Below is my column on the move to end the funding of National Public Radio (NPR). I will be speaking tomorrow on the history and future of American journalism at the Library of Congress. The funding of NPR has long been controversial on various levels, including those of us who oppose state-supported media in any form. This should be a moment of true self-reflection for the media in these changing and precarious times for the free press.
Here is the column:
This week, President Trump signed an executive order that seeks to restrict public funds to NPR and PBS. Since appropriations are made two years in advance, the immediate impact of the order is debatable. However, it is a moment the media should use for long-overdue self-reflection.
I have been critical of some of the administration’s attacks on the media, from barring the Associated Press from some White House events to lifting protections of the media from subpoenas regarding their sources. However, if these objections are going to have any legitimacy, the media must take a serious look at what it has become.
This coming week, I have the honor of giving the keynote address for the Center for Integrity in News Reporting at the Library of Congress. For many of us who have been part of the media for decades, these are precarious times for the American press. The damage done to the press in the last decade would have been unimaginable when I started. The most chilling fact is that it is almost entirely self-inflicted.
The state of American media was captured recently when the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association (and MSNBC correspondent) Eugene Daniels declared, “We are not the opposition.” Given the controversy that had occurred over the association originally booking a vehemently anti-Trump comedian for the dinner, it seemed more like a punchline than a plausible claim.
As if to bring that comedic point home the next day, the New York Times published its collection of essays titled, “A Road Map of Trump’s Lawless Presidency.” A recent study showed that media coverage of the Trump Administration has been 92 percent negative.
The undoing of American journalism began in “J-schools,” where young reporters were taught that the touchstones of neutrality and objectivity were no longer viable. At schools like the University of Texas, students are told that it is time to “leave neutrality behind.” Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, has insisted that “journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
Editors soon picked up on the change and declared that “Objectivity has got to go” in hiring reporters committed to what I have called “advocacy journalism.”
The result has been a transformation of American journalism into a type of echo chamber that amplifies liberal and often partisan Democratic talking points. That includes framing the news in overtly biased ways — for example, describing rioting as “fiery but mostly peaceful.”
The public were treated as clay to be shaped by an enlightened media in what they would see and hear. It was insulting and alienating.
Recently, Trump noticed a wounded veteran with a Let’s Go Brandon! sticker and the president jokingly asked “who is that?” That was a far more profound question than he may have intended.
“Let’s Go Brandon!” became a familiar political battle cry not just against former President Joe Biden but also against the mainstream media. It was first heard during an Oct. 2021 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after winning his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. When NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud and clear chants of “F— Joe Biden,” the reporter quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.
The response of the public itself has been deafening. Readers and viewers have left mainstream media in a mass exodus. Despite falling revenues and ratings, most of the media outlets seem entirely clueless or, at least, unyielding. Even as media outlets plummet in revenue, editors and reporters continue to saw at the branch upon which they are sitting.
When Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos brought in Robert Lewis, a British media executive, to try to restore profitability and readership to the paper, he was met with a virtual mutiny. Lewis nevertheless dropped this truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom: “We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around. 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.”
It did not matter. The Post has been writing primarily for itself and a minority of the population for years. The staff seemed shocked that Bezos actually wanted for the paper to sustain itself rather than treat it as a liberal billionaire’s vanity project.
That brings us back to NPR. Some of us have objected for years to the government subsidizing one radio outlet. It only made it worse that NPR was overwhelmingly Democratic in both its staff and its coverage. For years, NPR ignored complaints over its bias. It had a lock on federal funding to subsidize operations, even though its audience was shrinking.
One editor finally had enough. Uri Berliner went public, pointing out that NPR’s Washington headquarters has 87 registered Democrats among its editors and zero Republicans. NPR and its CEO, Katherine Maher, were dismissive and frankly arrogant. They attacked Berliner, who ultimately resigned in disgust.
Maher recently had a disastrous appearance before Congress in which she attempted to walk back her own biased public statements against Republicans and Trump.
Some of us oppose NPR’s funding as a form of state-sponsored media — a fundamental contradiction with principles of freedom of speech and the press. However, this is a moment the rest of the media should not let pass.
