For years, we have been discussing the decline of journalism values with the rise of open bias in the media. Now, a newly released report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford has found something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The United States ranked dead last in media trust among 49 countries with just 29% saying that they trusted the media. The most tragic aspect is that it does not matter. The media has embraced the advocacy journalism and anyone questioning that trend risks instant cancellation. The result is a type of state media where journalists are bound to the government by ideology rather than law.
The plunging level of trust reflects the loss of the premier news organizations to a type of woke journalism. We have have been discussing how writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. Even journalists are leading attacks on free speech and the free press. This includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. Likewise, the University of North Carolina recently offered an academic chair in Journalism to New York Times’ Nikole Hannah-Jones. While Hannah-Jones was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her writing on The 1619 Project, she has been criticized for her role in purging dissenting views from the New York Times pages and embracing absurd anti-police conspiracy theories. Even waiting for the facts is viewed as unethical today by journalism professors who demand that reporters make political or social declarations through their coverage.
One of the lowest moments came with the New York Times’ mea culpa for publishing an opinion column by a conservative senator. The New York Times was denounced by many of us for its cringing apology after publishing a column by Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.). and promising not to publish future such columns. It will not publish a column from a Republican senator on protests in the United States but it will publish columns from one of the Chinese leaders crushing protests for freedom in Hong Kong. Cotton was arguing that the use of national guard troops may be necessary to quell violent riots, noting the historical use of this option in past protests. This option was used most recently after the Capitol riot.
Almost on the one-year anniversary of its condemning its own publication of Cotton (and forcing out its own editor), the New York Times published an academic columnist who previously defended the killing of conservative protesters. Over at the Washington Post this week, the newspaper promoted a columnist,Karen Attiah, who last summer caused an outrage after she tweeted “White women are lucky that we are just calling them Karens. And not calling for revenge.”
Given this trend, it is little surprise that viewers no longer trust the media. They have watched as stories ranging from Hunter Biden to the origins of the pandemic have been aggressively censored by Big Tech and blacked out by journalists. The problem is that this echo journalism works for some in the media even if it ultimately destroys the profession as a whole. It is a journalistic version of Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons where everyone acts for their immediate benefit as “the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.”
Here’s my daily example of just how biased the liberal MSM is. In an answer to a 20 May, 2021 White House press conference about the 6 January capitol “riot,” Jen Psaki — President Biden’s bonehead Press Secretary — made the following absurd comment:
“Obviously, the president’s view is that there are a number of officers who lost their lives, paid a tremendous sacrifice on a day that will be a stain on our democracy for many years to come.”
Of course, the truth is that NO officers were killed during the confrontation. Let alone “a number of officers.” One officer died later from a stroke, but suffered zero injuries in the 6 January brouhaha.
No follow-up question was asked by the lapdog MSM reporters in the room.
Google the above quote, and you’ll find a number of press outlets reported this incredible gaff. But ALL of those sources are right wing-leaning press outlets. Apparently NO MSM outlet reported this patent lie. Not ONE!
Imagine if you can that a TRUMP Press Secretary made such a incredibly false statement in such a press conference. The press would have gone bonkers. It would have been national headlines.
Here’s the story, with the video of Biden’s Press Secretary’s fake news comment.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/05/23/jen-psaki-says-biden-obviously-believes-a-number-of-officers-lost-their-lives-on-jan-6-real-number-is-zero-1078122
Darren said,
“Since you are effectively taunting for a reply in order to establish the conceit that your position is otherwise unassailable, here it is…Your position is so far off base, I’m frankly not interested in devoting any time to address it.
In the future I recommend not making such demands. The absence of a reply does not constitute and endorsement or denial of any position a person makes via comments posted here.”
My reply follows:
Darren,
Having often wondered whether my writings were being ignored, it is reassuring to learn that someone near and dear to Turley is reading them. Yet, for someone who claims his time is too precious to expend it in replying to me, I have to ask why do you waste it following me?
You are absolutely correct that an “absence of a reply does not constitute and [sic] endorsement or denial of any position a person makes via comments posted here.” Why, then, did you reply? It is one thing, after all, to keep silent; it is quite another to disdainfully dismiss what I have written as completely incorrect WITHOUT rebutting any of my specific claims or accusations. Your general demurrer is known in journalism as a “non-denial denial.” Because you have not specified which of my statements are inaccurate, one can presume that they are truthful; otherwise, you would have seen fit to correct them lest anyone here mistakenly believed them. Thus, you have not served Turley well. In the future, you would be well advised, if I may speak for him, to resign yourself to rely upon the benefit afforded complete silence.
I take no pleasure in documenting Turley’s hypocrisy in his contributing to a cable network which has done far more damage than any other in fueling the rage in our political discourse which he so rightly decries. And his ignoring outrageous examples of Fox’s false narratives in his effort to lay most of the blame for the public’s distrust in the media at the feet of his media competitors adds to his disgrace. He will have to answer one day for his conduct. Even his long-time friend Bill Barr ineluctably has abandoned the good ship Trump and sought safe harbor by speaking not with the discredited Fox News but, rather, a reporter from the so-called “Fake News.” Having served Trump up to a point beyond which even he would not go, Barr is vainly attempting now to salvage what’s left of his reputation. Before it’s too late, Turley would do well to follow his friend’s lead and quit Fox.
If I didn’t think there was any good in the man, do you suppose I would waste my time taking Turley to task? I have never insulted him by accusing him of being a Trumpist. Nor would I, for no self-respecting attorney can remain steadfast to his oath to uphold the rule of law while being a Trump loyalist. If you will flatter me by continuing to monitor my posts, you will observe my defending Turley against the suspicions raised, and the accusations of betrayal leveled, by the Trumpists here who will demand that Turley side with Trump’s accusation of a persecution as the law closes in. The time is coming when Turley cannot avoid unequivocally defending the lawful prosecution of the Trump Company and possibly Trump himself. But I will stand with him when few others here will.
Just to show you that I am not as conceited as you think, I hereby disclaim any unassailability of my remarks on account of the absence of your reply. I realize, of course, your time is more valuable than mine, but should you manage to find some spare time in your busy schedule, I sincerely would appreciate your disabusing me of my misperceptions because, despite what you may think, I am not too proud to stand corrected. On the other hand, unless you have something specific to say in Turley’s defense, I suggest you keep quiet.
Not surprising considering how things have gone the last few years. One can only hope that journalists find their way back to reporting the truth and not the truth with a slant. They can have their opinion as long as it is in the editorial section and not parading as news.