Posted on 08/10/2016 9:25:26 AM PDT by Hojczyk
The media’s legions of Trump-bashers are finally acknowledging the obvious.
And trying their best to justify it.
But there’s one problem: Tilting against one candidate in a presidential election can’t be justified.
This is not a defense of Donald Trump, who has been at war with much of the press since he got in the race. Too many people think if you criticize the way the billionaire is being covered, you are somehow backing Trump.
And it’s not about the commentators, on the right as well as the left, who are savaging Trump, since they are paid for their opinions.
This is about the mainstream media’s reporters, editors and producers, whose credo is supposed to be fairness.
And now some of them are flat-out making the case for unfairness—an unprecedented approach for an unprecedented campaign.
Put aside, for the moment, the longstanding complaints about journalists being unfair to Republicans. They never treated Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush or Bob Dole like this.
Keep in mind that the media utterly misjudged Trump from the start, covering him as a joke or a sideshow or a streaking comet that would burn itself out. Many of them later confessed how wrong they had been, and that they had missed the magnitude of the anger and frustration that fueled Trump’s unlikely rise.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Go back the Ronald Reagan …he wanted to blow up the world
Romney was dangerous too, he had binders full of women
Well these are not “normal” times.
“claim he’s too dangerous...”
He is very dangerous to their continued feeding at the government trough and maintaining their elite status and all the lucre that comes from it. So the media arm of the establishment does have a point...
Ahhh how old is the hildabeast now????
I say when Trump wins, we find these journalists and reeducate them with hard labor.
Dangerous is a word they have applied to all opponents for decades.
It means you can persuade people and win. That is what they call dangerous.
There is no greater danger than the leftist media.
DoughtyOne justifies anti-media bias, claims they are too 'dangerous' for normal rules
I'm so glad we have self-appointed members of the political branch of the DNC that see fit to think for me.
NORMAL RULES?? at least Trump has rules, unlike the hag. The only rule the hag has is: me, me, me, me, me......life is about me, what I want and what I must do to get it, me, me, me..............
The Ministry of Propaganda has their orders.
The Cheap Labor Express and the Uniparty are not going to allow the citizens to reverse 30 years of bipartisan policy of non-enforcement of immigration laws by electing Trump.
They’ll take good care of you...trust them. Their word is always good, isn’t it?
About forty years ago I had a long debate with a leftist activist who wanted the US to disarm. I agreed with his wish to see a peaceful world but pointed out the real world danger of enemies like the USSR.
When our friendly talk ended he said I was one of the most dangerous people he knew because I made the arguments sounds reasonable.
That is always what they mean by dangerous. They are fascists and worse.
Tucker Carlson: the Sad State of Modern Journalism
Accuracy in Academia ^ | August 10, 2016 | Alex Nitzberg
Posted on 8/10/2016, 9:02:47 AM by Academiadotorg
Criticizing the state of modern journalism, Tucker Carlson told AIM that journalists’ obsequious behavior, blatant bias and monolithic worldview have compromised the integrity of the nation’s fourth estate.
Carlson, a member of the Fox News team and a veteran journalist who co-founded the Daily Caller, asserts that many journalists bask in the presence of “the powerful” and are “…afraid to challenge anybody in power.”
“That’s kind of exactly the opposite of what you want. I mean the whole reason that journalists have a special kind of place in American society is because they’re entrusted with this job to kind of keep the powerful honest and to speak on behalf of the population and the second they go over to the other side and start sucking up to politicians, for example, is the second they’ve betrayed that charge.”
Questioned about the media’s election coverage Carlson opined, “I don’t think by and large they have been covering it, they’ve been advocating on behalf of one candidate against another.”
He explained that regardless of the election’s outcome, the media’s advocacy has destroyed its claim to objectivity.
Pointing out that a conflict of interest will arise if Trump wins and the largely anti-Trump media must report on his presidency, he said, “ … how are they gonna cover that, the administration? Can they? Haven’t they discredited themselves?”
“By the way,” he continued, “if Hillary wins, same thing. They’ve been working for her election and now they’re in charge of telling us what her administration is doing, can we trust them with that? I don’t think so.”
Condemning the practice of journalists who air their opinions on social media accounts, Carlson noted the corrosive effect this has on the public’s trust as they can easily discover a journalist’s political leanings.
Carlson says that while he values diversity, within the modern field of journalism “ … everybody has the same experience, they’re all from the same world, they all have the same assumptions, they all went to the same schools.”
He described journalism school as an “indoctrination center” that perpetuates the lack of diversity of thought in the media industry.
“ … journalism school is just another sameness factory that pumps out people with identical opinions, and by the way, it’s only accessible to a certain kind of person — the exact kind of person we don’t need any more of in journalism — affluent, entitled, activist.”
Carlson believes journalists should seek the truth, “even if it leads them into uncomfortable places and especially if it leads them to places they didn’t expect to arrive … that’s what I thought journalism was, pursuit of what’s true, of accuracy, but not just accuracy, of truth.”
Alex Nitzberg is an intern at the American Journalism Center at Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia. Follow him on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3458320/posts
I’m reading “Reagan’s War” and in the entire chapter on Reagan’s election in 1980, reading the comments from the press, you could substitute “Trump” for “Reagan” and it would read like today’s news. E.g., Reagan was called “insane” by the press. It is eerie to read.
The more dangerous, the better.
MSM: “Truth is anathema to everything we stand for - that makes Trump a dangerous man....”
“DoughtyOne justifies anti-media bias, claims they are too ‘dangerous’ for normal rules”
Just like parents who hired men to remove and “de-program” their children when they joined a cult : )
Who are they kidding?
The “normal rules” always equate to being pro-Democrat.
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.