the media. Again this precedes Trump.
But even if you try to attribute this to Trump – it has worked BECAUSE Trump and others constantly catch the media in major lie after major lie.
Though honestly all you need do is compare reporting today with that a few decades ago to tell the difference.
While there has always been subtle spin in the news, Today what we read in an article is A Story that the journalist wishes to tell, which often has nothing to do with actual events, that MIGHT be partly supported by a tiny bit of facts.
Increasingly absent are spin free recitation of facts.
Absent are quotes – all to often we get a journalist telling us what they think someone said – rather than their actual words.
When there are quotes they are totally out of context – again to shill a specific narative.
Trump did not destroy the credibility of the media.
They hve done that to themselves.
In pretty much the same way that YOU constantly destroy YOUR credibility.
Fake news was a term concocted by the left, not the right.
Trump merely took advantage of your term to Label actually fake news – Fake.
John Say,
Well said and spot on.
Here is an article about CBS misleading the public or fake news by the editors at The Free Press, ‘60 Minutes’: Release the Unedited Kamala Harris Transcript https://www.thefp.com/p/60-minutes-release-the-unedited-kamala
John Say says: The TDS is strong in this one.
I prefer the old fashioned term “liar” to describe George. Keeping up with all the new descriptive terms doesn’t provide better descriptions.
There is very little distrust of local media. The problems with local media are different from those of the national media.
Local media is failing, because it is increasingly unprofitable.
While local reporters tend to be less skilled that national reporters, they are far less biased and more accurately and without spin reporting local events.
There is very little distrust of local media. The problems with local media are different from those of the national media.
By local experience, I would say it depends on where you are. Here in Montana, The Daily Interlake is about 90% content reproduced under license from the Associated Press. Only truly local news is done by local media. The Missoulian, the paper of record for that California expat city is more of the same.
“While lo”cal reporters tend to be less skilled that national reporters, they are far less biased and more accurately and without spin reporting local events.”
That isn’t necessarily true in the absence of competition. In my county, we have a single viable local newspaper (meaning that it is supported by subscription as well as ad revenue) that invariably accepts the explanations of the local powers-that-be pols, who are largely nominal Republicans (nearly all really just belong the the “Grift Party”). Evidently, since their market niche seems secure, they have no incentive to “make waves”. I would be surprised if this phenomenon isn’t replicated in a number of small markets.
maybe that’s because you live in a predominantly Republican community and the newspaper wants to serve its subscribers. Maybe a competing newspaper tried and failed because no one was interested in the spin. Maybe you are wrong, because the newspaper simply reports the truth and not biased spin.
The biggest whacky conspiracy theories are those of the left and the MSM.
The collusion delusion was fake.
The hunter biden laptop was real.
Conversely so many of the SM conspiaracy theories you have tried to crush have proven real.
The FBI WAS out to get Trump.
They DID fabricate evidence
They DID spy on him.
They DID Censor conservative voices on social media providing truthful information.
They DID Censor often highly reputable voices in health care regarding Covid.
Masks did not work,
Social distancing did not work
Hunter Biden was selling influence to US enemies while traveling on AF2 with Joe Biden.
Covid likely originated in a Lab in China
and on and on.
When the crazy conspiracy theorists are right and the MSM is wrong, that is a damning indictment of the MSM
“The biggest reason for “low trust in mainstream media” can be directly attributed to Trump.”
Translated
“I have TDS and love sayin stupid shlt”
“nut jobs on the internet.”
More projection from Svelaz
You do understand that you contradict yourself.
Fox can not have created advocacy journalism – since as you admit it was created to counter existing advocacy journalism.
Fox came into a being because an unserved market existed.
They became the largest media outlet – almost as large as all others combined – because the rest of the media was so poorly serving the market.
Whether you like it or not – free markets actually work.
Fox’s demise will occur when they lose the trust of their viewers.
I would note that post the DVS Settlement and the Tucker News firing, Fox’s viewership declined.
The Murdock family has been trying to distance itself from Trump and MAGA almost from the start.
