Lying and covering up for the Dems. It’s what Big Media does. Who was it that agreed to 4 Dem moderators for the debates???
Appalling revelation. I don’t think there is enough woodwork in the country to accommodate that which slithers out constantly.
Reagan knew how to handle Big Media.
Bypass them.
Call them out.
Speak directly to the American People.
BTW, he had a much tougher job. In his day, there was no alternative media to cover his back.
George Stephanopolous of ABC News used to be a strategist for Bill Clinton and even after becoming Chief Washington Correspondent still engaged in regular conversations with Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, and Paul Begala from the Clinton days. (Ironic, isn’t it, that John Harris wrote that story)Journalism has a perspective. Journalism’s interest lies in promoting itself at the expense of the people who work to a bottom line - those upon whom we depend, not for mere talk, but for food, clothing, shelter, security, fuel, etc. Those people are "the man who is actually in the arena,” and journalists are merely critics. So why do journalists cozy up to “liberal” politicians? The question answers itself - socialism is nothing other than the political expression of the sentiments which journalists are inherently motivated to promote.Whoever signs up to be a “liberal” is cozying up to journalism. And is rewarded with positive labels such as “moderate,” “centrist,” “progressive,” or “liberal.” All of which belong in scare quotes, because what a journalist calls “liberal” has nothing to do with promoting liberty, what the journalist calls “progressive” has nothing to do with progress (at least, not progress of, by, and for the people, as the Constitution contemplates) and so on. All those labels are mere euphemisms for socialist. The only positive label journalists do not assign to socialists is “objective.” That label they reserve to themselves. But it is a distinction without a difference, as the above description of George Stephanopolous amply illustrates. It is only a question of what hat a particular socialist happens to wear. And of course “objective” belongs in scare quotes, because in the nature of things no one can know that he or she is actually objective.
A diligent effort to attempt to be objective is of course laudable - but then, any actual effort to attempt objectivity must begin with openness about one’s own motives and interests. And discussion of journalists’ motives - to interest the public and to promote themselves - is politically incorrect, and taboo. It follows that a journalism which calls itself “objective” is anything but objective about itself. There is no reason in logic why I should accept journalism’s self-hype about “objectivity.”
The alert reader may object that I have spoken of journalism in the singular, and take no account of diversity of journalism outlets, and of the (very few) newspapers with conservative (in American political context, a negative label) editorial pages. My answer to that is that
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. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Wealth of nations, Book I, Ch 10And all major news outlets belong to wire services, principally the Associated Press. The newswire represents a virtual “meeting” of all major journalism outlets - one which has been running continuously since the Civil War era. I do not pretend that all newspapers express the exact same attitude on their editorial pages - but on the front page and the body of the paper, they do. And they call their uniform and politically correct slant “objective."