NPR was ultimately undermined by its own arrogance. Editors and journalists did not have to worry about the fact that its shrinking audience was overwhelmingly white, liberal and affluent. Due to its support in Congress, it could make the vast majority of the country, which does not listen to its programming, help pay for its programming.
It will now have to choose between sustaining its bias or expanding its audience. It certainly has every right to be a left-leaning outlet (as do right-leaning outlets), but it has to sustain itself in the marketplace. It is the same question that other media outlets must face as more Americans turn to new media. With polls showing the press at record lows in trust, media companies are increasingly writing for each other rather than most of the public.
The choice now rests with the media and, more importantly, the public. American journalism will either re-embrace greater neutrality or continue toward insolvency and irrelevancy.
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.”
As many have stated, if they are really that integral, they’ll be just fine on their own. Surely their listeners, all ten of them, will support them. 🙄
There was a time, before they were hijacked by extreme leftism, PBS and NPR were of great value, but I don’t think that’s been true for at least 30 years, and yes, that does indeed coincide with the rise of the world wide web. It’s been a race to the bottom since, and the younger their staff become, the worse the situation is. Time for ‘mom and dad’ to revoke their allowances. We really need to move past this point we achieved with the introduction of our younger generations, who have been *fully* indoctrinated in modern universities, into the broader adult world and are basically just doing a big cosplay game they expect someone else to pay for and for which they expect, at worst, to be gently chided.
As an aside, I personally never particularly cared for NPR. There used to be a satire blog called, ‘Stuff White People Like’, and on it they compared NPR to listening to cardboard. I don’t particularly disagree, it has been ridiculous for decades, IMO. These are not serious grown ups.
Main Stream Media is the Distraction (as the War machine rages on)
A fair question to ask is: What are they ‘distracting’ Us from? Well these next weeks the distraction is to avert your attention for the Fleecing of America by the usual suspects (K-Street and Congress).
Rest assured the country is in grave danger and the Military is on the watch. so the budget appropriations are necessary. Unfortunately you will not receive your 10% cut. That’s reserved for K-Street firms and special Congressional members and the occasional retired Presidents and Vice Presidents.
The Distracting Deception:
The ‘Art of the Deals’ are in full swing on K-Street and Capitol Hill – They should have a Budget Package ready by Memorial Day – Mon, May 26, 2025 (Isn’t that ironic considering the Military Budget), and should be signed by the President by July 4th 2025 (Isn’t that ironic considering it indentures the Taxpayers Servitude on Independence Day). No matter how you cut it (Republican or Democrat | Uniparty) Americans can’t win for loosing to the Forever War Machine (Defense Industrial Base – The Complex).
White House Eyes Deep Cuts In Non-Defense Spending, Boosts Military Budget,
The Trump administration has unveiled an early discretionary spending request ahead of its formal FY2026 budget submission. The proposal aims to cut discretionary funding by $140 billion – roughly 0.5% of GDP, and significantly shift the balance between defense and non-defense spending.
By: Tyler Durden ~ May 05, 2025
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/white-house-eyes-deep-cuts-non-defense-spending-boosts-military-budget
Says it all here: (image)
https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/4_22.jpg?itok=_mNdyRSa
Welcome to the New Military-Industrial Complex
An assortment of new firms, born in Silicon Valley or incorporating its disruptive ethos, have begun to challenge the older ones for access to lucrative Pentagon awards.
By: Michael T. Klare ~ February 24, 2025
[Link] thenation.com/article/economy/anduril-military-industrial-complex-drones/
NPR is the Distraction
BRUTAL: Comer Accuses NPR CEO Of Publishing ‘Disinformation’, Brings Up Article Targeting Himself
At Wednesday’s House DOGE Committee hearing (on Mar 26, 2025), Rep. James Comer (R-KY) grilled NPR CEO Katherine Maher over multiple stories published by the news outlet
Brittany Lewis – Forbes Breaking News ~ Mar 26, 2025
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeCzLCaqHU
‘Serious issue’: NPR CEO claims truth is a ‘distraction’
Sky News Australia ~ Nov 25, 2024
I read a piece by NYT’s Jay Rosen early on in the whole “young reporters were taught that the touchstones of neutrality and objectivity were no longer viable” change of tactics. He was definitely doing his part to lead the dialog. I engaged him and got blocked.
