The decline of American mainstream media has long been obvious, with public trust and revenues plunging. Some companies are responding with the novel idea of restoring objectivity and neutrality to coverage. For years, news organizations have essentially written off half of the country. However, as news organizations struggle to avoid even greater layoffs, staffers are fighting efforts to bring balance to their networks. That was evident last week in meetings at CNN and CBS where staffers continue to fight to retain their bias rather than their jobs.
CNN has long aired controversial hosts and guests who engaged in controversial statements on race and politics from the left. However, a meeting last week focused on the airing of one of the few conservatives who regularly appear on the network. As one staff member reportedly raised, there was outrage that Jennings is “allowed to exist” on the network. Even as CNN continues to languish in ratings, staffers want to fire one of the few remaining conservative voices on the network.
One of the key issues raised in the meeting was Jennings referring to “illegal aliens.” While CNN bars the term, it is used in federal law and federal cases, including by the United States Supreme Court.
In one exchange on Jan. 19, Jennings trades barbs with fellow panelist Cameron Kasky, a survivor of the 2018 Parkland school shooting. Kasky criticized Jennings for saying that ICE should be allowed to “chase down illegals” in Minnesota.
Jennings pushed back: “Who are you to tell me what I can and can’t say? I’ve never met you, brother. I can say whatever I want. They’re illegal aliens. And that’s what the law calls them. Illegal aliens. That’s what I’m going to call them.”
Staff members reportedly denounced him as a “MAGA mouthpiece” and a “firebrand Trump loyalist” who “frequently gets into verbal spats with other CNN guests.” It is a curious objection since these panels are supposed to be lively contrasts between guests.
The meeting is reminiscent of the effort at the Washington Post to get staffers to recognize the company’s declining position.
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. 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 were up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.
The same dynamic is playing out at CBS, where Bari Weiss was brought in to turn around the network.
Weiss has been the subject of anonymous attacks since the company brought her in to reverse the decline in ratings. Like Lewis, Weiss tried to explain that the staff is “not producing a product that enough people want” and that something has to change.
According to reports, Weiss was direct and candid with the staff. She stated:
“I need to start by acknowledging that there’s been a lot of noise around me taking this job. … I get it. I also get why, in the face of all this tumult, you might feel uncertain or skeptical about me or what I’m aiming to do here. I’m not going to stand up here today and ask you for your trust. I’m going to earn it, just like we have to do with our viewers.”
However, she was also clear that returning to past practices is not one of the options:
“So, here it is as plain as I can say it: I am here to make CBS News fit for purpose in the 21st century. Our industry has changed more in the last decade than in the last 150 years and the transformation isn’t over yet. Far from it. It’s almost impossible to conceive of how fast things will move from here…Back then, 30 million people watched Walter Cronkite every night. Some were on the left, some were on the right. But they trusted him. Through Cronkite, they inhabited a shared world with shared facts and a shared sense of reality. We can’t reverse time’s arrow. He had two competitors. We have two billion, give or take.”
She then made the same point as Lewis with a brutally honest and brilliantly blunt assessment: “What we can do is what journalists do best: look at the world as it actually is. We have to start by looking honestly at ourselves. We are not producing a product that enough people want.”
Weiss concluded with this powerful line:
“I realize that none of these ideas are revolutionary on their own. What’s different now is that the stakes are so very high. And the hour is late. And we are in a position, with the support of all of the leadership of this company, to really make the change we need.”
Any rational person would hear these words and understand that Weiss is struggling to protect these staffers from themselves; struggling to keep their jobs. Instead, the response has been glacial from journalists, who believe they should be able to continue covering stories for one another and for an ever-shrinking audience on the left.
The fact is that we need CNN and CBS. The Framers understood the importance of an independent press. These companies helped revolutionize media and could be restored if the staff stopped obstructing reform efforts.
Instead, staff members continue to furiously saw at the branch upon which they sit.
