We have previously discussed polling showing the media at record lows in public trust. Well, the latest survey from Gallup shows that the media hit another all-time low. What is most impressive is that plummeting readers, revenues, and layoffs have done little to convince the mainstream media that the problem is not the public but themselves. The only institution with a lower level of public trust is Congress, and that says a lot. It is like beating Ebola as the preferred communicable disease.Some 69 percent of Americans now say that they have no or little trust in the media. Only 31 percent say that they have a great deal or fair amount of trust. The trending line looks like the sales of buggy whips after the introduction of the Model T Ford. Gallop put it into sharp terms:
“About two-thirds of Americans in the 1970s trusted the “mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio” either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to “[report] the news fully, accurately and fairly.” By the next measurement in 1997, confidence had fallen to 53%, and it has gradually trended downward since 2003. Americans are now divided into rough thirds, with 31% trusting the media a great deal or a fair amount, 33% saying they do “not [trust it] very much,” and 36%, up from 6% in 1972, saying they have no trust at all in it.”
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how journalists and journalism schools have destroyed their own profession by rejecting objectivity and engaging in open advocacy journalism. The mainstream media has long echoed the talking points of the left and the Democratic Party, particularly in its one-sided coverage of the last three elections.
While Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism.
We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.
Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. 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.”
The Washington Post’s former executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and 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.”
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.”
This is why the whole “Let’s Go Brandon” chant was as much a criticism of the media as President Biden. There is clearly an effort by owners like Jeff Bezos to change this culture rather than bankroll newspapers like the Washington Post vanity projects for the left.
Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “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.”
The response from staffers was to call for the new editors to be fired. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.
The question is whether viewers and readers can still be brought back into the fold. New media is expanding as citizens have looked elsewhere for news. In the meantime, some media outlets and organizations seem to have doubled down on the bias. Just last year, Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson Jr. appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. The newspaper did not say a thing about the incongruity of one of its leading reporters calling for censorship.
After Trump was elected, NBC selected Yamiche Alcindor to return to the White House despite a history of alleged bias. Alcindor, who also worked for PBS, was criticized for often preceding questions with attacks on conservatives or over-the-top praise for Joe Biden or Democrats. While others saw raw political bias, Alcindor explained that it was her job to use journalism to bend the “moral arc toward justice.”
Recently, the White House Correspondent’s Association picked an anti-Trump comedian who promptly encouraged Trump not to come to the dinner, saying that no one wants to be in the same room with him.
In the meantime, “J schools” continue to dismiss objectivity and crank out journalists who are told to embrace activism as the public flees legacy media for new media.
For the moment, it seems like journalists are content to write for each other and about 30 percent of the public. The echo chamber is getting smaller and smaller. So are the staffs on the outlets. Without public trust, the media is just talking to itself as the public turns to citizen journalists and new media on blogs and social media.
As someone who has worked for three networks and written as a columnist for three decades, the decline of American media has been painful to watch. The industry has operated like a ship of fools with no regard for their viewers or readers. However, we need the media. The press plays a central role in our democracy as reflected in the press protections afforded under the First Amendment.
The effort to break this culture at outlets like the Post and L.A. Times is encouraging, but these polls indicate that time is of the essence.
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.”
And the WHCA is still insulted because they aren’t in charge of who is in the pool; yet they chose an MC for their dinner who insults the POTUS! None of the MSM seems to get it!
In freshman business, the student learns that you make more money if you have more customers. In the real world, Google reviews and Yelp reviews can sink or make a business. In the real world, people vote with their feet.
It would be interesting to see the financial books of some of these papers and other media organizations. How does their revenue stream break out? Are they truly independent, or do they receive help from other streams? If the tire department at Walmart has a bad day, they can make it up selling kitty litter.
Are some of these “News” outlets getting subsidized? Otherwise, how are they still here? Perhaps that is why NBC cut ties with MSNBC, they became a liability. NBC is no longer their sugar daddy.
If a news organization can back up their stories with fact, sources (not anonymous sources), they will weather the storm. It is a new day and the consumer news must now weigh everything they see, read or hear. That takes time.
Wasn’t there some data about USAID sending money to support Poltico? I think DOGE may uncover more of that AND let’s not forget about soros purchasing all that media. Of course those behind our shift to the prog/left have bankroll much. Selling progressives is akin to convincing children that Brussels sprouts taste like chocolate. You need a lot of “inducements”.
