Posted on 05/13/2019 5:47:25 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
There still exists a physical media in the sense of airing current events. But it is not journalism as we once understood the disinterested reporting of the news. Journalism is now dead. The media lives on.
Reporters today believe that their coverage serves higher agendas of social justice, identity politics, “equality” and diversity. To the degree a news account is expanded or ignored, praised or blasted, depends on its supposed utility to the effort to fundamentally transform the country into something unlike its founding.
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
Wish I know how to post/capture tweet:
David Burge @iowahawkblogJournalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.
6:57 AM - 9 May 2013
(Jim Treacher)Some guy tweeted something 🤷🏻♂️ @jtLOLModern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats.
3:17 PM - 18 Aug 2014
The Orwellian Ministry of Truth, the propaganda arm of Big Brother.
More alive and well in 2019 than it was in 1984.
Newspapers are dead because the press stopped printing the News and printed the Lib agenda.
Who decides who is appointed to an all star panel to tell us about the news each day? Some of the so called all stars,
read talking points for a certain party. There is obvious bias. The media is always trying to influence viewers about the news. A large percentage of the time, the news reporting is not objective.
Without journalism, the MSM media is like kindergarten fingerpainting. Lot’s of mess and it signifies nothing.
Propagandists poisoning the body politic. How many innocent truth-seeking citizens have been retarded mentally? Injured? Killed? Good article by VDH. Thanks for posting.
Idiocracy
The movie becomes more factual every day.
bkmk
“Most could give an in-depth lecture on Botox, but are ignorant about the U.S. Constitution or basic facts of American history.” VDH
Journalism is dead. Long live the ministry of truth.
A perfect example of agenda-driven coverage (or lack thereof) is the virtual media blackout of the recent spate of Black-on-Jew assaults in New York City. Jussie Smollett’s FAKE story of an attack by Trump supporters garnered 100 times the national publicity of all those (several dozen, I believe) anti-Jewish attacks combined.
Perfectly put, and the essence of what they are taught at the university. It isn't simply disregard of the truth, it's the dearly-held conviction that there isn't one.
There is a THREAD on just how quickly the recent Colorado shooting has dropped from the media radar horizon by virtue of containing the "wrong" facts. There is the example of Robert Mueller's new-found non-person status. There is the contrived outrage over the Jussie Smollett debacle that departed so quickly from the room that it made one's ears pop when the guy proved to be a liar. If there were any doubt left that The Narrative is leading the media celebrities around by the nose these instances and many like them ought to crush it.
“What destroyed the present generation of journalism was not just that they live in coastal corridors of progressive groupthink...not just because they almost all graduated from liberal journalism programs that still regurgitate ossified Watergate psychodramas of investigative reporters as comic book heroes...over the last 20 years, marquee journalists saw themselves as wannabe celebrities who were to make news, not to report it, to massage stories in such a fashion to serve their social justice agendas, and to virtue signal their superior morality, as many revolved in and out of government.
What have they become instead? People with enormous self-regard, but with little experience with the public whom they were supposed to serve...” [from the original column at the American Greatness website]
Right on target, as far as it goes. I’d go farther: not only do today’s journalists know little about their public, they know little (or less) about anything.
But VDH has omitted key parts of the total story - strangely enough, noting his thoroughness, intellectual honesty, and current outlook.
Stranger still, conservatives prefer to ignore lapses like his.
There has never been a time in American history when newspapermen (nor, over the last century, their counterparts in broadcast media and online) promised to be objective, bias-free reporters of news. Applies to Colonial history before the founding.
Newspapers were founded to flack a political viewpoint, to attack or defend particular political candidates, officials, appointees, policies - not to report news.
Over time, publishers began to squeeze actual news in around the political screeds. They learned it helped pay the bills. And they became somewhat more accurate and objective when it suited.
Today’s execrable media hacks self-righteously point to the libel trial of John Peter Zenger, in New York in the 1730s, justifying all they do (or fail to do) by its outcome, favoring “freedom” of the press. But they cutesily neglect to point out that the offense Zenger was charged with - libel against the royal governor - was not an isolated incident, but just one incident in a long-running squabble between Zenger and the governor. “Truth” did not appear in print all that often.
As conservatives, we draw plenty of ire from the failings of the media, so many of which are outrageously offensive to the wider society, and provably damaging to the national interest. But we cannot claim that the media entered into any social contract, to behave as honest reporters, in return for lack of interference.
Here's what he said to someone who complained that he should censure his critics:
Put that paper in your pocket, my good friend, and when you hear any one doubt the reality of American liberty, show them that paper, and tell them where you found it. You cannot have a better proof of its existence.
Sir, the country where public men are amenable to public opinion — where not only their official measures, but their private morals, are open to the scrutiny and censure of every citizen — is more secure from despotism and corruption than it could be rendered by the wisest code of laws or best formed constitution.
Party spirit may sometimes blacken, and its erroneous opinions may sometimes injure; but, in general, it will prove the best guardian of a pure and wise administration. It will detect and expose vice and corruption, check the encroachments of power, and resist oppression.
Sir, it is a greater protector of the people's rights than arms or laws.
VDH ping
VDH ping
Thanks for your posts. The truth is refreshing.
Were there serious worries voiced over journalistic ethics when CNN’s Donna Brazile leaked primary debate questions to the 2016 Clinton campaign? Did journalists speak out when journalist Candy Crowley abandoned her moderator role and turned into an Obama partisan in the 2012 second presidential debate? Were reporters at all worried when the Shorenstein Center cited 90 percent negative media coverage of the Trump campaign and presidency? Did they object much when Twitter and Facebook exiled conservative voices that they found inconvenient?
Are journalists concerned when campuses shout down visiting lecturers or pass speech codes to restrict free expression? Was the strange Obama-era state surveillance of fellow journalist Sharyl Attkisson of any importance to the journalistic brotherhood? Did they fret that the Obama-era FBI likely inserted informants into a political campaign, or deliberately deceived a FISA court to spy on an American citizen?
Have journalists signed any of their accustomed collective outrage letters over the New York Times’ Nazi-like anti-Semitic cartoons, and its pathetic sort of, sort of not initial apologies?"
____________________________________
Victor Davis Hanson should be a(nother) father in the life of every American boy and girl.
He is that steady, gentle, and knowledgeable.
God bless men like him, of whom there are few.
"Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats."
_______________
Yes, indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.