The Ouroboros phenomenon is a social milestone in entertainment of selfie-cancellstion ideation. Just do it!
Professor, with all due respect, we do not need CNN and CBS. Yes, we need an independent press. CNN, CBS, and the other news organizations are not a free press. They are trapped by their bias and incapable of reporting objectively. What we have, and will have from now on, if we are lucky that is, is an adversarial system of competing biases. Those who wish to think can watch each and decide what to believe, while those who find that too difficult or time consuming can stick to their choice and receive confirmation that the ideas that they have been spoonfed are sacrosanct. The bad news is that if the left has their way, alternate viewpoints are likely to be prohibited altogether.
As long as the grad schools keep hiring liberal professors, they will ensure there is little room for alternative points of view, commonly known as an echo chamber.
I have taught Media/Journalism for 30 years at a major university in Missouri where a subtle change began with an increasingly popular theory among politically liberal faculty– Advocacy Journalism. Students were encouraged to use the power of the media/press to promote social change rather than objectively reporting and analyzing the news with fairness and balance. Additional theories of Agenda Setting and structuring stories to cherry-pick “experts” and select comments and quotes from the other side that create the illusion of balance, but always make the conservative seem less credible routinely promote one side. A recent study concluded 90+ percent of university faculty vote liberal Democratic, so no wonder J-students are indoctrinated.
Advocacy Journalism – is that where they regularly take lengthy phone calls from only one person in government and let them speak without any fact checking, a daily 30-60 minute campaign effort and say that the other side is pure evil and should all be locked up?
Some see news as a way to sell products; it’s just filler between the advertisements. And I think looking at the ads one can tell the underlying motive. If your news program emphasizes the decline of the country and sells gold coins and prepper meals, readying for the Apocalypse, then it is clear that is what the Advocacy Journalism is pushing for.
Not to mention all of the law schools across the country indoctrinating the emerging attorneys, judges, and legislators.
The Journalistic profession shape public opinion; legal professions shape the judicial landscape and outcomes.
Perhaps, for a start they should look for an unknown journalist at a paper or a small tv station. Then have this person produce something of significance, with neutral review, from their area to put on the national news once a week. It would encourage, as well as give exposure for a part of the country that is out of the echo chamber. It would also put the echo chamber on notice as well as possibly promoting an actual journalist.
They don’t exist any more.
Groundhog Day: Punxsutawney Phil makes 140th weather prediction
Punxsutawney Phil made his annual weather prediction while AccuWeather warns of continued cold temperatures and snow in eastern US
Pennsylvania’s “official state meteorologist,” Punxsutawney Phil, saw his shadow Monday morning, predicting six more weeks of winter.
By Stephen Sorace – Fox News ~ February 2, 2026
https://www.foxnews.com/us/groundhog-day-punxsutawney-phil-makes-140th-weather-prediction
Now if we could only get Congress to see it’s shadow (Budget)
Happy Groundhog Day!
I’m an old fart and I watch zero mainstream news. I have decided that the “news” that I get off social media is closer to the truth than from the alphabet soup media.
I agree. One can judge for themselves.
I think the professor is correct and I think the managers at CBS and CNN and Wash Post have it right also. You need objectivity in order to see the truth. I have my point of view but I know that no one or even one side has all the answers. Obviously the people who consume the news see this also. Fox continues to grow and CNN and CBS, and MS Now continue to falter and lose eyeballs and ears. I don’t think the upper echelons of CNN and CNS are doing this just to be fair. They doing it because they are losing money and these corporations are not there to lose money. That includes the Wash Post. If these outlets all close then their side will not be seen even it they are correct.
It’s just like the evening shows with Colbert, Kimmel and such. If you watch legacy productions of Johnny Carson, or Jay Leno, they were wholly different productions and had 5-15 million people see them each nite with a national population 10’s of millions less. Colbert and Kimmel lose money while Carson and Leno were flagship productions.