Yes they are. Place is pillage and plunder
Interesting point of view. Makes you wonder about how they keep running. If money from USAid went to Politico and other “news organizations” then one must wonder where the line items are for other news organizations? Are they hidden somewhere else or do they get funneled thru some NGO.
The media presstitutes are correct that the problem with the the media’s poor ratings is the public, not themselves. The public wants to be lied to, but the lies should not be so obvious. That is crass and crude. Rather, the lies should be subtle and convincing. I believe the media presstitutes are working on this. In time, the public will become satisfied with the presentation of the media’s lies and the public’s trust in the media will rise again.
As for the trending line of the sales of buggy whips after the introduction of the Model T Ford, this problem too is being worked on as I write this. Gavin Newsom’s bold new plan to ban fossil fuels will ultimately compel more people to return to safer modes of transportation, like horse and buggy. Although other environmental issues will arise, such as many tons of horse feces on the public streets, entire new professions will be marketed to address this problem. Minimum wage Feces Collectors, consisting of illegal aliens, will roam the streets and make the streets pleasant again. (A more alluring and attractive name will be given to the new profession at a later date.) Of course, California’s top tax rate will need to be increased to 37% to pay for this new class of professionals because Gov. Newsom expects the minimum wage to be $127.50 per hour in the year 2035. But that is the price of progress.
Of course trust in the MSM is at an all time low. Reasonable people can only stand being lied to for so long before they walk away or change the channel.
Upstate,
It is making the final circle of the drain. If President Trump had not been elected this time around, the bankruptcy papers would already be filed. As it is, it is gasping for life.
E.M.
Trump getting elected in 2016 gave many MSM a much needed boost. They saw that and ran on everything anti-Trump. But as we saw, that only lasted for so long. I read reports of mental health experts seeing big increases in depression and anxiety in patients, new patients all from the constant MSM the skying is falling because of Trump non-stop hysteria. This go around, MSM are trying it again, but even leftist Democrats are switching off as it depresses them too much. With the canceling of some shows, re-shuffling of programs, seems some producers know they need to do something different or risk loosing even more of their audiences.
I get my left wing news from the BBC. You at least will get more thought from them although very much left wing. But it is good for balance. ABC, CBS, and NBC just evoke a nausea effect.
“Of course trust in the MSM is at an all time low. ”
I would be interested in seeing if and how the referenced polls identify the “MSM” as a unique group. That may not be as easy as some think, I suspect there is quite a bit of grey area there. Also, to me, a large part of this problem stems from a fundamental change in the objective of “news providers” from providing accurate information in order to inform opinion, to providing the opinion itself, directly. While the left-leaning media outlets have been the primary abusers of trust in their truthfulness for quite a few years now in the interests of controlling public opinion, they are not the only offenders. Every morning, I read Just The News, ZeroHedge, The Epoch Times (US edition); The Washington Beacon, and The Federalist, in an attempt to avoid the leftist slant on issues in traditional media. However, I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that those sources are also rife with such cr@p as deliberately misleading headlines and selective reporting to produce a preordained conclusion. I suspect that the root problem goes beyond what can be attributed on the basis of position on the political spectrum.
@Number6
Agreed, but it’s also easy in terms of attribution insofar as so many get their stories etc. from Reuters, AP, and other spoiled apples in a barrel full of them. The actual *sources* for the outlets are fewer than the outlets themselves.
“so many get their stories etc. from Reuters, AP, and other spoiled apples in a barrel full of them. ”
Understood, but the outlets I cited are not sourcing from those providers, at least not to the extent that they need to cite them. And even if they were, the issues I mentioned are from whoever is writing (or rewriting) the source material providing their own based spin, and someone else (presumption) supplying an often misleading headline. It would be nice to find a news source that does what “Just the News” purports to do, and nothing more: give me the facts and, if necessary, a little objective and provable background information, and allow me to draw my own conclusions. Unfortunately, that appears to be a luxury I must do without. I will say that some of the accuracy issues probably are attributable not to bias, but to incompetence, or lack of attention to detail. I frequently read items, particularly on Just the News, where it is obvious that the writer has a very limited comprehension of the subject reported.
Number 6,
Well said.
Black vs white tears? Who knew!