They have been unable to do so without losing their own audience.
Those of you on the left have this constant problem that you beleive that people are programed by Trump, Fox, or whoever you do not like.
The FACT is that Trump exists because he reflects the values of a large number of americans. Fox exists because it reflects the values of a large number of americans.
There is not cult blindly following their leaders – atleast not outside those of you on the left.
Again free markets work.
The market place changes to meet the needs and wants of the people.
Fox came into being because of the bias of the MSM.
Alternate media exists because of the failures of both the MSM and Fox.
John Say,
Another great comment. Thank you.
Once again, the “internet nut job”, Svelaz, just blurts out whatever stupidity comes to mind
He has made this false claim about distrust of the media before, and been schooled on it before.
It has been a steady decline since 1978. For the very reason he attributed to other nonsense.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/512861/media-confidence-matches-2016-record-low.aspx
Journalism has changed because of the internet.
Though mostly that is just about the ability of the market to rapidly respond to the wants and needs of people.
Fox was born before the internet was consequential.
Independent journalism existed before the internet, it has grown because the internet makes independent journalism easier.
You cite the rise of internet podcasts and pundits and realtime fact checking.
These are very real – but for the most part left or right they are at odds with the progressive media.
Of the big names in independent journalism – most are disaffected journalists from the let.
Sharyl Atkinson,
Matt Taibi
Matthew Shellenberg
Glenn Greenwald,
Dave Rubin.
Barri Weis.
And many many more.
The biggest reason for “low trust in mainstream media” can be directly attributed to Trump.
George weighs in to share his daily Maoist struggle session with us. With George, leveling accusations serve as confession.
In George Bizzaro World, when Americans found out that Obama and Biden working with the Democrat-Media Political Complex had lied to them that they could keep their doctors and their health care plans under Obamacare, and they’d save $2,500 in healthcare costs a year – intelligent Americans attributed their opinion that the media were the propaganda arm of the Democrats to Trump.
Despite the fact it would be six years before Trump ran for office. Despite that, it was still a George BBBUUUTTTT… MUH TRUMP!!!! moment. (To which George now adds BBBBUUUUTTT… MUH TURLEY!!!)
And we all remember years later in 2016 when Trump suggested to the Democrat-Media Political Complex that they should work with Obama and the FBI to illegally pay foreign spies to write their party’s “Trump Russia Dossier”, send the Attorney General and others to perjure themselves to courts that it was real, and then “leak the evidence” to the mainstream media before and after the election.
You know, that crafty ol’ Trump KNEW it would get him elected, not Clinton. And when Americans found the Media lied their asses off about “the dossier” – again – as badly as the Democrats, they announced that it was Trump, not media partnering to spread Democrat election lies that made them distrust the media even further.
In George’s daily bouts of psychosis, he creates a bizzaro completely opposite reality somewhere up in space, moves in – and then posts here asking us to believe what he posts and move in with him.
No thanks, Curious George.
George – you cite my arguments regarding the free market – but you do not seem to grasp that it is the MSM that is being killed by the free market.
BTW Journalism has not been changed by the free market.
All the free market does is assure that people will be provided with what they want and need.
If people do not want or need it the free market will not provide it.
To some extent as the market grows – the free market will provide a bit of everything – so long as there are enough people who want or need something.
If there is a enough people want organic, green, gluten free, fair trade Kashi – the market will provide it
Despite efforts of the left to destroy it – infowars continues to exist, as does The Young Turks.
The independent journalists I cite the most are liberals, not conservatives. But they are also real journalists at odds with the MSM.
In most cases their conflict with the MSM over substantive issues has forced them into defending Trump as an example.
Gleen Greenwald as an example reflect the journalism tradition that goes back to the Pentagon papers. A deep distrust of the national security aparatus, and the misuse of the military and intelligence for personal power. Greenwald has been at the forefront of that since before the Gulf War. Long before Trump. He was a major voice at the Washington Post before he went off on his own. He has tepidly defended Trump – because he has known from Long before Trump, that Trump’s deep state enemies are very powerful liars, willing to massively abuse power to punish those who do not toe the line.
