Posted on 08/11/2020 4:08:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
It always amazes me just how stupid reporters are. Maybe stupid isnt the right word, ignorant is more like it. How do people who claim to be the arbiters of what is news not follow the news? Seems like knowing what youre talking about would be an important component of journalism, especially since journalism considers itself the first draft of history. But for too many of these left-wing teleprompter readers and Democratic Party stenographers, history just started yesterday.
MSNBC anchor Katy Tur is known not for her depth of knowledge on important issues, but her basic ignorance of things that happened in her lifetime is disturbing. In a debate in 2017 with a Republican congressman (because why wouldnt a news anchor debate a Republican?), she exposed how unaware she was of something that happened in 2012 when then-President Barack Obama told then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin hed have more flexibility after the election. It was news to Tur, whose excuse was, To be fair, I didn't touch politics in 2012. I almost exclusively covered fires and shootings in NYC area. Apparently New York City doesnt have cable news or newspapers.
But all the ignorance of things that happened before today isnt limited to television personalities. Colby Itkowitz, who covers national politics for the Washington Post, showed just how oblivious a reporter could be and still hold a job. Saturday, after President Trump signed executive orders related to tax policy and coronavirus relief, Colby tweeted, Let's ponder the most played out question of the last four years, but can you imagine if Obama had broken up a congressional stalemate over funding by simply signing an executive order and saying it was so? (jinx @pbump).
This is particularly stupid for a number of reasons. First, in tagging her co-worker Phillip Bump, she showed she was quite proud of beating him to this declaration, that this sort of talk is common around the Post. Second, President Obama changed large sections of Obamacare with the stroke of his magic pen well within her lifetime. Third, if history didnt start until Trump was elected, youd at least think a reporter covering national politics for a major newspaper would be aware of the legal challenges to the DACA program, especially since the Supreme Court just ruled on it in June.
All of these escaped Itkowitzs notice, somehow. When her ignorance was made apparent to her, she did what all good journalists would do deleted the tweet and pretended it never happened.
Lest you think its just the younger media types who are ignorant of history, the senior citizen-set appears to have a memory rivaling Joe Bidens as well.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a column titled No Wrist Corsages, Please, Saturday about how its been since 1984 that Democrats had a man and a woman on their presidential ticket. Its hard to fathom, but it has been 36 years since a man and a woman ran together on a Democratic Party ticket, writes @MaureenDowd, the Times tweeted about a column Down had written proclaiming the same.
I understand why liberals would want to forget the 2016 election, and why everyone would like to forget Hillary Clinton, but youd think someone in the multi-person editorial process that takes place before anything gets published by the Times would have a memory of it. (Not to mention ignoring the 2008 Republican mixed-gender ticket.) Youd be wrong. The correction, An earlier version of this column incorrectly stated the history of the Democratic ticket. It has been 36 years since a man chose a woman to run as his vice-president on the Democratic ticket, not 36 years since a man and a woman ran together on a Democratic Party ticket, is one for the record books.
These are but three examples of ignorance of recent history from people working in a profession noted for the smugness of its practitioners.
Sadly, journalism is important. Unfortunately, we arent getting any. Were getting self-righteous lectures from arrogant know-nothings who, whenever possible, ignore their mistakes, which uniformly go in one direction against Republicans. Is it any wonder that 86 percent of the public in a recent survey said they find either a great deal (49 percent) or a fair amount (37 percent) of bias in media? They used to at least pretend to be honest.
Of course, when you operate in an ever-shrinking bubble of likeminded colleagues, you dont even notice the problem. A new study found Beltway journalism 'may be even more insular than previously thought,' which the authors say raises "'additional concerns about vulnerability to groupthink and blind spots.'
If theres no one in your circle who knows any better, youll never think youre wrong and not know when youve crossed a line. If everyone you know is polishing their resume in the hope of getting a job in a Biden administration, youd better update yours too. If Joe loses, you can fill that hole in your heart with the awards youll be showered with for your biased, incorrect reporting. And you dont have to worry about being haunted by thoughts of betraying the ideals of your profession since history starts all over again tomorrow.
Not surprised to see MoDo in this list.
I used to work at a pretty big newspaper. On the whole, journalists really don’t know anything about anything. They type stories fast under tight deadlines. That is really the only skill expected of them.
And of course, nowadays, the Talking Points are handed to them, and that makes the work even easier.
Those who forget history are doomed to be democrats.
Maybe stupid isnt the right word, ignorant is more like it.
i.e. A professional dancer that does not know how to use or maintain the guns used by cops is ignorant. A cop that doesn’t know how to use or maintain his gun is not just ignorant. He’s stupid.
These reporters are, quite literally, stupid - or they have an agenda and think their audience is stupid.
A lot of reporters just copy/paste press releases written by others.
A successful reporter has a bunch of “sources” willing to effectively write his stories for him, in exchange for being able to determine the slant.
If reporters are stupid and/or ignorant, what does that make the people who still believe them? Rare (I hope)? Gullible? Naive? Pitiful? CNN viewers?
My take:
Stupidity is not being able to think properly, to have a mental handicap.
Ignorance is not knowing something one could learn, or was never taught.
Labeling these intellectual pygmies as “journalists” is to bestow a dignity that is not theirs.
Yeah, I agree with that. However, you know how some words have multiple, but similar meanings? I’d see that as number one, and number two is not knowing something you should know.
This society in general has the attention span of a gnat.
One of the things that hurt Hillary in ‘16 frankly is that most of the voters she was counting on could only remember back four or five years. The “golden age” that was her husband’s presidency might as well have occurred in Ancient Egypt.
It always amazes me just how stupid reporters are. Maybe stupid isn't the right word, ignorant is more like it.
Bad faith malicious malcontents is more like it.
Ditto on all that you say.
Reporters these days are lazy, stupid, and lack any semblance of intellectual curiosity. They lack basic English writing skills (witness the hideous headline scrawls on cable news channels) and the primary criteria by which they are hired appears to be ethnic diversity and/or bra cup size.
I went to high-school with a guy who spent 31 years with a large metro daily. He’s a Liberal but at least he can write and cover stories somewhat objectively. His paper closed and so far as I know he’s cooking the dog for dinner these days.
He must have been working for Newsradio-WINS-1010 !
ML/NJ
>> It always amazes me just how stupid reporters are
Theyre employees amazing, isnt it...
MSNBC is Comcast
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.