As a refresher, here is (g) under 47 U.S. Code § 396 – [establishing] Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal funding contributions:
“(a) Congressional declaration of policy—The Congress hereby finds and declares that…
“(g) Purposes and activities of Corporation; powers under District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act
(1) In order to achieve the objectives and to carry out the purposes of this subpart, as set out in subsection (a), the Corporation is authorized to—
(A) facilitate the full development of public telecommunications in which programs of high quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, and innovation, which are obtained from diverse sources, will be made available to public telecommunications entities, with strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/396
I do not believe that NPR receives funding directly from the federal gov’t, but rather, receives funding from CPB’s allocation to LOCAL public media stations. (someone correct me if I am wrong.) Funding is allocated in two-year distributions; one has already been approved for FY 2027. This makes the thrust of Trump’s EO rather muted.
I quoted Subparagraph (g), supra, because I do not believe CPB has lived up to its provisions. But CPB makes general grants to local media stations, which in turn, pick and choose what programming they want to broadcast. Ergo, there’s the rub.
p.s. just as I was about to post this, I pulled up Trump’s EO, which confirms my understanding of CPB grants, and the
nuanced nature of defunding only particular distributions under CPB.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media/
Very good, lin
Yes.
Although CPB created NPR, …”CPB, PBS, and NPR are independent of each other and of the local public television and radio stations across the country. CPB neither owns, operates, nor controls broadcast stations, but distributes more than 70 percent of its federal funds directly to stations throughout the country.”
So CPB funding goes to NPR-affiliated local stations.
https://cpb.org/aboutcpb/who-we-are
“So CPB funding goes to NPR-affiliated local stations.”
Which stations, in turn, pay licensing fees to NPR.
That is the accounting game NPR uses to rationalize its claim that is only receives some 1% of its funding *directly* from the federal government. The deceit is the word “directly.”
“This makes the thrust of Trump’s EO rather muted.”
Not really. The EO is being followed by a recission package to be sent to congress.
To SAM
I think you are confusing what was said.
Joseph AllSides Media Bias Rating: Lean Left:
“Oh, it’s actually almost nothing, never mind. Per Wikipedia:
‘While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounted to less than 0.1% of revenues, according to its 2020 public filings.’
Andrew AllSides Media Bias Rating: Lean Left:
“Interesting, thanks for the context!”
https://www.allsides.com/blog/inside-allsides-npr-state-affiliated-media
the rescission package already went out in mid-April. the EO is signed May 1.
Lin, if we didn’t already have you here we would have to invent you!! Thanks again for you information.
Article One powers of the U.S. Constitution legally require Congress to fully fund U.S. post offices and postal roads. It’s the law and duty that every member of Congress is required to do.
Congress instead has literally sabotaged the USPS. The USPS is a quasi-governmental hybrid model with the worst parts of being government and worst parts of being private.
Even though Mitch McConnell and Mike Johnson (and every member of Congress) are required to fully fund USPS, they simply refuse to follow Article One of the U.S. Constitution.
With a Congress refusing to do uphold their Article One duties what’s the point?
“NPR was ultimately undermined by its own arrogance. Editors and journalists did not have to worry about the fact that its shrinking audience was overwhelmingly white, liberal and affluent. Due to its support in Congress, it could make the vast majority of the country, which does not listen to its programming, help pay for its programming.”
**********************************************
And, due in large part, to media liars and manipulators like NPR it’s now an even smaller minority led by the insane. Good business model. Dims are plain dumb and some speculate they are demented:
“This is precisely the crux of the matter: not only the liberals’ belief in the irrationality of the populist revolt misses the point, but precisely the opposite is true—it is very rational. It would be irrational for the popular classes to support the liberal establishment.”
~Jan Sowa
https://www.aspeninstitutece.org/article/2017/liberal-insanity/
I agree with Professor Turley’s assessment of the situation. In my view, this country has few, if any, real journalists. We have would-be fiction writers and left-wing pundits but no journloaists. There may be a few but they are few and far between. I am disgusted that our best journalism schools are teaching that there should be a lack of objectivity. No wonder we have all these crackpots calling themselves journlaists.
