American journalism is collapsing before our eyes

NYP ^ | Aug 21, 2016 | Michael Goodwin

[upchuck]

Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand-in-hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang, suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

[Blue Collar Christian]

TMZ on the tube, and the National Enquirer in print are the most credible of the MSM at this point.

[gr8eman]

They are nOT journalists. The pretense is beyond obvious.

[Professional Engineer]

...since they propped him up in 2004.

You're being too kind. It's been a lot longer than that. Alternate media has helped accelerate it. The Hockey Stick may be 2004.

[Grampa Dave]

“Liars Are Us” is not only a tag that can legitimately be worn by Barack Obama and his handpicked replacement but one that should identify a mainstream media that is keeping Hillary Clinton leading most polls."

”The propaganda going on in today’s MSM would make Goebbels proud. It’s absolutely outrageous the slander and libel going on everyday against Trump, and people of ALL political persuasions should be outraged. If politicians were able to sue these slime bags for slander and libel Trump would have made himself another 10 billion by now. How outrageous is it that the media completely ignored the fact that the DNC celebrated the mother of an attempted cop killer and instead chose to focus on the lesser story of Trump questioning why a woman didn’t speak. So attempted cop killers - Good. Asking a question - BAD!” posted on 8/13/2016, 7:04:57 AM by GrandJediMasterYoda

[bert]

weren’t you here is 2000?

The situation was much the same. Here on Free Republic we developed a media chapter that was formally named the Citizens Coalition for Responsible Media but was actually the “Media Chapter” of the Free Republic Network.

We had a roster of 500 FReepers. We worked mightily to end the bias. We developed some media awareness but were unable to bring about any change.

We were un successful

[Jarhead9297]

Most didn’t read it. I read it from start to end and it’s a good article that thus far has had knee 127k reads

[Mouton]

Was it not the Enquirer that blew up Edwards long ago?

One has to look at who owns these news outlets these days. Post, owned by Bezos of amazon fame. I believe Trump called for breaking up Amazon due to anti trust so they put like 25 “reporters” on his case. How many had they put on the illegal immigrant in the white hut about his birth situation....zero. Hitlery with her scandal, a few to report her defense positions.

[sockhead]

They adopted the standards of Gawker, Buzzfeed, HuffPo, and Daily Kos.

Snarky, sarcastic, leading articles with opinion statements, and being riddled with errors that should never appear in a print publication.

....

I actually spent time at an estate sale recently reading an old copy of the same paper from 1977 and feeling like I was reading Shakespeare in comparison to what we have today. . . .

_______________________

You summed it up perfectly.

[kiryandil]

It died long before that ... goes back at least to the mid 70s and the constant misreporting of the war in Nam as well as the yellow journalism of the Washington State Fish wars which only reported one side of the battles.

Rock Hudson was gay in the mid 70s - but he wasn't out of the closet.

This is the year that the Media came fully out of the closet. We've made fun of their obvious bias for years on FR, as you both know - but they were able to claim the thin veneer of "objectivity".

They're not going to be able to run back across the line they've crossed this time.

[kiryandil]

[bgill]

No, it collapsed long before they took down Palin or Trump.

[Rummyfan]

They are nothing but Democratic operatives with by-lines, the products of j-schools and the leftist-dominated education system. Of course they hate Trump. But fewer and fewer are listening to them and there are more alternatives to them every day.

[Ben Ficklin]

The problem with this article and replies on the thread is that the media has also been critical of Clinton.

The media is reflecting what is happening on the ground. Both candidates have very high negatives.

The winner will not be the one that is liked the most. It will be the one that is disliked the least.

[PIF]

It was out of the closet then and their ‘objectivity’ was fully apparent - but without the internet, most did not see, and those who saw were either silenced or mocked. One might just say that the media’s bias has received more notice because of the internet, but no more.

It is difficult to penetrate the veil unless you are deeply involved with the issue at hand - now with this election more can see.

[Gideon300]

“It died long before that ... goes back at least to the mid 70s and the constant misreporting of the war in Nam as well as the yellow journalism of the Washington State Fish wars which only reported one side of the battles.”

It was in it’s death throes at least as far back as William Randolph Hearst in the early 20th century. According to Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917:

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”

And Hearst certainly lived by that creed. But he also said this, which could well have been written today:

“Any man who has the brains to think and the nerve to act for the benefit of the people of the country is considered a radical by those who are content with stagnation and willing to endure disaster.”

[kiryandil]

We had a roster of 500 FReepers. We worked mightily to end the bias. We developed some media awareness but were unable to bring about any change.

We were un successful

As I have repeatedly posted, Trump is the ONLY one who has been able to directly challenge the Media Death Star - and the issue is still in doubt.

None of the other 16 Republican dwarves would have been able to take the heat of the main weapon's blast - just like Romney in 2012.

If Trump breaks their stranglehold, it will be a new era in American journalism.

Actually, he may have already done it. Every one of the "journalists" working for the various Hillary Clinton Media SuperPACs deserves a fist in their lying partisan face, and a vicious beating after they hit the ground - and that fact is becoming obvious to a lot of people..

[uncitizen]

propaganda is all its been for a few decades at least.

[windcliff]

Love your dogs!!!

[kiryandil]

PIF wrote: It was out of the closet then and their ‘objectivity’ was fully apparent - but without the internet, most did not see, and those who saw were either silenced or mocked. One might just say that the media’s bias has received more notice because of the internet, but no more.

Gideon300 wrote: It was in it’s death throes at least as far back as William Randolph Hearst in the early 20th century.

OK, we get it. The media bias goes back CENTURIES.

Focus on the issue at hand, which is getting the current crop of "journalists" on the ground, and kicking the Mitt out of them.

We can philosophize after the job at hand is done.

[DrPretorius]

“Which then begs the question: if a “news” source is little more than some reporter’s blog, why read it? What credibility does it have? Isn’t it just as informative to read your neighbor’s posts, or sit down for a chat at the local barbershop? Heck, can’t you get news that’s just as accurate off a sh_thouse wall?”

This man gets it! Which is why I haven’t bought a newspaper or watched a TV news program in fifteen years.