Obama ran for president on many of the same national security and foreign policy positions as Trump.
Obama could as easily as Trump have gotten the US out of Afghanistan and Iraq and the endless ad unnescascary wars in the Mideast.
Yet he did not. Obama made peace with the “deep state” and they allowed him to say whatever he wanted, so long as he did not DO anything that threatened their power.
The global turmoil that returned with Biden should not surprise anyone. This is what those in the national security state WANT.
Objectivity is plenty profitable – most of the independent journalists leaving the MSM are doing far better than they were.
Even Tucker Carlson who was making a fortune at Fox is still making a fortune and now controls his own destiny and has said he would never go back.
You can claim Tucker is not objective – but many many others in independent journalism are far more objective than the MSM.
Journalists such as Taibbi, Shellenberg, Weis, Atkins, Greenwald are successful, because they are TRUSTED
They are not pro trump voices or pro right voices, they are pro truth voices.
John Say,
Bari Weiss wrote a op-ed describing how when she left the NYT and started Common Sense that would later go on to become The Free Press, she had no idea at the time how successful The Free Press would become. They have had to hire more editors and gotten a number of very good, traditional, journalists from MSM after they had become dissatisfied with the woke leftist culture. They have guest writers like Bill Barr. They host real debates about topics Americans care about. They are well on their way to one million paid subscribers.
No, that’s not it.
People are gradually waking up to the realization that neutral, objective, fact-checking journalism is slower responding, less dramatic, and more costly to produce than advocacy journalism. This puts into question Justics Harlan’s dictum “the antidote to bad info is good info”. They’re not competing on a level plane. If false narratives can be hatched in a matter of hours, and prying out the objective truth takes weeks, months, or years, what takes place in the interim?
What public decisions have to me formed? Are they reversible later on when the truth comes out?….decisions like going to war and election results are irrevocable.
I propose we smarten up, and refine Harlan’s principle:
The antidote to bad info is good info, but only if the good info emerges quickly enough to matter.
This is exactly why I have been proposing expanding defamation lawsuits to be able to rapidly confront and defang public frauds — whoppers of consequence. The major deterrent comes from a legal process, where the veil of secrecy the psyops infowarrior hides behind is immediately pierced by subpoena and compelled deposition. I’ve thought about who would be filing such lawsuits, and it would be investigative journalists like Matt Taibbi and Michael Schallenberger, backed financially by public interest groups. (Yes, reckless journalists on the right would also be sued for stuff like pushing Trump’s big lie, and “they are eating cats and dogs”.)
Defamation law does not conflict with the First Amendment because it does not involve prosecution by the state.
Consequences are limited to financial judgements, and being officially judged a liar by a jury of 12 Americans — after hearing adversarial presentations of all relevant factual evidence.
Advocacy journalism is ruining our nation. Those who practice it believe they have a right to manipulate and deceive the public for political effect. This inevitably leads to blunders of public decisionmaking, regrettable ones when the truth finally becomes clear. The question is, what reasonable steps can we take that won’t make things worse?
While I applaud citizen journalism, I believe it faces the same pressure to lower standards, and get out an oversimplified, compelling narrative as rapidly as possible — the more complicated truth be damned. The truth finds its north star in a courtroom, with its ability to blast through walls of secrecy, its strict rules of factual evidence, and its power vested in the hearts and minds of 12 ordinary Americans. This is the genius of our legal system.
America is the frog stuck in a slowly-heating saucepan of manipulative infowarfare. It’s time to think seriously about some modest, calibrated reforms that work to turn down the heat.
“Yes, reckless journalists on the right would also be sued for stuff like pushing Trump’s big lie…”
Pbinca, I have an opinion. I don’t know that Trump lost that election. I saw a lot of cheating and things that appeared to be illegal. Since there was cheating and 44,000 changed ballots would have provided Trump a victory, I think Trump likely won. That is my opinion, which isn’t very different from Trump’s.
