What ails the US press?

Powerline ^ | 3 Aug, 2019 | Scott Johnson

[MtnClimber]

The question of “What ails the US press?” is too big for one column or one case study. Holman Jenkins takes it up in his Wall Street Journal Business World column this morning in the matter of the Steele Dossier. Whence the allegations of the dossier? We still don’t know. The subhead to the column puts it this way: “The media’s lack of interest in the Steele dossier amounts to collusion in a coverup.”

The lack of journalistic interest calls for an explanation. Laziness, stupidity, herd mentality, and partisanship all seem to have something to do with the utter lack of interest in what it’s all about, although any one of these factors all by itself may be enough to explain it.

Jenkins applies the question to the Mueller Report: It needs to be understood whether the Mueller report, and the Mueller investigation itself, was essentially a product of disinformation (and whose disinformation). Did the Steele dossier’s lies really originate with Russian sources, and to what purpose? Was the dossier embraced by members of the U.S. government because they believed it or because it was useful against a presidential candidate they disapproved of? (Pretending to believe false intelligence may not be an actionable dereliction, but the question needs to be asked.)

[cincinnati65]

You don't need multiple columns to answer "What ails the press?". It's simple.

Zero Integrity.

[blackdog]

What ails the press?

A Pavlovian conditioned American populace thoroughly conditioned by a public education / propaganda system designed by treasonous sabatures dedicated to the destruction of the American experiment.

[Rapscallion]

The press as been taken over by socialists.

No, by Soros and his subsidiary corportions. We in the USA no longer have real journalists or even a free press. The same thing was done in Nazi Germany before WWII.

[Drango]

Is this from the Onion? The WashPost and NYTimes won the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for vapor reporting:

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign,

[Bullish]

The “dossier” was probably dreamed up and written by Obama Butt-boy Ben Rhoades then handed off to Clinton goon Syd (vicious) Blumenthal who was tasked with making it look like it came through Russian sources. Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if everything comes back to Obama. This WAS an Obama operation from the get go.

[CptnObvious]

“What ails the US press?”

Their mostly DemocRATS from prior DemocRAT administrations that have finally come out to show their true natures.

[precisionshootist]

“The press as been taken over by socialists. No, by Soros and his subsidiary corportions. We in the USA no longer have real journalists or even a free press. The same thing was done in Nazi Germany before WWII.”

sooo socialists. :)

[Yaelle]

They do exactly what their real bosses tell them.

[Redwood71]

Greed.

rwood

[hal ogen]

They are suffering from many forms of mental illness.

[MtnClimber]

I think they have a lust to share power by deceiving the public in service to the totalitarian left.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“What ails the US press?”

They’ve devolved when they were never meant to either evolve or devolve. They can’t see it because they’re too close to it.

The question is miscast. What ails American political discourse is IMHO the real question. The first point is that journalism is inherently negative. That is inherently true because bad news grips your attention - and journalists know that, and desperately desire to do just that.

The second point is that journalists are all in cahoots. The wire services are virtual meetings of all major journalists, and - per Adam Smith - “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

The wire services (starting with the AP) date back to before the Civil War, consequence of those facts is that by now wire service journalism - all major journalism - inevitably conspire against the public. That conspiracy takes the form of the massive propaganda claim that “all journalists are objective.” That is a fatuous conceit, but it does two things:

First of all, it makes it easy to put up a facade of superiority. You and I don’t claim to be objective, but journalists - don’t you know - are superior people.

Secondly, it disciplines all journalists to ideological conformity; anyone who questions any journalist’s objectivity ideologically suddenly becomes “not a journalist, not objective.”

Third, it is a claim which is not only guaranteed to be untrue, it marks journalists making such claim as cynical. I challenge you to find a better definition of cynicism than, “the conceit that negativity is objectivity.” And since journalists know that they are negative, always on the hunt for bad news, journalists claiming journalism is objective are mouthing pure cynicism.

Hence, the first problem with American political discourse is that so many people think that only journalists are qualified to conduct it. The direct cause of which is the “conspiracy against the public” of journalists who virtually “meet together,” continuously - and precisely about business.

Journalism is cynical about society, hence, naive about the opposite of society. And as Thomas Paine pointed out in Common Sense government exists to control evil in society - and in a real sense is the opposite of society. Naiveté towards government and cynicism towards society IMHO the proper description of socialism.

