“And look for the media to ‘Gosnell’ the hearings.” Gosnell, MSM blackout of a significant event. Should be added to the FR Dictinary.What we need is not a name for the particular tactic, but a proper name for what we have been calling “the media.” IMHO that name should be, "conspiracy journalism”“Liberals” who hate Adam Smith love his statement 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.” What “liberals” do not discuss is the fact that the Associated Press newswire is a virtual meeting of all the major journalistic institutions in the country. If there is any truth at all to Smith’s dictum, a meeting of “people of the same trade” which has been operating continuously since the middle of the Nineteenth Century must, by now, have devolved into little else but "a conspiracy against the public.”
If AP journalism is a “conspiracy,” what does it do to the public? Conspiracy journalism misleads the public into trusting the untrustworthy, and distrusting the trustworthy. People who work successfully to a bottom line are trustworthy, and people who seek authority without responsibility are untrustworthy. Conspiracy journalism promotes “the critic” and denigrates “the man in the arena.” Give the critic authority, and he will fail to execute his nominal mission even as well as the man he criticized. But what the critic will do successfully is deflect any criticism of his performance by boasting of his wonderful intentions. With the full support of conspiracy journalism.
If I understand correctly what you’ve written, I agree. So, CJ it is! Now, let’s see if the moniker will latch on to the conspiracy journalists and stick like stink.
Here’s a good piece of CJ, from Wikipedia’s entry on Benghazi—the ‘Talk’ about it.
“Accusation sentence [edit]
The opening paragraph says that the “The Republican Party accused the Obama administration of over-emphasizing the role of the video,” - that isn’t the case, at least not according to the article that is supposedly the citation for that sentence. It actually says: “On Sunday, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee told CNN there was no proof indicating the attack was related to protests over an anti-Islam video.” His name is Mike Rogers - this could be considered an accusation by implication, but it is not an accusation, and it certainly isn’t “an entire party”. Further, the person doing the accusation, in that citation is here: ‘On Wednesday, Townsend said a law enforcement source told her investigators from day one “have known clearly that this was a terrorist attack.” ‘. Who knows what party the law enforcement source is. I’m pretty new to editing Wikipedia, so I don’t want to start editing controversial articles, but someone with more experience than me should look at this. Durron597 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)”
Note that this was edited as of today.