Don’t I have a right to my opinion, and doesn’t Trump have that same right? I am not asking you to marry me, I am only asking that you let me have my own opinions. Why shouldn’t I have an opinion? I can argue it and have done so on this blog with facts and data. I haven’t seen you do the same or prove my data incorrect. Should we prosecute you for your opinion?
Let me add that Hillary Clinton, to this day, thinks she won the election without evidence to prove differently. Why aren’t you attacking Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats who say the same things?
pbinca
Good journalism requires hard work, but it does not take more time, just more ethics.
I know this is lost on most who grow up educated by the left, but free markets consistently drive the cost of everything DOWN.
Without government interferance or central banks, the natural state of the economy is mildly deflationary.
Most of us are unaware of that as we have lived entirely within the regime of central banks that require mild inflation to function.
Still a careful look at the real economy will show that outside those things most heavily touching on government such as education and healthcare, the cost of EVERYTHING has declined throughout you lifetime. In SOME cases the cost in REAL DOLLARS has declined but in nearly all cases the cost in nominal dollars has ideclined.
I bought the top of the line Amana refriderator wholesale in 1983 when I got married. It cost 1200/wholesale.
It was not efficient by todays standards, did not have numerous separately controlled drawers, no ice maker,
no water and ice in the door. Today a far better fridge costs 999 at home depot.
There is almost nothing that priced in hours of minimum wage labor costs more today than 10, 20, 40, 60 years ago.
Without the inflation caused by central banks those declines in real prices would be visible as declines in price tag.
I would note this is a REQUIREMENT for rising standard of living.
For our lives to constantly improve the value that each of us produces (on average) must rise relative to the value each of us consumes (on average).
If that is not true we can not continuously consume more. and standard of living stops rising.
Free markets constantly deliver to us more value at lover cost.
That is how the work.
That is true of everything – including jornalism.
Whenever you see any long term trends of increasing prices that ALWAYS means governemnt has interfered.
Good news: In today’s Harvard Gazette is a piece by Averty Forman citing Jillian J. Jordan, assistant professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. This series of quotes is promising: “Even in this politicized, polarized environment that our country finds itself in, people value accuracy,” says Jordan. “This means that what makes you look the best is to attend carefully to the accuracy of the information you share, and not just to share anything that would benefit your political party if it were true.” “Even in this politicized, polarized environment that our country finds itself in, people value accuracy,” says Jordan. “This means that what makes you look the best is to attend carefully to the accuracy of the information you share, and not just to share anything that would benefit your political party if it were true.” Amen! Now, if only the MSM would follow Jordan’s advice!
JJC,
Well said and thank you for bringing that to our attention. It highlights the unabashed bias by MSM who are willing to go as far as to edit an interview to make a presidential candidate look competent. When they get caught, they deny, ignore or pretend it never happened.
It’s great when the free market works. The recent political debates and interviews highlighted the bias of the media stars. Thank goodness for the First Amendment so finding and telling the truth is still allowed.
JJC,
Free market is one of the reasons why our leftist friends have gone all in on Marxism and their anti-free speech campaign. With free markets we see how poorly they do as most of their ideas and policies are total failures. The free market and free speech are the reasons why they are losing control of the narrative. And it shows.
Absent govenrment interferance the free market ALWAYS works in the long run.
Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.
Adam Smith
Dear Mr. Turley, for the last 8 years or so, I gave up on reading our local newspaper, printed in Madison, Wisconsin. It seemed to me that only one side was being reported and that was usually the liberal/Left side. Even the local news stations were biased against all of the good pertaining to the Right. Throwing my breakfast bagel in protest at the radio or television did little good. I began to understand why the Russian people would read their paper from back to front. As stated, the media only have themselves to blame for their lack of readers and listeners. Who would have ever guessed that in this very great country of ours, like the people of Russia, we would find ourselves not trusting the media?
Anonymous @8:40 a.m. The media has become the arm of the Democratic/Liberal Party. This was their choice.