They are going to lose and get closed and then how will you get the other side.
Is it not profound that independent amateur journalists started unraveling the corruption in Minnesota and a “amateur” actually pierced the Signal messaging network. In days gone by that would have been the work of 60 minutes or 20/20. No more.
Hollywood is almost as bad and it is barely there anymore because of technology and box office bomb after bomb. Franchises are destroyed because of a single point of view and the audience is no longer watching or the audience consists of a few souls in empty theaters.
You got it all wrong. The only reason those businesses are transforming is to stop the losses, not sell truth.
What CBS, CNN, and the Washington Post have in common is they are all controlled by conservative billionaires.
Kimmel and Colbert are not losing money. The billionaires who want to grovel for Trump say that, but it isn’t true. Shows that break even get cancelled straight away or their hosts get replaced. One that loses money? You would not be seeing it anymore.
Did you have the internet when Carson was on? Movie streaming? 10,000 channels of whatever diversionary entertainment when Leno was on? Lots of people watched because there were only 3 national networks.
This may shock you – daily delivery of printed newspapers is way down.
“independent amateur journalists started unraveling the corruption in Minnesota ”
Those independent amateur journalists are professional propagandists working for the billionaires to create false impressions.
Huh?
The fact that CNN liberals want to toss Scott Jennings, a pleasant, controlled and reasonable conservative, off the air while they just added Tiffany Cross, a very far left, nasty racist radical that is so far left she was tossed from MSNBC, tells you all you need to know.
This is just another example of what the schools are doing to our next generation with this being an example of the J Schools. The leftists coming out of our universities have not seen or heard any conservative voices as the faculties are almost 100% leftist and the young conservatives enrolled with them are to cowed to give honest opinions due to the correct fear of getting lower grades because of it. They also don’t allow any conservative speakers on campus as we saw “moderate” liberal Ezra Klein get shouted off stage just a few days ago.
The left cannot countenance debate and that is why they shout down speakers, blow whistles, hide their views, check out the VA governor’s race as the “moderate” candidate went far left the first week after she was sworn in. The left demands that Fox be taken off the air, the right just changes the channel.
“The left cannot countenance debate and that is why they shout down speakers,…” You should know, you do it here all day long.
You’ve never encountered a comment here you can’t abide, you automatically resort to insults and threats. Including the upstate farmer and dust-off.
So why should anyone take you seriously, you’re a loud moth bulling hypocrite.
HullBobby,
I think a question we have to ask is why would anyone go to college for journalism, if liberal or should I say, illiberal, MSM is dying. MSM newsrooms are shrinking nearly as fast as their ratings. And yet, those newsrooms refuse to change to get their viewers back? What sense does that make?
Because you are not college or university trained you have an implicit bias towards educated people.
Your comment reeks of naïveté. So “MSM” is only liberal news sources? That indicates you’ve absorbed and processed rightest gaslighting.
Why would they change? If MSM is just liberals, they orient themselves to liberals. Right?
And you imply that only rightest report the truth.
You contradict yourself.
You don’t understand what you’re writing.
X, don’t try to hide as anonymous, Right?
“Because you are not college or university trained”
I surmise you meant. . .you are not college or university indoctrinated.
You clearly did not understand what I wrote.
Some 90% of MSM leans left/liberal or more correctly, illiberal. And then there is Fox. As we have seen from MSM ratings, their lack of viewership, falling subscriptions, illiberal journalism appears to be a dying field as newsrooms shrink with MSM ratings. Why go into a shrinking job market? It is like getting a degree in gender studies and then be shocked and surprised to find there is no job market. But Starbucks is hiring.
Again, MSM ratings, viewership and subscriptions are failing. Robert Lewis and Bari Weiss said the unthinkable, no one is reading their stuff or they have a real trust issue with the American people. Rather than some degree of self-reflection and consideration of how to gain those subscriptions back or trust, advocacy journalists are doubling down in their resistance and furthering their own demise. And it is all self-inflected.