From a long time student of constitutional law, most credible constitutional experts would likely admit that the American republic ended in the early 2000’s when the USA violated Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty.
Decades ago, the USA violated the Geneva Conventions. The USA virtually destroyed the “Nuremberg Legal Defense” precedent (created by the USA following World War Two to indict and prosecute Nazis).
The USA totally destroyed the FISA Act and FISA courts in the early 2000’s – the 1970’s legislation designed to restrain lawless presidents. FISA was the one and only legal path for presidents to follow.
Fast forward to 2025: we are simply seeing the consequences of destroying the American republic in the early 2000’s! Therefore the solution is correcting those constitutionally-subversive practices ignored by both parties for more than 20 years!
That includes framing the news in overtly biased ways — for example, describing rioting as “fiery but mostly peaceful.”
As I recall, Vladimir Putin described his nation’s invasion of Ukraine as “heartfelt but mostly peaceful.” He was accordingly nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Hamas, who described its invasion of Israel in the same way.
The Bee has been busy reporting on this topic:
Democrats Warn Cutting State Propaganda Will Lead To Fascism
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressional Democrats sounded an alarm Friday, warning that cutting funding for state-sponsored propaganda programs would lead to fascism.
In a swift executive action, President Donald Trump ended government funding of both PBS and NPR over concerns of reporting bias and leftist propaganda, which Democrats say will undoubtedly cause fascist ideologies to spread unimpeded across the nation.
“In Normandy, brave men and men identifying as women invaded German-occupied France to preserve our way of life,” said Senator Chuck Schumer in a passionate speech on Capitol Hill. “Now President Trump has carelessly thrown away everything they died for by ending the funding of propaganda programs, thus facilitating the return of the Nazi Party.”
“This is classic fascism,” he continued. “Only a Nazi would prevent the government from spreading false information as a means to manipulate the people it pretends to serve.”
According to sources, Republicans strongly disagreed with Schumer’s remarks, even going so far as to say he is “the one being a real fascist.” But this claim is false, said fact-checkers.
“If I can’t control the means of information so that people will believe the lies I tell them, America is lost,” said official fact checker Benji Woolcrest, a registered Democrat. “What could be fascist about that?”
At publishing time, Capitol insiders said Democrats were concerned that eliminating state-sponsored media could set the dangerous precedent of people being told the truth and being able to form their own opinions.
Editor and Chief of the Daily Planet, Perry White knew when there was trouble.
“Great Caesar’s Ghost”
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. Kudos to Turley for his herculean efforts pointing this out in every way and with every chance he gets.
NEWS + OPINION + CONJECTURE + PROPAGANDA = NPR
LEFT<<<<>>>> RIGHT
prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
noun: propaganda; noun: Propaganda
1.: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
—
NEWS
noun
ˈnüz , ˈnyüz
plural in form but singular in construction
often attributive
1.
a: a report of recent events
gave her the good news
b: previously unknown information
I’ve got news for you
c: something having a specified influence or effect
the rain was good news for lawns and gardens —
the virus was bad news
2.
a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast
listened to the news on the radio
b : matter that is newsworthy
The layoffs were big news in this part of the state.
3.
a: newscast
We saw it on the evening news.
b: newsless
:not having or receiving news or information. synonyms: uninformed. not informed; lacking in knowledge or information.
ˈnüz-ləs ˈnyüz- adjective
—
OPINION
o·pin·ion
/əˈpiny(ə)n/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
“I’m writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance”
1
a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.
b: approval, esteem
I have no great opinion of his work.
2
a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
a person of rigid opinions
b: a generally held view
news programs that shape public opinion
3
a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert
My doctor says that I need an operation, but I’m going to get a second opinion.
b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion.
—
CONJECTURE
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjek(t)SHər/
noun
1.
a: inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence
b: a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork
The criminal’s motive remains a matter of conjecture.
c: a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved
2.
obsolete
a: interpretation of omens
b: supposition
verb ~ transitive verb
1: to arrive at or deduce by surmise or guesswork : guess
scientists conjecturing that a disease is caused by a defective gene
2: to make conjectures as to
conjecture the meaning of a statement
Anonymous10:34AM —“I heard it on the grapevine”, possibly news, opinion, or conjecture.
