“Neutrality for the sake of neutrality doesn’t really serve us in the age of Trump.”
I have no idea what that means.
_________________________
It means that since all journalism, history and entertainment media is meant to *serve* an overarching agenda-driven narrative and since Trump is hell-bent on exposing this, they can no longer even pretend to neutrality.
The powers-that-be have declared unrelenting war to the death and the gloves and masks are off. Given the choice between keeping up the pretense of objectivity and taking out, not only Trump, but also the entire philosophical basis of traditional, classical liberal, Enlightenment thought, they have chosen to abandon appearances because they rightly discern their very existence and that of the basis of their power is at severe risk.
This is not confined to the USA. It is a global war. The Australian and EU elections of the past two weeks have the elite power mongers reeling. Suddenly, they are having to fight battles on a myriad of fronts. They cannot waste time and energy and have decided to go straight for the throat of all the populist nationalistic leaders and their supporters, everywhere. Appearances be damned.
Acosta’s colleagues and bosses and their shrinking audience of the inculcated understood him perfectly.
Well said
Yep!
Journalists admitted long ago they get into journalism for progressive social advocacy. Limbaugh did pieces on this in the mid-90’s; polls at journalism conventions/seminars demonstrated it, and the great majority polled said they’re Democrats.
And we here know that proggies can never, ever, ever be wrong or (Moloch forbid) admit any error. When obviously, unhideably wrong (as when Trump won), they enter cognitive dissonance and become quite unstable. I think this causes much of the left’s looniness — their inability to admit, learn from and grow after their errors.