Have you run out of conservative channels to watch? Exhausted the conservative possibilities to the extent you need even more of the same? What does it matter to you when there is more conservatism on line than you can possibly view each and every day?
“This is just another example of what the schools are doing to our next generation with this being an example of the J Schools.”
Good point. I believe there are professors in liberal colleges are living in echo chambers. God help us!
I applaud as these useless, obsolete, destructive entities (MSM) circle the drain. I shall cheer loudly when they finally descend into it, never to return. Good fornicating riddance!
Spoken like a true liberal.
I’d call you an 1d10t, but I wouldn’t want to insult those who were born with defects, as contrasted with those who deliberately adopted same.
By pointing out that ‘CNN and CBS staffers continue to fight to retain their bias rather than their jobs,’ you have led us to a clear conclusion: these reporters view their bias not just as a perspective, but as a belief system, perhaps even a religion. From time immemorial, societies have been anchored by religious or philosophical convictions, fulfilling a fundamental human need to believe in something greater. When traditional faith is destroyed, people invariably find a substitute. For many at CNN and CBS, clinging to their bias has become that substitute.
“these reporters view their bias not just as a perspective, but as a belief system, perhaps even a religion.” Just like FOC reporters.
Recall when conservatives built a golden idol in the shape of Trump?
Was it Goebbels who wrote, “We don’t want balance in our propaganda, because then it won’t work, we only want our version and nothing else.”
Nope. Hitler. As a good Nazi, you should have known that. I do.
Hello, Anonymous! There are a lot of you faceless bashers out there. Are you helping prove Turley’s point?
Thank you anonymous.
Let them fail.
Why, because CNN doesn’t abide by your expectations?
Can you not read? They are radically biased twits who can simply not be trusted!
Operating on the principle that “the end justifies the means”… winning is the end goal and lying, editing, twisting words out of context are all appropriate for their end goal, winning and power!
Relax Terry, its just a comment not a death penalty.
“its just a comment “…
…from a supercilious moron.
I just hope that these new firebrands at the Post and CBS, stick to their guns and do not back down. Let these people join the unemployment line. They do no one any service.
Consider, once they loose their jobs, they multiply into more potential reporters. CNN looses 25, creates 25 more reporting sources elsewhere.
“more potential reporters. ”
The key word there is “potential” and that is where your equivalence proposition fails. Consider how many of those soon to be unemployed “reporters” were nothing but DEI reservation place-fillers, and how few had real talent for the job. My SWAG would be that no more than 20% fit the “talent” criterion, and that number might be a big miss to the high side.
So based on one word, axon’s preposition failed? You pompous asrse. Its just a comment, not a dissertation.
Do you really enjoy displaying what a totally unserious idiot you are? You might be doing yourself a favor by swallowing a handful of fentanyl.
Lose, not loose.
They need a team to report on every good thing Trump does and says from moment to moment and nothing else.
I’m sure that will bring the viewers back.
In an ideal and healthy constitutional republic, this distinction would be explicit.
I am not arguing for licensing speech or restricting publication. Advocacy outlets should remain free to publish whatever they want.
The issue is institutional access. Wherever special access has traditionally been granted on the basis of being “the press,” there should be a clear and transparent standard for what qualifies as an independent press. Outlets that meet objective, non-ideological reporting standards would receive credentials for privileged access. Those that do not would still speak freely, but without claiming institutional privileges.
That distinction protects the First Amendment rather than weakens it, because it preserves the meaning of a free and independent press in a constitutional republic.
“In an ideal and healthy constitutional republic,” WTF? How would a anon commenter know what a “healthy” republic is? You’ve only lived in this one. SF.
The Republic fell apart once political parties coalesced. Think 1790. A. Hamilton. T. Jefferson. J. Adams.