It’s time the term ‘mainstream’ was relegated to the ash heap.
Only Congress (Article One Legislative Branch) has authority over money. Since 1791, no American president has had the legal authority over funding anything – only Congress has that power.
Congress appropriated the money for NPR. NPR correctly pointed out that this president is exceeding his Article Two powers under the U.S. Constitution. Very curious this fact was left out of this story!
Not quite on target, I admit, but to attack WaPo and NYT as biased while regularly appearing on an equally — if not more — partisan (although less “partisan” than “cultish”) FoxNews makes Turley’s viewpoints less meaningful than his own competence should lead them to be.
ZZZ zzzzz ZZZZZ zzzZZZ ZZZZzzz zzz ZZZ. Did you say something? …….. I didn’t think so. ZZZZ zzzzz zzz ZZZZzzz.
Classic guilt by association charge. If biased platforms won’t host the holder of divergent views, one goes where one can. Look up “Overton window.”
We know about the harm caused by the mainstream media, NPR, and censorship. But now, we face a new entity that can be just as dangerous, if not more so. Douglas Murray said it, starting with his first word on the Joe Rogan show, which Rogan or the other guests did not appreciate. Murray explained that sensationalism now drives attention and platform access, replacing truth with spectacle and distorting public understanding.
How much public knowledge is and will come from these platforms? Before listening to podcasts I screen the type of guest they have. Since all too frequently Rogan has guests spouting what could be considered conspiracy theories, I watch only if the guest is educated in the subject matter.
S.Meyer-there is an old saying in newspapers “If it bleeds, it leads”. Common to print media, radio,TV, internet. Sensationalism always sold papers, hooked people to radio or TV, and was the shiny thing on the screen that you selected from the internet.
Understanding objectivity is so much easier than being objective. The speech put forth in support of objectivity is usually responsive in nature and in turn contains a predominant psychological component. Just reporting phenomenally, which a public radio system should be restricted to, assists others in positioning themselves and in keeping with the descriptive takes no position itself.
In every judgment we establish the antecedent facts which govern the course of our thinking. The choice we make in the authority we choose to organize and interpret those facts is determining on whether or not objectivity obtains. The facts are generally pretty easy. The lens, however, is critical in maintaining a comprehensive approach to the given. Some people choose a lens which comforts them and that is understandable when listening to those seeking psychological comfort. But the comprehensive lens is so frequently uncomfortable and it is this discomfort which generates the toleration of those saturated with subjectivity and not their exclusion. It’s not an exclusive concept in the identification of objectivity, but serves the needs of civil discourse and making the “best inference” from the facts presented.
In plain English, comfort seeking by each audience member (a human instinct) puts a limit on how much ambiguity, nuance, and “truth” the news consumer is willing to pay attention to. The bias toward drama, simple narratives, and good vs. evil figures is what drives journalists toward sensationalist alarmism as a news format-of-choice.
A compelling but false narrative circles the globe 7 times while the truth is tying its running shoes.
To remain a free people, each citizen must rise above the purely instinctual, and let reason (higher brain functions) “do the talking”.
“I have been critical of some of the administration’s attacks on the media, from barring the Associated Press from some White House events to lifting protections of the media from subpoenas regarding their sources. However, if these objections are going to have any legitimacy, the media must take a serious look at what it has become.”
Has he been critical? Only in the mildest ways or gently chastising the Trump administration if you can call it that. Turley’s feeble and timid objections are the problem. It’s not the media.
“A recent study showed that media coverage of the Trump Administration has been 92 percent negative.”
Well, yeah! Duh. Is it supposed to be positive for some reason? Media is supposed to report the news, but thanks to Fox News and its decades long use of punditry and opinion news it’s not longer the case. Trump’s behavior and unhinged EO’s and nasty treatment of others is a big reason for the negative coverage. Turley seems to want media to treat Trump to gushing accolades and heavy ego petting because it’s what Trump loves. Reality has a harsher take on Trump’s stupidity and incompetence. Trump has to earn the media’s respect and you don’t do that by calling them “fake news” and “enemy of the people”. His MAGA hordes aren’t helping either. They took Trump’s disdain of any media organization that doesn’t kiss his a$$ as permission to attack and label media as the things Turley whines about. Just recently Trump attack two Fox News hosts for the audacity of questioning his policies. Demanding one retire and the other as basically stupid.
