This week, DePaul University is moving from merely woke to academic insomnia. The university is teaming up with former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to create an institute dedicated to journalism and “racial justice.” As trust in the media plunges, DePaul is moving to double down on advocacy journalism with the “Institute for Journalism and Racial Justice.”
DePaul announced that the institute would advance racial justice by challenging “inequitable media practices” and promoting “narrative change by employing asset-framing, solutions journalism and other innovative journalism practices towards more inclusive storytelling.”
“Inequitable media practices” and “solutions journalism” is jargon often used by those demanding that reporters seek social justice in their framing and coverage of stories. Such programs often reject the touchstone of neutrality in journalism.
The “Institute for Journalism and Racial Justice” will reportedly focus on Lightfoot’s “I.C.E. Accountability Project,” an initiative targeting ICE enforcement policies. Lightfoot declared that she and the university “intend to unmask those agents who have been alleged to have committed crimes or to have engaged in other unlawful conduct.”
Lightfoot was tossed out of her position as mayor in 2023 after a disastrous run during which she regularly used racial attacks and claims during her career. When she was called out for her horrendously poor performance as mayor, she accused her critics of being racist or anti-lesbian.
The Institute is the perfect embodiment of how journalism has become a ship of fools, blithely staying the course as the industry flounders.
It is important for journalism schools to teach about race and other issues that have long divided the nation. It is also important for students to understand the history of racial issues in journalism and the need to combat all forms of racial, gender, and ideological bias. However, this Institute is clearly part of the advocacy wing of journalism, headed by a polarizing political figure.
Other universities like Howard University are also doubling down on advocacy journalism, inspiring students with questions like “what am I willing to burn?”
We previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Downie recounted how news leaders today.
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
Now, objectivity is virtually synonymous with prejudice. Kathleen Carroll, former executive editor at the Associated Press, declared, “It’s objective by whose standard? … That standard seems to be White, educated, and fairly wealthy.”
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 declared that “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.”
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism.
Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared, “all journalism is activism.” Her 1619 Project has been challenged as deeply flawed and she has a long record as a journalist of intolerance, controversial positions on rioting, and fostering conspiracy theories. Hannah-Jones would later help lead the effort at the Times to get rid of an editor and apologize for publishing a column from Sen. Tom Cotton as inaccurate and inflammatory.
As “J Schools” teach advocacy journalism, trust in the media has fallen to an all-time low. Media outlets are struggling to survive. Yet it remains personally beneficial for academics and reporters to continue engaging in advocacy journalism, even (in the case of NPR) at the cost of federal funding.
In the case of DePaul, it is willing not only to join this movement but to do so at considerable cost to its own academic integrity. Like the media, universities (including DePaul) have been criticized for virtually purging their ranks of conservative or libertarian faculty. They have created an ideological echo chamber on their campuses. Indeed, DePaul is viewed as one of the most viewpoint-intolerant universities.
I have written two books addressing the decline of journalism in America — “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” These books discuss the parallels of how advocacy became a substitute for both journalistic and academic values.
In that sense, this is a perfect marriage of activist academia and media — headed by one of the most divisive figures in Chicago’s history.
The new institute reinforces the view that J schools remain unrepentant and unchanged. As they sever ties with much of the public, they continue to replicate the same radical agenda to use academia for activism. That includes schools like UCLA that have actual “resident activists” who proselytize to students.
In the end, the Institute will change little, but that is precisely the problem. DePaul and other academic institutions (as well as the media) must make hard decisions to restore credibility with the public. Instead, they are merrily sawing at the branch upon which they sit.
It seems that ideas have some sort of inertia regardless of how rotten they are. Perhaps Jussie Smollett could give a course on “The Authentic Experiences of a Racial-Hate Victim”. Or perhaps the university biology department could sponsor a center of excellence for Lysenkoism.
“. . . innovative journalism practices towards more inclusive storytelling.”
Translated into plain English:
By “innovative,” we mean the Nikole Hannah-Jones ability to peddle lies and smear America.
By “inclusive,” we mean: If it’s a black perp, ignore the story. If you have to report it, evade the perp’s race. If it’s a white perp, shoehorn in a reference to some white supremacist group and Trump.