Sky News host Rowan Dean is on point
There is something of Adam Smith’s invisible hand going on in this story as well. Roger Ailes built Fox on the idea that conservative news consumers were not being served. Rush Limbaugh built a huge following on the same idea. Jonathon’s report about the Gallup poll reminds us of when Paul Harvey was bringing us “The Rest Of The Story”. Jeff Bezos’s two pillars for WAPO may be a nod to the possibility that the Paul Harvey model will be more profitable in the long run. It will be illuminating to see what transpires.
Undercover agents are effective only for so long. I remember sitting next to a young woman on a plane one time, and as I began to read some legal briefs I was carrying, she asked if I was an attorney. That began a conversation in which she told me how she was heading home to buy a dress, the “first” dress she had ever bought. She wasn’t happy about it. The reason was that her law school, where she was a third-year student, was holding its career day soon, and she was told she would have to wear a dress for interviews. It was a dramatic but informative look at where our law schools are headed with students like this.
Hopefully, enough old-fashioned law firms expecting to hire lawyers properly clothed will remain to value also objectivity and legal prowess over personality traits and lifestyle urges. The same might be said for J-schools and how they turn out fewer and fewer “journalists” as they favor producing activists, instead. Go Woke, Go Broke is a great expression because it’s not just true but syllogistically clever.
In the words of the Washington Post editor that told his staff, “People are just not buying your stuff,” the free market, as always, will rescue us from the current spate of bad reporters and incompetent lawyers schooled by nincompoops that cannot make it themselves in the private sector. Remember the old saying: Those that can, do; those that can’t, teach. And so it goes…
“she was told she would have to wear a dress for interviews.”
Did you ask her if male interviewees were required to wear coat and tie? If so, imo the dress requirement was quite reasonable, if not, it was something else entirely. When I joined my last employer before retirement (we were acquired) the requirement in the corporate HQ office was that women must wear either a dress or a conservative pants suit, and men would not only wear coat and tie to the office, but would (assuming it was draped over the back of the desk chair while working) don the coat when visiting another another office space, or when otherwise moving about the building. Pretty conservative for 1996, but we all complied with little complaint, since the level of professionalism was in other respects equally high.
Ha! Dressing for success is not just the title of a 1968 book but a fact of life among those who seek careers in bureaucratic enterprises where persons are compared on merits and non-merits, the latter often being their wardrobe. It’s a fact of life but, as you learned firsthand, if you ignore this tradition and custom, you may pay the price for your independence.
JJC,
As I have mentioned before here on the good professor’s blog, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away . . . I was in IT. And I learned if you dress as someone in a higher position then you, others will see you that way. It worked! I got promoted! Six figure salary! And that IT job dang near killed me. My wife and I watched the movie The Intern. There is a part where the “intern” played by Robert De Niro whom always wears a suit and tie, and “Jules” played by Ann Hathaway, laments how did corporate culture go from his, professional suit and tie wearing to the hippister shorts and sandals culture. Yeah. You want to come to work looking like you are about to head out to the beach, dont be surprised if I dont hire or keep you.
they know they are lying and we know we are lying
Remind me…why isn’t Jussie Smollett in jail?
Guy, how is it that Trump’s tax returns were illegally exposed by one amateur troll, but Epstein’s videotapes can’t be legally located by the entire DOJ? That’s an existential paradox for a democracy.
I am glad that Zelensky showed himself to be the punk that he is.
Now the Ukraine gravy train is officially done.
As a supporter of Trump on this and other sites I have to disagree with you. Trump and Vance looked like a bully and his wannabe sidekick.
HullBobby,
I respectfully disagree. I watched the whole forty minute video. Things were going well, till Zelensky then became hostile, interrupting both Vance and Trump. They were there to sign a economic agreement, which also would give America a vested interest in the Ukraine. Zelensky demanded security guarantees which the minerals deal would of provided. Zelensky trying to bring those things up, in front of the media, in the Oval Office was disrespectful. The upside, several EU countries are claiming they have the Ukraine’s back. Okay. Let’s see them make real commitments and send their own troops to the front lines.
Gentlemen, I think the whole thing might have been performative. Zelensky is surrounded by ultranationalists who will kill him if he tries to end the war. Zelensky needs Trump to play the heavy so that Zelensky can convince the ultranationalists the war is hopeless. Personally, I doubt it will succeed but it’s worth a try.
I know I’m speculating here, but it’s the scenario that fits.
Only an ultranationalist or an ultra-stupid Democrat would be crazy enough to think this war is still worthwhile.