Trump can’t handle bad news that can be directly attributed to him being at fault. He loves to take credit for anything good, but never on anything bad. News reporting on the bad is….negative. Turley should know better.
“Has he been critical? Only in the mildest ways or gently chastising the Trump administration if you can call it that. Turley’s feeble and timid objections are the problem. It’s not the media.”
You conflate occasional frustrated comments by Trump with consequential acts.
I have little problem with Trump attacking the media – the president and those in congress and pretty much every american is free to attack or praise the media as they please.
What those in power are NOT free to do is fund their prefered media at the public expense.
Trump did not create funding for PBS and NPR – but he is ending it. I am not sure as president he has the power to do so. It is likely that congress must do this – which it should have done long ago.
Regardless, Trump or other politicians or all the rest of us are free to verbally “attack” the media or whoever else we please.
Just as you are free to rant about Trumps hissy fit with the AP.
The rest of us would be happy to stand up for the AP if they were taking a stand in principle over something important.
Regardless, Trump is not some existential danger to a free press.
“Regardless, Trump is not some existential danger to a free press.”
That’s the same attitude that led many Germans to believe Hitler was not the problem during the lead up to WWII in Europe.
(Well, yeah! Duh. Is it supposed to be positive for some reason?) So why? I ask you, was the press so flagrantly positives for both obama and biden when there were clear examples of when they should have been held under a microscope for their actions.
Don’t try and act as if the press hasn’t been complicit with the democrats as far back as woodrow wilson (and yes, if Trump had had a stroke and was incapacitated, do you think the press would have not questioned that Melania was the only one seeing him and bringing his directives to the government from behind closed doors) – sort of reminds one of Dr. jill. -.
Stop trying to prove the unprovable – we all know the media has succumbed to the pressure, whether willingly or under duress, to push the prog/left agenda at all costs. And that IS costing them dearly in terms of both income and viability.
“ask you, was the press so flagrantly positives for both obama and biden when there were clear examples of when they should have been held under a microscope for their actions.”
They were under the microscope. You didn’t notice because you were too busy bashing them for anything you didn’t like. Your tendency to go straight to conspiracy theories is what blinds you.
No on e believes that story of “sharp as a tack” ; that is not a conspiracy theory, it is a troublesome reminder of the subjective nature of most media. Why do you constantly attack messengers who note the truth – oh wait – truth=fact – the kryptonite for progressives.
George , truth is science and no, roosters crowing don’t cause sunrise. Bias is opinion. Opinion is a gray area that is BIAS. Bias won’t hold up under scrutiny as a replacement for truth. I ate the rooster and the sun came up as usual.
“Is it supposed to be positive for some reason?”
No it is supposed to be neutral, value judgements belong to the public – not the media.
“Media is supposed to report the news”
The whole point of this article is that it does not.
” but thanks to Fox News and its decades long use of punditry and opinion news it’s not longer the case.”
Punditry and opinion news predate fox by centuries. Fox has been successful BECAUSE of the left bias in the MSM.
The growing success of the new media is a response to the failure of the MSM – including Fox to meet the needs of veiwers.
The “bias” begins with news selection — what is worth reporting on? How would you define a neutral, objective approach to news selection? This involves judgments about relevance. And relevance is determined by purposes.
If we all hold the same purposes, then we’ll generally agree on issues of relevance.
But if society splits, and each side is pursuing different purposes, then they won’t agree on what news is relevant.
That’s the quagmire we entered when news channels decided to go with a factionalized audience.
NewsNation is attempting to serve “the center”, and to bring back common purposes and unity, as are many podcasters.
“judgements belong to the public – not the media.”
According to what? There’s no law or hard and fast rule that it’s supposed to be that way.
That’s why Fox News changed the game by pushing opinion as fact and used punditry as news.