“The Republic fell apart once political parties coalesced. Think 1790. A. Hamilton. T. Jefferson. J. Adams.”
According to what I have read, there was not all that much of a coalescence at that time. My understanding, based in large part on Chernow’s biography of Hamilton, is that his subject was at serious odds with Jefferson and Monroe on the direction the Republic should take, with Adams opportunistically loitering on the sidelines of that struggle. Chernow obviously strongly favored Hamilton, to the point where it may have colored his objectivity, so I’m not going to present a good guys / bad guys analysis on that basis, but I did want to point out that your conclusion of unanimity may be misplaced.
It is fair to step back even further, to the Declaration itself and the principles the signers explicitly pledged to one another. Whatever their later disagreements, they were united on core commitments: unalienable rights, consent of the governed, equality before the law, and government accountability to the people.
The disputes of the 1790s were arguments over how best to secure those principles, not a rejection of them. That shared foundation matters. It is the baseline against which later factionalism should be judged, not evidence that the republic had already collapsed at its birth.
“The disputes of the 1790s were arguments…” You are full of it. 1790 was the turning point.
Disagree if you want, but asserting a “turning point” is not the same as demonstrating collapse. The 1790s were marked by serious disputes, but the constitutional order held, elections continued, power transferred, and the republic expanded rather than fractured.
If 1790 marked the fall of the republic, then what followed makes no sense historically. What it marked was the beginning of sustained constitutional debate within a functioning republic, not its failure.
OLLY,
Well said.
The leftist MSM seem to think they are entitled to not only institutional access, but unyielding trust and respect of the American people when by their own actions have lost it. As Ms. Weiss stated “I’m going to earn it, just like we have to do with our viewers.” That is going to be a hard hill to climb as the viewers have the choice of many more reliable, credible, independent news sources than back in the days of Cronkite.
“The leftist MSM seem to think they are entitled to not only institutional access,… what is institutional access? You made that up, its not a concept.
2nd, “viewers have the choice of many more reliable, credible,..” Who then defines what is reliable and credible?
They can kneel before the King and let the King decide if they are qualified to report on the happenings in the Kingdom. Only those approved by the King may report the exact words of the King that the King decides they should report.
That is a full buffoon retard retort.
The left can’t sell their ideas without propaganda, indoctrination, brainwashing and lies. Balance is not in the equation if that is the goal.
“The left can’t sell their ideas without propaganda, indoctrination, brainwashing and lies. ”
The right can’t sell their ideas without propaganda, indoctrination, brainwashing and lies. Fixed it. You’re welcome.
well both would be valid.
Correct. The commenters here can’t fathom that rightists also use the same tactics. Whatever happen to skepticism?
We are seeing an attempt to return to the ‘who, what, where, when’ days of journalism and away from the’advocacy journalism’ permeating the today.
I believe this is why there is such a backlash at Lemon’s arrest. Many don’t see a problem with what he did in joining hands with protesters while pretending to just be reporting on the event. But those if us who understand that journalism is not about advocating for one view or another see his transgression clearly and have no problem that he should be held accountable.
The problem for CNN and CBS is that people are getting their news from independent media. They don’t like it but that ship has sailed. Weiss joins voices with Obama, longing for the days when narratives could be carefully crafted and disseminated to the public, so they ate trying different ways to get the genie back in the bottle- Weiss with persuasion and power, Obama with censorship diplomacy.
In a hard hitting interview with Melania a conservative reporter asked what her favorite time of day is.
The problem for CNN and CBS was that people were getting their propaganda from news controlled by oligarchs.
Now oligarchs own CNN and CBS so the people won’t get news from them either.
“The problem for CNN and CBS is that people are getting their news from independent media. They don’t like it but that ship has sailed.” It’s not, ‘they don’t like it’, Granny. They simply don’t care if fewer people are watching/reading/listening Legacy media. They are themselves only in media to stroke each other’s contempt for people who support, “Orange Man, BAD!”