Hunter S. Thompson, one of the most overrated “journalists’ of our time. Or at least of my time (I am older). Read his books, read his stories, see who is was and then tell me he deserves all the accolades he receives posthumously. Fear and Loathing my a**.
He was an addled drug abuser and alcoholic.
I have read Thompson’s books and found them to be quite amusing, for the most part. Occasionally a somewhat insightful political observation may inadvertently bubble to the surface. But “journalism”? That’s claim is a belly-buster in its own right. Thompson’s meanderings are entertainment; nothing more serous that that…
Is this about freedom of speech or freedom of information?
I brought this very phenomena up the other day in a response to one of Wally’s absurditys. In this day and age, with immediate access to everything who listens to the propaganda MSM anymore? With the Internet and historical archives of actual events information, a person can now delve deeper into our history. It doesn’t take long to figure out the lies and misinformation that we have been fed for years. To look at where we came from to where we now stand as a nation is nauseating. It’s the same play over and over, you would think we would have learned. Without a sound moral compass enough is never enough and the empty hole can never be filled.
It will be interesting to see how the “media” reports this story!
How can they be objective on this Court Decision and report the “facts”?
Ralph Chappell, the media has done a better job of reporting this story than Turley leads us to believe.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/supreme-court-qualified-immunity-texas-citizen-journalist/
This has nothing to do with objectivity or advocacy journalism. This story is about retaliation for engaging in journalism…in Texas. Turley didn’t mention that this was Republicans engaging in retaliatory punishment for asking questions about a police officer who committed suicide by crashing his car and hurting a family. A court in Texas dismissed the charges against her as they violated her First Amendment rights. What happened next was. She sued government officials for violating her First and Fourth Amendment rights. A Federal district court dismissed her lawsuit on Qualified immunity grounds. Then a panel of the 5th circuit reversed that decision and ruled in her favor. Republican Ken Paxton, Texas AG appealed to the full 5th circuit and they ruled in favor of Texas officials. That’s why FIRE volunteered to represent her to the Supreme Court for review. What IS interesting is Turley never mentions that this is conduct from republican government officials and a very conservative 5th circuit court which has been overturned by the Supreme Court so many times that it would seem to be an embarrassment by now.
This has nothing to do with mainstream media and advocacy journalism or the “decline in trust of traditional media” as Turley alleges. This is a case of Texas republican government officials trampling on a local journalist’s 1st amendment rights by jailing her for asking questions about a cop who committed suicide and ended up hurting a family. Ken Paxton, the Texas AG is constantly flouting the rights of not just journalists, but NGO’s for intimidation and threatening legal action to chill speech or legal activity. This is a case from 2017!
Here’s a question we should be asking Turley. Did La Gordiloca engage in advocacy journalism? Is News posted on Facebook, X, Instagram, Telegram, and any blog on the net legitimate? Credible? Turley seems to want to blur the line between real journalism and what passes for journalism on Facebook by any conspiracy theory kook and weirdo as legitimate because they are…objective. Something is not adding up with Turley’s reasoning.
George: With any due respect, I think you totally missed the fact that SCOTUS decided nothing; it REMANDED the matter. Indeed, the arguments you make have NOTHING to do with anything from SCOTUS.
(1) The Fifth Circuit’s decision was VACATED, the matter remanded. I’m not certain that you understand difference?
(2) The REMAND was in light of the the Court’s recent decision in Gonzalez. The Court is asking for the Fifth Circuit to weigh in and consider its opinion in light thereof. Gonzalez discusses the burden a plaintiff must show to survive dismissal of a claim, discussing Nieves, Mt.Healthy, and others. THE BRIEF ORDER/REMAND INSTRUCTS THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TO CONSIDER GONZALEZ .
No more, no less, George. That’s all the Court said.
Professor Turley is merely using this case as a springboard for discussing the rise in independent journalism.