The point is , George, re this article , people can write and publish whatever they do as entertainment.
Journalism requires facts absent emotional content to direct the listeners, readers emotions to reach an emotional conclusion. Anyone can write and say lies and propaganda but the public doesn’t have a reason to fund such.
Yellow journalism isn’t journalism. If Gazans are shown weeping then show Israelis weeping if choose to but that isn’t the US government’s position.
OT. re Gaza, DJT has bent over backward and done cartwheels to end that war. His idea of moving everyone out to rebuilt wasn’t bad. The gazans can then return. No one would take them temporarily. I’d say move them to half the area and rebuild then vice versa.
NPR or CPB are not due public funding for politics nor 501 3c status. Politics is not charity. Wars are part of the DOD.
“Trump’s behavior and unhinged EO’s and nasty treatment of others is a big reason for the negative coverage.”
The overwhelming majorit of Trump’s EO’s simply state FOLLOW THE LAW.
Remove from the US people who did not enter legally – AS THE LAW REQUIRES.
Do not spend public money for waste fraud and abuse absent specific congressional authorization for exactly that spending.
Do not violate Title 9 or the Civil Rights act.
Do not use the federal govenrment as a sinecure for your political party. Those in govenrment are there to do a job, if they are not doing the job – the public should not be paying them.
“Turley seems to want media to treat Trump to gushing accolades and heavy ego petting because”
No we just do not want the press to lie just as you do.
You rant about trump’s supposed unhinged EO’s.
What Trump was going to do was no secret. EVERYONE knew.
Those of you on the left EXAGERATED – LIED about it- there are no concentration camps with millions of illegal immigrants and political enemies.
Trump’s EO impliment the policies Trump promised to get elected and that people voted for.
Unhinged or not – they are what people want and what they voted for.
You are Free to persuade the rest of us that was wrong – though calling voters who voted for this unhinged is probably not an effective way to do so.
“Trump has to earn the media’s respect and you don’t do that by calling them “fake news” and “enemy of the people”. ”
If Trump WANTS the respect of the media – he has to earn it – but he does not want the respect of the media.
He does not NEED the respect of the media.
You do not seem to get it – Trump won – not just despite the disrepect of the media – but BECAUSE the media is so disrespected that their attacks act as an endorsement.
“His MAGA hordes aren’t helping either. ”
Insulting half the country is not going to win you elections
“They took Trump’s disdain of any media organization that doesn’t kiss his a$$ as permission to attack and label media as the things Turley whines about. Just recently Trump attack two Fox News hosts for the audacity of questioning his policies. Demanding one retire and the other as basically stupid.”
So ?I do not know the specifics – nor do I care. Trump can attack whatever journalists he wishes.
The rest of us can judge – based on whether that person deserved the attacks.
If you can not handle the heat – get out of the kitchen.
“Trump can’t handle bad news that can be directly attributed to him being at fault.”
Few of us can, but that is not the real problem. Trump is extremely good at ferreting out biased media coverage that he can highlight.
We have had weeks of fake reporting that Trump is tanking in polls – yet beyond minor noise no such trends exist in polls that have been historically reliable.
We have had 3 presidential elections where the majority of the polls were significantly wrong.
And always in the same direction.
Trump is attacking those polls and pollsters – and the people get that.
Fake polls are just another form of fake news.
“He loves to take credit for anything good, but never on anything bad. ”
As does every politician.
What we expect out of the media is reporting the truth – we the people can decide if the Truth favors Trump or undermines him. We do not need you or fake news to tell us what meaning to draw from the facts – only to inform us of the facts.
The issue is NOT whether the facts are bad or good.
It is whether the facts are being reported and how the media spins false naratives.
The educational priorities that Turley cites from journalism schools are exactly what is wrong with jounralism
Bias starts with which facts to report and which to ignore. Who chooses, and on what basis?
For example, to me, it is a very big story that Russian or Chinese state-sponsored cyberwarriors wage a ransomware attack on dozens of US firms EVERY DAY. These are Acts of War. The media don’t consider these newsworthy. Why not? It’s a foreign enemy attacking the United States!!