Diogenes,
After reading you comment, thinking on it, you may be on to something. Performative on Zelensky’s part that is. War ends, elections resume, he gets voted out, there just might be, might I say, some or more people, even Ukrainians who might want him dead. Some have speculated it was an ambush set up by Vance and Trump. I dont think so. Trump wanted this deal. It was as some pointed out, the first step towards peace. And, they had a lunch prepared for both leaders, which the Trump staff got to eat. If Trump and Vance were planning an ambush to this degree, they would not of bothered with lunch.
Upstate, I agree. If they were really this far apart, that would have been revealed in private meetings. A public disagreement by wartime allies is almost never allowed. This look staged to me.
“Trump wanted this deal”.
Any particular theories why The Deal Maker In Chief didn’t do a single thing to get a deal during his first term in office? Or why he didn’t want peace during his first term in office, while there were over 25 violations by Putin of the ceasefire agreement that was in place?
President Trump didn’t want a deal back then? Only now that he’s re-elected to his second term, and like Obama’s promise to Putin, and won’t be facing a re-election campaign that will involve what he did about Ukraine?
I remember a few weeks ago Trump criticizing Zelinsky by saying he had four years to get a deal done with Russia, and any competent negotiator could have gotten a deal done and Zelinsky failed. Well, I remember that Trump was ALSO in office during those years, and The Deal Maker In Chief didn’t get that deal done during that time period, just as Zelinski didn’t. Trump failed just as bad or worse to get that deal done during his first four years in office.
Maybe populist politics to appeal to the herd is primarily what it’s all about?
“The Deal Maker In Chief didn’t get that deal done during that time period . . .”
You seem to be suffering from dyschronia.
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, while Biden was president.
You’re obviously and publicly suffering from selective amnesia – or your current favorite, dyschronia. Apparently we’re to believe that Trump never spent a day in office prior to Putin’s second invasion in 2022. Lets check your version of history.
Putin first invaded Ukraine in 2014: True or False?
Trump was elected in 2016, before being elected a second time in 2020: True or False?
The war in Ukraine was still ongoing with Putin ceasefire violations during Trump’s first term from 2016 to 2020. True or False?
Trump as The Deal Maker In Chief offered no deals or additional American security deals during any of that fighting in Ukraine during his four years in office. True or False?
Binary questions… shouldn’t be hard to answer for those not suffering from selective amnesia or dyschronia.
Unless you’re wearing Political Populist Beer Goggles, hoping to find something attractive to pair up with and go home with at the end of the night.
“being elected a second time in 2020”
Huh?
The rest of your comment is just preening.
Interesting perspective, Diogenes! I hadn’t considered that angle.
“Zelensky trying to bring those things up, in front of the media, in the Oval Office was disrespectful.”
It’s far worse than that.
Zelensky knew the terms of that agreement long before the Oval Office meeting. He also knew that there are three steps to a cease fire, of which that agreement was the first step.
Zelensky then used that meeting, in front of the media, to bully and shame Trump into changing its terms.
That would’ve worked under Biden. Under Trump, that revolting manipulation blew up in Zelensky’s face.
Sam: I agree with you on this one, as well as with Upstate. Bringing this thread back on topic to the MEDIA, you both correctly note that Zelensky, in his disrespectful long-sleeve T-shirt, knew he had a sympathetic anti-Trump WHPC MEDIA upon which to rely. -But for comments from Lindsey Graham and maybe Rubio, both U.S. and international media have sympathetically focused on, and cast Zelensky as the victim of this incident.
I watched the whole thing as well, and saw Zelinsky could do dumb shit not much different than Trump regularly does when both run their mouths. And Zelinsky showed that he could be just as disrespectful in the Oval Office as Trump regularly is in the Oval Office of other world leaders. But unlike Trump, the Oval Office isn’t the office Zelinsky works out of as Ukraine’s leader. He should have recognized the difference for who gets to be disrespectful there and for doing so will get a pass and applause.
Pity that Zelinky’s predecessor as leader of Ukraine hadn’t realized that the America of today has all the credibility of Dennis McIntyre or a used car salesman when it comes to fulfilling the agreements we make with foreign nations to get what we want. Pity he hadn’t decided that the Republican president and Congress of the day, and the country they represented were all liars, and could not be trusted to defend Ukraine in return for Ukraine surrendering all their deterrent nukes.