The problem is not that one of the legacy media and the cable programs are in the pocket of one party; the problem is that nearly all of the media companies belong to the left. The FF were aware that the press could be used to their advantage. There were Federalist papers and DR papers. Jefferson and Adams were both brutalized in the press during their elections, and Jefferson and Madison basically sponsored papers and hired favored journalists.
When I was younger, many major cities had at least two daily papers, morning and afternoon, with one being D and the other R. That is no longer the case. The centralization of the media was the issue. One paper – one view. Three MSM companies – one view. Until Fox – the major cable news programs – one view.
There are more options now where people can get “news”, and unless some sort of balance is restored, those employees will find out how hard it is to find other jobs
” Jefferson and Madison basically sponsored papers and hired favored journalists. ”
Just wanted to add that Hamilton did essentially the same, frequently resorting to writing his own propaganda “letter to the editor” pieces under assumed name(s).
True, so did Adams IIRC. Common back in the day
“When I was younger, many major cities had at least two daily papers, morning and afternoon, with one being D and the other R.”
In most markets the “R” failed. Why did their customers no longer want to pay for that point of view?
The problem is that the mindset of the media, biased coverage, the mental disorder that dictates everything bad is America’s fault, the undermining of America, etc. are all the fruit of seeds that were planted many decades ago by Communists who infiltrated academe and our journalism schools. They have been rooted so deeply that it will take considerable and enduring effort to change it and it starts with K-12 by restoring a pro-America curriculum and at the universities where the Marxists are deeply entrenched and running the curriculum. That’s why it’s so hard for today’s brainwashed and programmed journalists to see how wrong they are in how they prefer to cover the news. Bernie Goldberg opened our eyes to this with his best sellers, Bias and Arrogance at the turn of the century, then many conservatives wrote books addressing the media as well, but until there is a Marxist purge of their hold on our institutions, it will be very difficult to change the overall mindset of biased journalists. The best thing that has happened in that regard is the growth of competition that combats the lies, misinformation and disinformation of the lazy Leftwing media outlets where the narratives are written and entrenched, and investigative journalism is dead.
So if CNN, MSNBC etc. don’t report facts according to your demands, they’re mentally disordered?
Truly, where do yo come up with such shite?
Rants a poster who obviously believes FOX is total lies all the time. Talk about such shite!
Obviously? What if you’re wrong?
So Wally, tell us, where in that comment does it state what you claim?
And you know as a fact that Fox is does not broadcast “total lies”, or any degree of misinformation or gaslighting?
You deserve a medal for your delusions.
Keep up the good work.
Ah, finally! Thank you! I don’t feel too crazy or too alone! But how do we turn this around?
Communism has been active in the USA since the early 20th century. Turn it around? Too late. Maybe civil war, extermination of liberals. Just kidding.
What seems lost in this discussion is that the Founders’ standard for the press has not changed. Inputs change. Technology changes. Distribution changes. But the output measure never did.
“The press” was meant to produce fact-based, non-ideological reporting that gives citizens enough truthful information to reach their own conclusions. That is the measure.
If a newsroom refuses to work its process toward that output, it is not being oppressed. It is disqualifying itself from the title. Advocacy outlets on the left or the right are free to exist and publish whatever they wish, but they should not borrow the institutional authority or privileges reserved for an independent press.
Wherever the First Amendment has historically justified special access for the press, that access should be reserved for those who actually qualify as the press. The White House briefing room should be for qualified media only. Ideological outlets can still publish freely and receive feeds, but access is not a right. It is earned by meeting the standard.
Titles matter. Standards matter. Make that distinction, and meaningful reform would follow quickly.
Its obvious you have never worked in a newsroom with pompous and delusional comments. The founders? What BS.
The closet you’ve ever got to a newsroom is watching TV.