The Republican Party is an imperfect representative of society, the Democrat Party is an all-too-perfect representative of government. Thus, Democrats have no issue about going along and getting along with journalism and - since Democrats get along with journalists, journalists never libel Democrats. Thus, things like the New York Times v. Sullivan decision which discourage government officials from suing journalists for libel affect Republicans and not Democrats. The Sullivan decision was unanimous by the Warren Court. But the effect is Political Correctness - Democrats are entitled not only to their own opinions but to their own facts.

[DUMBGRUNT]

From the linked WSJ article:

These questions are not just necessary for historical accuracy. They are of scintillating journalistic interest. If you’re a reporter who can’t simultaneously disapprove of Mr. Trump (as many journalists do) and see their urgency, you should rethink your career choice. (I believe it was the psychoanalyst Karen Horney who said the professions function partly to attract those least capable of exemplifying their values.) News consumers might marvel that so many journalists at least are so devoted to their partisan allegiances, but devotion has nothing to do with it. It’s just dumb conformism and lack of imagination. As in any field, one learns not to be surprised that so many unprepossessing persons are in positions of authority.

[Mr Radical]

I think they have a lust to share power by deceiving the public in service to the totalitarian left.
More than lust, I think they really do share power. As I've said before on FR, the msm are part of what Marx would have recognised as the 'Ruling Class'. Anybody who wants to thrive as part of this ruling class knows what they have to do. In olden days it was alliances of Kings and Lords, nowadays it is Hollywood elites, news and social media moguls. The msm can make or break almost anyone (as long as the people believe what they are told). This is why the news readers looked so upset when Trump won the presidency: they were seeing literally a revolution by the 'little people' - a storming of the media bastille. That battle is not over, of course.

[equaviator]

I consider what they do to be an abuse of the power of suggestion, some of which is aimed at children. Trump and republican voters are bringing about political and social climate change and they can’t ignore or accept the long term consequences, even though he is doing the world a ‘uge favor.

[Garth Tater]

"In olden days it was alliances of Kings and Lords, nowadays it is Hollywood elites, news and social media moguls."

The Kings and Lords have been replaced, but not with Hollywood elites or news and social media moguls - they are all easily replaceable if they don't do their job.

Professor Quigley told us fifty years ago in his book "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time"  [pdf]  who was running the world:

"The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called 'international' or 'merchant' bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. this dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds though bank loans, the discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their own control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges."

[Garth Tater]

Whoops. Looks like the link to that pdf doesn't work anymore.

Try this one: "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time"

[Rapscallion]

If you do not like the news read a different writer.

[Mr Radical]

We could debate this long but I would argue Professor Quigley is behind the times, though I would accept an unconscious power-sharing between financiers and media (examples of each being George Soros and Tim Gill). they are all easily replaceable if they don't do their job - I would say that has always been true, whatever the time.

These days, banking does not get a good press in teh media - I've witnessed antifa triggered from calm to violence simply on the word 'banker'.

My question would be: who actually picked Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate of choice? Everyone, including Hillary herself, assumed she was the annointed one. Where was the decision made to promote this fraudster from relative obscurity to President? It wasn't any banker. I suspect it was in the bathhouses of the homosexual Hollywood elites.

[Garth Tater]

"Where was the decision made to promote this fraudster from relative obscurity to President? It wasn't any banker."

Are you sure of that? All of the  fraudsters  actors on the stage seem to come out of families that work for the money interests.

Barack Obama, His Mother, and the CIA

"In his autobiography, Dreams From My Fathers, Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as "a consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a 'research assistant' and 'financial writer'.

"Oddly, Obama doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of October 30, 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation. Equally odd is that the Times did not remind its readers that the newspaper itself had disclosed in 1977 that Business International had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960."

USAID: A history of front companies acting on behalf of the CIA


Ford Foundation Links Parents of Obama and Treasury Secretary Nominee

____________________________________________________

"My question would be: who actually picked Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate of choice? ... I suspect it was in the bathhouses of the homosexual Hollywood elites."

Do you really think the Hollywood players had the juice to hide Barack's parentage? Seal his immigration and college records? Clear his path up through the Illinois legislature?

Money rules the world. Same today as it was fifty years ago. Professor Quigley knew what he was writing about and he wasn't shy about naming names.


Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time