There must be a reason Zelinksy thinks American assurances of a security agreement are worth anything, considering we haven’t honored the ones we made to convince Ukraine to surrender the 3,000+ tactical and strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems that we wanted out of their hands because we were afraid of WW III if they had them. Particularly when Trump/Vance said they wanted access to minerals – no security assurances included. Trust America… maybe we’ll give you another security guarantee sometime later… or maybe we won’t.
First Obama, then Trump, then Biden, and apparently Trump for a second time have decided NOT to honor the existing Ukraine/USA security agreement.
Why would Zelinsky or any future Ukrainian leader believe that Trump or any future American president will honor such an agreement when we’ve proven that we will not – once we’ve gotten what we wanted from Ukraine of course.
For Ukraine, after a succession of American presidential betrayals to honor the commitments we gave them in order to disarm them of their nukes, at this point there is simply no good way that this ends well for Ukraine and it’s citizens. No free world coalition of nations is going to even use soft power to stop Putin and get him out of Ukraine. The millions who fled Ukraine will probably never return after spending years building new lives in America, Canada, etc. Their war dead are not coming back to life.
For America, we will have succeeded in reneging on our commitment to provide military might to defend Ukraine (while they were fighting beside us in Afghanistan and Ukraine in our war) – and we might even come out ahead by getting access to strategic minerals in Ukraine that we don’t have. Didn’t cost us a drop of American blood to do nothing reneging on our committment – while Ukrainians were willingly fighting beside us in Afghanistan and Iraq as they were repeatedly invaded despite the fact “it’s not their war”.
Putin wins whatever happens because the lives of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers mean no more to him than soldiers’ lives meant nothing to Stalin. We and others will eventually force Ukraine to surrender parts of their nation to to Putin – or they’ll eventually lose it to Putin. Either way Putin wins.
Whatever happens out of this, both Zelinsky and Trump will be just fine whenever they leave office. Zelinsky was a self made multi-millionaire long before becoming leader of Ukraine, as Trump was a self-made billionaire before becoming president. Whether you like or hate one or both of them, they’ll be just fine.
America and the rest of the world will have to live with the second and third order consequences of the decisions we have made while other nations watched us to see what we did.
Upstate Farmer
I also watched the whole thing and Trump was jovial and fairly gracious at the start but Zelensky looked like he was sitting on inflamed hemorrhoids and then his talking was aggressive and with a very accusative tone.
I think Vance and Trump are closer than ever and seem to have developed a very effective team and that teamwork was very evident. Zelensky basically got both barrels right back at him. The Ukrainian ambassador was the one to look at and had her face in her hands and seemed to be stunned by Zylensky’s demeanor and talk.
GEB,
To me, Zelensky’s body language spoke volumes. Some talk about Trump or Putin’s ego, but it appears Zelensky has one of his own. Did not help during the Biden admin, Biden gave him whatever he wanted. Flying all over the world, getting lavished on by other world leaders. He is a small fish in a big ocean. Trump and Vance pointed that out to him. He did not like it. The Ukrainian ambassador’s reaction said it all.
Upstate,
Zelensky’s approach to diplomacy appears to have the same performative maturity of Greta Thunberg’s, or any other Leftist’s attention-seeking demands. He fully expected to once again cosplay his way through this meeting, only to discover President Trump only deals in solving real world problems with real world solutions. Right about now, I would not be surprised if the people of Ukraine realize their future is in the hands an amateur dictator.
Zelinsky would have been more palatable if he’d used a diplomatic approach like Trump did a week before, when Trump told Canada and Canadians they should be America’s 51st state? Zelinsky makes dumb shit moves but Trump doesn’t with diplomatic comments like that?
Now THERE’S how you unit your neighbor, a divided country currently with a minority Marxist government in power, about to be blown out in the next seven months by a conservative and his party who is far more conservative economically and in foreign relations than Trump ever will be! Far better to have another version of Trudeau still in power, rather than a conservative and a conservative party?
And suddenly Trudeau’s Leninist Liberal party has a breath of life Trump blew into their sails by uniting many Canadians in a common cause, now that Trump’s version of diplomacy has pissed them off.
You don’t get the best performance out of your children, your business staff, a sports team, and the politicians you hired by praising them no matter what they do or say, turning a blind eye to their screwups because on the whole they’re doing a great job.
Perhaps you should watch this. It explains what was behind yesterday’s Zelenskyy tantrum. Mark Rubio –
Thanks for sharing. Great video. Marco Rubio is a star.
Having watched that video I can say that I have never had greater respect for any politician than Marco Rubio during that interview. Especially with a CNN reporter trying to trip him up at every opportunity.