The one thing very telling is the DePaul announcement referenced at the beginning of the article:
“DePaul announced that the institute would advance racial justice by challenging “inequitable media practices” and promoting “narrative change by employing asset-framing, solutions journalism and other innovative journalism practices towards more inclusive storytelling.”
I guess DePaul doesn’t know or doesn’t want to admit the print media as well as the radio and TV media is supposed to be relaying facts on all pages except the Op-Ed page. Except for the Op-Ed page it is NOT supposed to be STORYTELLING.
Is this a Babylon Bee headline?
Expecting Lori Lightfoot to enhance the intellectual reputation of DePaul University is about as reasonable as hiring Hunter Biden in order to lift the artistic reputation of the Louvre.
Unfortunately, she may enhance the university’s intellectual reputation.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they had degrees in World War Eleven
They are a lering center apparently
HAHAHAHA. Nice.
WTF?
PS: great read.
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/when-cobras-come-to-america
Salem witch trials and mass hysteria. It might be good to leave. It’s truly loony. Really
Has PT covered the Louisiana v. Callais opinion? It’s certainly big. It sheds light.
Peace
What a nightmare.
Actually, I don’t have a problem with activist journalism. It’s annoying to start reading an article that seems unbiased, only to discover several paragraphs in that the writer has left a gaping hole in the facts presented. That immediately makes me wonder what other relevant facts are omitted that I’m not already aware of. I prefer to read thoughtful articles from opposing viewpoints.
I would advise against holding your breath waiting for MSM to deliver.
Some of the bloggers are very good.
“A foole and his money be soone at debate: which after with sorow repents him too late.”
– Thomas Tusser, 1573
__________________________
“Racial justice” is racism, bias, and favor, which, to my knowledge, does not exist in the Constitution.
“Racial justice” cannot occur in the absence of racism.
Those claiming to be anti-racist constantly claim “racism.”
What kind of dolt listens to this rubbish?
Hopefully, three more years of Trump and some lawful accountability will set our nation back on track.
America First and foremost!
Three things need to happen:
1) Iran war denoument sooner rather than later.
2) Trump needs to stop being MIGA and return to being MAGA
3) Republicans need to win decisive majorities in the midterms while evicting some neocons and rinos. Once we’re past the midterms Trump will have fewer people who need to be stroked..
That could work. We’ll see. I’ll do my part and vote against my neocon senator in the primary even though his opponent is a bit of a wild card. Maybe distribute some $$ in selected races.
My alma mater, the University of Colorado Boulder, offers a master’s degree with an Environmental Journalism Area of Expertise. One path to the degree is to take two specific relevant classes in the Department of Journalism and combine that with a Graduate Certificate in Environmental Justice, which involves four classes in Environmental Studies. From reading the university’s explanation of environmental justice, it’s clear the program promotes an alarmist, equity-seeking position, not a neutral, science-based, centrist position. I just wonder how much federal and other public funds support these biased programs.
It’s a race to the bottom, buff. 😏
“DePaul and other academic institutions (as well as the media) must make hard decisions to restore credibility with the public”.
That ship sailed long ago. This moves proves they are completely uninterested in seeking credibility with the public. Achieving street-cred with the far left is now the goal.
Let’s see how that holds up when the enrollment numbers are eventually scrutinized and the employability of the alumni are looked more closely at.
I see a lot of Substack ‘writers’ Arising from this foolish decision, considering their opportunity for employment is nearly halved – Simply because a number of potential publications won’t want to touch someone with this mindset.
C’mon Turley, when was the last time you visited Lincoln Park?
Typical Democrats are being labeled Right of Genghis Khan.
Totally gone so left that you need to turn 270degrees just to go straight.
They are all marxists.
-G
OT:
Don’t know if you all saw, but the DHS shutdown is over.
These dem temper tantrums are not going to help them in the mid-terms, that is for sure, and neither, after Spanberger, will their lies. And lies are all they have anymore. If hiring people like AOC or Omar is really their future or vision for the future and the best that they can do – no. Just, no.
James,
After Spanberger hoodwinked voters in VA, and apparently there is a Democrat running as a moderate despite her past social media posts having leftists content, which she deleted some 6,000 posts, everyone, Dems, Reps, Indpen, need to look long and hard at all candidates.
“journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.”
In other words, they want a license to lie.
Journalism may have been ruined by journalism schools in universities.