The media doesn’t care, and (gulp) neither does 95% of the US audience. They won’t care until it’s their company that’s shut down.
So are these daily ransomware attacks “news” — objectively? Who decides, and on what basis?
George
Trump is doing fine with the news.
Trump, the people, you will all get through this.
The world will not end.
Unlike a few months ago we are no longer teetering close to nuclear anhilation.
The budget framework passed. It is a bad framework. But far better than anything we would have gotten from democrats. Regardless passing the framework means that any senate legislation within that framework can not be fillibustered.
It is likely that a significant portion of the cutts Trump has enacted through EO will be enacted by congress in law over the next year. Further it is likely the congress will formally give the president the statutory power to cut waste fraud and abuse – power that all executives have constitutionally.
Congress will not do enough to reign in the out of control nonsense of the left that somehow remains as a cancer even after the left has been removed from power specifically for this nonsense.
But it will do better than democrats and ti will do alot.
Next all this lawfare will eventually come to an end.
Trump may improperly lose arround the edges on some of this. But with a few exceptions, most of the EO’s will be upheld either entirely or in the majority of their effect.
The only effect of this lawfare will be delay that further infuriates the american people.
Frankly, I think Trump is having fun trolling the left and the democratic party.
Tariffs will either work:
they will expedite the reindustiralization of american,
or they will result in global free trade deals with ACTUAL free trade.
Or Tariffs will fail and Trump will backtrack. If they fail Trump will get the blame.
But thus far despite the ranting of the left – they have not failed.
They are bringing in substantial federal revenue, reducing the deficit,
Trump has promised that some of that benefit will be shared with the working class.
Whether it is a good idea to eliminate income taxes for those making under 50,000 or not,
it is an incredibly popular idea. That and other Trump tax and economic platform items that require congress will be coming soon enough – probably just in time for midterms.
How do you think midterms will go if Republicans not only keep the 2018 tax cuts but eliminate taxes on social security, eliminate taxes on tips, eliminate income taxes on those earning less than 50,000 ?
These are likely to be contentious and difficult battles in congress. But they are battles that democrats have painted themselves into a corner.
The presidents authority to fire people with certainty will be affirmed by the court. Everyone RIF’d will ultimately be gone, and likely significantly more to follow.
The presidents power to deport illegal aliens will be affirmed by the court. Purportedly Trump has deported 65,000 illegal aliens in 100 days. That would be 237,000/year – about half the peak 450,000 number than President Obama deported,
Regardless, none of this fight is about deporting illegal aliens. It is not even about due process,
it is about how quickly can the 10-20M illegal aliens that arrived in the past 4 years be deported.
SCOTUS is NOT going to affirm lower court rulings that have made it harder to deport criminals and thugs, under the AEA than it is under normal immigration law.
Further – if SCOTUS does not act – Congress will.
You can hope and pray that the economy tanks – it might, A recession is the only way we have cleared inflation in the past, But we probably had a mild recession during the biden administration. Regardless, recessions are followed by recoveries – usually strong ones when government does act stupidly as Democrats often do.
Regardless, those of you on the left have to pray for disaster, because otherwise you are not only stuck with Trump but you are stuck with a Trumpian future.
The US has ONE significant problem that is a long term and possibly short term risk of consequence – that is the US Debt/deficit. Trump did not create that problem. You did – with help from lots of Republicans.
If you surf news media channels to compare content, the most obvious difference is news selection. Activist journalists perceive as “not newsworthy” events that make their side look bad, or make the opposition look good. Those emotional filters operate silently and implicitly. If you were to confront these pseudo-journalists, and insist on the need to identify, write down and review the standards governing the daily news selection process, you would be striking close to the heart of the problem. They would balk at your request. Zealotry always resists self-examination.
Excellent piece, Prof. Turley. Your speech will dazzle in its gravitas and coherence.
Yep. Just look at the last election, with the various left-leaning outlets cutting away from speeches and debates when Trump starts to speak (except for CNN during one inconsequential day last July); i.e. Jen’s “we wil tell you what we want you to hear”, or, most recently, when Trump was speeching during the appointing of one official or another, he started to speak on the illegals issue, and MSNBC immediately cut away.
-Rabble