Hear, hear! And the CNN “journalist” appeared to trip herself up or hit a dead end rather than diminish Rubio’s profound and historic performance in any way.
This event was a photo op. The discussions and agreements occurred behind the scenes, where Zelinsky should have kept these opinions. Zelinsky observed American media and thought he could use it to his advantage. He was wrong. He dealt with Biden and thought he could bully Trump like he did with Biden. He failed.
S. Meyer,
As Rubio notes in the interview, they could of signed the mineral deal five days ago, but Zelensky insisted on a in person, press conference like show. Zelensky could get what he wanted from the Biden admin. As others have noted, Zelensky does not know how to deal with the Trump admin. Nor did he know how to read the room. To me, he seemed pissed that he cannot get what he wanted with the Trump admin as he did with the Biden admin.
Elements of the ongoing Obama Coup D’etat in America secreted a political “bomb” into the Oval Office and detonated it in front of the President—an act of treason.
Perhaps it was some grouping of the 51 former intelligence officials who signed the letter on Hunter Biden’s laptop and foreign components of the “Five Eyes.”
(Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a “supra-national intelligence organisation that does not answer to the known laws of its own countries”[10] Wiki).
Floyd,
Thank you for posting that.
Trump and Vance looked like a bully and his wannabe sidekick.
Sure, if you naively support an unaccountable foreign welfare policy. There was no way this meeting would have ever being scheduled if Rubio and Bessant hadn’t been assured that Zelensky agreed in principle on the planned agreement. So obviously Zelensky had an entirely different plan and he thought he could once again play the victim card in front of the worldwide media with absolutely no expectation this administration wasn’t going bend over like the previous administration and other western nations. Whoever failed to advise Zelensky on negotiating with President Trump may find themselves sent to the front without a weapon.
Bully’s wield power they dont actually have.
You’re a liar.
Wokeism and the radical far left-wing stupid and crazy is coming to an end. It was like a mass psychosis that fervently gripped the nation. As it went on, it got more and more absurd, stupid and crazy. The fever finally broke for many as they recovered their senses. Many were shocked even horrified to look back and see what they had supported during their fever induced craze. Unfortunately for some, the sickness has left them damaged beyond all chance of full recovery. Many of them are in MSM. And the public sees it too. There is no dealing with them. So the public is switching them off. There is plenty of independent media filling the role of reliable, objective reporting MSM once did. Switch off MSM. Support independent media.
Your fallacious points are just as bad. And good counter-points never get through that thick skull of yours. From now on, I will scroll past your comments.
Good, then maybe we’ll have to read fewer of your crybaby loser responses.
“From now on, I will scroll past your comments.”
If we could only believe the promises you commie Democrats make, there might be some value to your otherwise meaningless post.
Agree with you. We need to support the courageous, independent journalists. As a conservative , I no longer believe Fox News is the answer either as it’s become more biased toward MAGA – just as MSNBC, etc. is biased toward Woke. I want to hear journalism, not cheerleaders of either left or right.
Suzy,
Well said. I dont watch Fox either.
suzy1951 and Upstate: Perhaps I am wrong about FOX. I only get to watch it when I am at my summer camp. I would channel-surf back and forth over cable channels, and Fox seemed to have guests representing varying viewpoints. (Of course, Fox also had its late-night Laura Ingrahams and Sean Hannitys as well). But for the most part, I found it head and shoulders above the truly one-sided likes of MSNBC and CNN, etc. I don’t get cable at my main residence, so I dunno, but I’ll keep your opinion(s) in mind. Perhaps FOX has gotten more one-sided because it stands alone in contrast.
Lin,
Honestly I cannot say. I do not have cable either. I read a lot.
I enjoy and respect Harris Faulkner and Bret Baier. The rest, not at all. The rest are just entertainment not serious news.
What’s not to like about Shannon Bream?
Or Trey Gowdy? FOX’s media guy, Howard Somebody, is hardly a MAGA right-wing spout. I can name more.
“The only institution with a lower level of public trust is Congress, and that says a lot. It is like beating Ebola as the preferred communicable disease” is a good line. I enjoy your posts, Professor, but I can’t say you’ve ever made me laugh out loud before.
By the way, your complaints and defenses of journalism are somewhat quaint. It’s already been replaced. But I’m sure the buggy-whip factories ran for a while longer than necessary as well.
“Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.” She’s not wrong. Look at what Turley posts.
Turley is not a journalist, moron.
Wonderful assessment. Let me add a few points, equally from decades of observation. (1) The biggest thing taught in K-12 and colleges these days is ego. The grads are no longer self-reflective, serious, or knowledgeable. They are self-declared smart. (2) The big salaried “news” people these days should be better called “entertainment journalists.” Most are little more than Jimmy Kimmel without the jokes. (3) The is a pronounced blurring of lines between what could be true and what is true. (BTW, this also seems to be the case with the law.)
Jimmy Kimmel tells jokes? Who knew?
“However, we need the media.“
While I wholeheartedly agree with the bulk of your post, I must take issue with this statement. There are, as you note, many alternatives these days. The Left’s propaganda outlets (NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, etc.) won’t be missed.
The “attempt” by Bezos to address the issue of biased journalism at the Washington Post is as disingenuous as it could possibly be. Bezos fears the Trump administration! He knows how much damage the Trump administration could do to Amazon. It’s not anti-trust action, or a boycott by Trump’s base. It’s far more damaging and much easier to implement. The vast majority of revenue for Amazon comes from AWS, Amazon Web Services. Where does that revenue come from? The federal government! Specifically, government controlled by the Executive Branch. If that revenue stream is choked off, Amazon is no more. It dies an immediate and horrific death. AWS funds Amazon. And Trump controls the spigot of money flowing into AWS. Check it out. It’s astonishing that Bezos created such an enormous mistake, but it explains his recent actions. He’s afraid!
“The vast majority of revenue for Amazon comes from AWS . . .”
I suppose in some universe 18% is considered a “vast majority.”
“If that revenue stream is choked off, Amazon is no more.”
Goodness, you’re not even close. Over 90% of the Fortune 100 companies are AWS customers.
If you wish to kneecap a talented man, try to at least get the facts straight.
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and several legacy print publications have been involved in Main Stream Media Journalistic Malpractice for so long that they’ve forgotten how to actually report the news. The Main Stream Media creates “Well Crafted Deceptions” (essentially a big lie)
They lied to you about the jobs report.
They lied to you about inflation.
They lied to you about COVID.
They lied about crime numbers.
They lied about Biden’s dementia.
They lied about Biden’s foreign money.
They lied about border security.
They lied about Hunter’s laptop.
They lied about IVF treatments.
They lied about Stolen Valor.
They lied about weaponized media.
They lied about Trump’s raid.
They lied about Russian collusion.
They lied about the Ukraine war.
They lied about the election.
They lied about the Epstein client list.
They lied about Project 2025.
They lied about Biden’s Garbage Statement.
And Biden lied that he wouldn’t pardon Hunter.
Democrats & the Media only care about themselves, not the American public.
See a doc fast.
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and several legacy print publications have been involved in Main Stream Media and Journalistic Malpractice for so long that they’ve forgotten how to actually report the news. The Main Stream Media creates “Well Crafted Deceptions”
Here are a few examples of the Media’s Journalistic Malpractice…
Russia Collusion Hoax
Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax
Jussie Smollett Hoax
Covington KKKids Hoax
Very Fine People Hoax
Policeman Killed at Mostly Peaceful January 6 Hoax
Rittenhouse Hoax
Eating While Black Hoax
Border Agents Whipping Illegals Hoax
NASCAR Noose Hoax
The Georgia Jim Crow 2.0 Hoax
Trump Assaulted Secret Service Agents & Grabbed Steering Wheel of Beast Hoax
MAGA Assaulted Paul Pelosi Hoax
COVID Lab Leak Theory Is Racist Hoax
Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Russian Disinformation Hoax
COVID Deaths Are Over-Countered Is a Conspiracy Theory Hoax
The Blood Bath Hoax
The Animal Hoax
Joe Biden is Healthy Hoax
Kamala Harris will make a great President Hoax
The School Shooting Hoax
…will continue to go right on telling fibs.
take a break … really.
These advocates who fancy themselves journalists suffer from the lethal combination of arrogance and stupidity. Indoctrination is an interesting thing.
-John Underwood
Tyler, TX
Can just as well be said about conserv media. Turley media is the best example.
Crybaby loser ^^^
Jonathan;
Send your writings to bezos! You would be published and boost that paper in no time, well unless you can stand him and don’t want to help. But I say GO FOR OT !!
The most expensive activity is feeding one’s ego.
Which you just did for free