Instead, you criticize him and attempt to educate us about the flaws in JT’s article. You then amusingly cite a CBS news article as reference/support for your own theory* of what the case is about????????????? (* you say, “This story is about retaliation for engaging in journalism…in Texas.”)
(3)…. I would instead suggest that you go back and look at the Remand, https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101524zor_2c8f.pdf Then you can go back and read the Gonzalez decision to understand, with comprehension and context, what SCOTUS is saying. I further suggest that you read Alito’s concurrence, which will explain everything for you.
Thanking you in advance, yours truly, lin.
Lin,
Great take down of George!! Always good to see you use your lawyer experience to post an excellent comment!
Once again, the “conspiracy theory kook and weirdo”, Svelaz, just blurts out whatever stupidity comes to mind
He has made this false claim about distrust of the media before, and been schooled on it before.
It has been a steady decline since 1978. For the very reason he attributed to other nonsense.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/512861/media-confidence-matches-2016-record-low.aspx
George,
Does the fact that this occured in TX matter ?
Absolutely Republicans do stupid things.
My county is massively republican.
The local police have done exactly this type of thing to local independent journalists.
And you and those on the left go after Turley, Taibbi, Shellneberger, Greenwald, Weis, ….
I would bet that the NORM for weaponizing government and law against LOCAL independent journalists is that it is don by Republicans.
But the undisputed NORM is that at the state and national level it is democrats.
Regardless, it is immoral, unethical and it MUST end.
For you there is no difference between right and wrong and left and right.
Significant portions of the deep state national security establishment that keeps dragging us into endless wars has atleast in the past been republican.
Harris’s big Republican supporters are ALL the same people who drug us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and who created all the problems in Ukraine.
The Cheney’s , Crystal, Bolton, ….. These are all republicans. These are all war mongers, and they are now all besties with the left, because they hate Trump.
Grow up – quit seeing the world as left and right
And start making determinations based on principles.
“The Cheney’s , Crystal, Bolton, ….. ”
Don’t omit David Frum, or as one of my all-time favorite authors and commentators , Jerry Pournelle, came to refer to him, “The Egregious Frum”…
Judge Ho – the one who saw this as a clear first amendment violation is a Trump appointee.
Everything has to be viewed in your world through a left/right lense.
Some of the infringements on the first amendment such as this one – come from the right.
Some of the great defenders of the fist amendment – Derschowitz, Turley, Taibbi, Shellenberger, come from the left.
You rant that Trump threatens to use the power of government against CBS or CNN.
If the rest of us though he was serious that would be a big problem.
The right has far from a perfect record on the first amendment, and no doubt will return to attacking it at some point in the future.
AS you note TX is doing that now.
But the BIG national instances of violations of the first amendment are mostly from the left.
The systemic violations are from the left.
Your article is confusing. You say the Supreme Court asked the Fifth Circuit to reconsider its decision that barred Villareal’s lawsuit but then you say, “The original panel decision of the Fifth Circuit (reversed by the full court) viewed Villareal’s prosecution as the criminalization of journalism, with Judge James C. Ho writing, “If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what would be.” So, which is it? Did the Fifth Circuit uphold Villareal’s right to sue the police or not?
Ooops, read too quickly….”…reversed by the full court.”
Don’t be so eager (as so many intellectual lightweights and no-knowings here try to do) to trump the good professor, especially when you’re brain is not running on all cylinders. Get another coffee, take a deep breath and reread.
Oh BTW, ther’s nothing social about social media.
Ooops, read too quickly, “…reversed by the full court.”
initial 3 judge panel said she was a journalist, the full en banc reversed the 3 judge panel. US S Ct reversed the full en banc.
“So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here — not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.” Hunter S. Thompson
The difference is that Hunter Thompson never talked out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. The corporate media activists parading as journalists claim on the one hand that objective facts are contrary to “truth,” yet want to be taken as gospel on the other.
There’s a difference between being subjective and telling outright lies. Legacy media today tells outright lies, in concert, in rote. As arm of Democrat propaganda machine, which is thoroughly corrupt and thoroughly anti-American.