🤣 I do not need to work in a newsroom to understand whether journalism is meeting its purpose, any more than I need to work at the DMV to recognize a broken process. I am the consumer. Citizens are the consumers. That is exactly who the First Amendment was designed to protect.
The idea that only insiders are qualified to judge institutional performance is precisely how institutions lose accountability. It replaces standards with guild privilege.
Journalism exists to serve the public, not to insulate itself from public judgment. When an institution dismisses its consumers as unqualified to evaluate it, it has already lost sight of its mission.
” journalism is meeting its purpose”. As long as it abides by your delusional standards. You don’t speak for all Americans. Delusion tales many forms. Self delusion is the most common.
Calling standards “delusional” avoids engaging with what was actually said. Truth, objectivity, neutrality, factual accuracy, and accountability are not radical concepts. They are the traditional foundations of journalism.
I have not claimed sole authority to define those standards. I have only argued that standards must exist, be measurable, and be taken seriously if the press expects public trust and institutional privilege.
Disagreeing about how best to operationalize objectivity is fair. Rejecting the very idea that journalism should be anchored to truth and provable facts is something else entirely.
If the expectation of objectivity and accountability is now considered “delusional,” that tells us far more about the state of journalism than it does about the critics.
OLLY,
Well said.
As you have stated before, when a society can no longer agree on common principles or in the this case, journalistic standards, then journalism or activism journalism fails. We can easily see that in MSM failed ratings, viewership, subscriptions. Meanwhile, independent journalism is doing quite well. The Free Press has surpassed two million subscribers. Of which, I am one. And they continue to expand their newsroom. Something of the envy of MSM newsrooms.
Great point Upstate. It seems obvious that anyone who resists identifying or agreeing on objective journalism standards is not interested in objective truth.
Standards like accuracy, neutrality, verifiable facts, and accountability are not ideological. They are the preconditions for trust. When people object to sunlight and measurement rather than debate how to meet those standards, it strongly suggests that transparency would expose motives or narratives that cannot survive objective scrutiny.
Here’s a good starting point:
James Madison: “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy.”
Thomas Jefferson: “The only security of all is in a free press.”
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84: “The liberty of the press consists in the right to publish, with impunity, truth, with good motives, and for justifiable ends.”
John Adams: “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.”
James Madison, 1788: “The freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”
Summary: The Framers protected the press to provide truthful, non-factional information about public affairs so citizens could govern themselves.
“Self-delusion is the most common”. Thanks for telling us about yourself.
OLLY,
Well said. In high school we had to write persuasion papers on a given view point. We were not journalists, but we were taught in order to defend our view point, we had to state what that view point was in a clear and concise way and then it was on us to provide supporting facts to back that view point up. And of course, a bibliography citing the sources.
There could be no bias based on how we felt.
And still you failed. Your comments here lack all that what you proclaim.
Another red meat Monday for the MAGAotts.
Poor Ano.
Truth really stings, now doesn’t.
I loved this part.
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.”
Welcome to CNN.
Where in the comment does anon state truth?
First off, if you’re gonna quote someone, then abide by grammatical rules. I mean, you got two “collages” right. Give Turley credit and don’t pretend its yours. DF.
Did you finally figure out the differences between by, buy, and bye? What college did you go do again?
Dustoff, what is the truth? Seriously, tell us.
Yeah Dustoff, tell us the truth!
I see a bit of blood leaking from the comments.
And its bleeding …
If only the liberals in biased MSM newsrooms would not say really dumb things or make really dumb demands, the good professor would not have to point out their really dumb things. The liberal MSM are the ones who are throwing red meat around. We just stand back and think to ourselves, want to see a sure fire way to lose viewers, credibility, trust and respect of the American people? Just keep on doing what you are doing liberal MSM. We will just stand back and watch you do this to yourself.
Just because FOX has an increased viewer count does not make them The Truth network. It means they found the formula of tricking gullible viewers that they’re the truth.