American journalism is collapsing before our eyes

[jimnyc]

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.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil-rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

[Gunny]

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.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil-rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

This isn't new. I had a scholarship in journalism in 1977. How do you think I ended up in the Corps? I was so disgusted with leftist journalism it made me sick.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure it "has no precedent".
People on the right and left tend to see pretty clearly where their Ox is being gored but ignore it or make excuses for it when it's happening to others.

It's been going on since forever. And usually against the right wing candidate even moreso against the truly anti-establishment candidates. But what's MORE blatant is the complete ignoring of 3rd party candidates EVERY season. this season seems especially egregious since they know that Trump and Clinton have HISTORICALLY HIGH negatives numbers with the voting public and that a 3rd party candidate COULD in fact get 270 electoral votes with the numbers of disaffected voters not buying the 2 party script.

There are people horrified at BOTH candidates but all you see is Trump and Hillary as IF they are the only choices. IF there ever was a time when a 3rd party had a chance THIS is it. IF the media let enough people know about them and if they could get into the debates. To many people allow the media to control the idea of WHAT and WHO are important.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure it "has no precedent".
People on the right and left tend to see pretty clearly where their Ox is being gored but ignore it or make excuses for it when it's happening to others.

It's been going on since forever. And usually against the right wing candidate even moreso against the truly anti-establishment candidates. But what's MORE blatant is the complete ignoring of 3rd party candidates EVERY season. this season seems especially egregious since they know that Trump and Clinton have HISTORICALLY HIGH negatives numbers with the voting public and that a 3rd party candidate COULD in fact get 270 electoral votes with the numbers of disaffected voters not buying the 2 party script.

There are people horrified at BOTH candidates but all you see is Trump and Hillary as IF they are the only choices. IF there ever was a time when a 3rd party had a chance THIS is it. IF the media let enough people know about them and if they could get into the debates. To many people allow the media to control the idea of WHAT and WHO are important.

I can give you some reasons. One, no one cares about so-called 3rd party candidates. Most idiots no better than the rest. Last time one of those goofs got in office we ended up in a civil war.

Second would be the system. The 2 established parties keep everything and anything that isn't them out.

Third, the press always had been and always will be to the left. Watergate established that. Once they took down a president and realized they could, we haven't been the same since.

[aboutime]

There IS NO American Journalism anymore. Everybody we see on TV, or hear on the RADIO is out to BRAG about their opinions, and their favorite politician.

Journalism students today are taught by LIBERAL PROFESSORS who only teach because THEY AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO BE REAL JOURNALISTS themselves. They have too many BIASED OPINIONS they believe everybody should believe....because THEY SAY SO...pretending to be intelligent, fair, and equal opportunity Hypocrites.

[Gunny]

There IS NO American Journalism anymore. Everybody we see on TV, or hear on the RADIO is out to BRAG about their opinions, and their favorite politician.

Journalism students today are taught by LIBERAL PROFESSORS who only teach because THEY AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO BE REAL JOURNALISTS themselves. They have too many BIASED OPINIONS they believe everybody should believe....because THEY SAY SO...pretending to be intelligent, fair, and equal opportunity Hypocrites.


I was taught by liberals. I was not however brainwashed by them. What is called journalism now is a joke. A bad one. You're supposed to report the truth. What I found out the "truth" was is what the owner of the paper says it is. The editor had no problem telling you to rewrite your story based on the views of the owner.

Tyr has his thread "I Take My Stand", well THAT is when I took mine. I wasn't going to lie to people to suit someone else's BS then put my name on it.

It isn't that they aren't smart AT ... it's that they are conditioned to believe certain things. Think about this:

The left is so freedom of speech; yet, the lefty students are the ones wanting to take away freedom speech.

Makes a bunch of sense, right? Think I'll go cut the brake lines on my truck. That'll show everyone. :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

I used to work at a newspaper And most ...like 80%... of the writers/reporters were admittedly liberal. However by the time i left that had began to change a bit. But the the leadership in the newsroom was still leftist and often blind to their own biases... while they attempted to be "fair". But the owners were consistently and decidedly right wing and made their presence felt on certain issues as well. but it was a just a local/regional paper.
Those that I've 2nd handily heard from at the national papers say that though many reporters are leftist there are certain NO GO establishment areas. That some stories are not allowed that go against various advertisers, or to go against certain politicians even celebrities in certain ways. left and right.
That it's the rich and politically powerful that define the real lines in the sand "news" wise, not so much ideological left right politics. been that way for sometime.

[revelarts]

Recently I met a old Photographer from LOOK magazine and he mentioned the situation with advertisers there during the 60s. That they were not able to report negatively or completely against some while he was there as well.

[Russ]

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.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil-rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/


I totally agree, except possibly with the "before your eyes" part. The American media shed whatever journalistic integrity it had back in the '70's or '80's, I think, and jumped on the bandwagon of liberalness. Now all news is presented with a subtle liberal slant to it (sometimes not so subtle), and except for FoxNews and some Internet sites. If it weren't for FoxNews, we'd never get a chance to hear half the news. For the unprepared young readers, its very easy to just get hypnotized into taking on the opinions of the media.

My personal opinion is that the media, and especially Hollywood, like to be liberal because it means they don't have to defend a stand or say "no" to anything. To be liberal is to say "everything is okay to do, except telling someone else not to do something". The only thing a liberal has to learn other than that is to memorize the list of names to call conservatives whenever they take a stand on anything.

[Gunny]

I totally agree, except possibly with the "before your eyes" part. The American media shed whatever journalistic integrity it had back in the '70's or '80's, I think, and jumped on the bandwagon of liberalness. Now all news is presented with a subtle liberal slant to it (sometimes not so subtle), and except for FoxNews and some Internet sites. If it weren't for FoxNews, we'd never get a chance to hear half the news. For the unprepared young readers, its very easy to just get hypnotized into taking on the opinions of the media.

My personal opinion is that the media, and especially Hollywood, like to be liberal because it means they don't have to defend a stand or say "no" to anything. To be liberal is to say "everything is okay to do, except telling someone else not to do something". The only thing a liberal has to learn other than that is to memorize the list of names to call conservatives whenever they take a stand on anything.

Started with Nixon. He hated the media because of how he got treated against JFK in 60. He waged war against the media. Then Woodward and Bernstein broke Watergate. Had any previous president done that it would have been hushed.

The Washington Post was out get Nixon and they did. The MSM has not been right wing friendly since.

The media itself is based on freedom of speech. They're going to lean left. Good question for them is what to do with all these leftwingnut college willling to give FOS away.

[Kathianne]

I don't care if the owner and/or editorial board have a partisan preference. What turned me off to the major newspapers was editorializing throughout the news stories. The only paper I can stand to read anymore is the WSJ. I subscribe to some journals, but they're mostly on foreign affairs and history. Back in the day I read 4 papers daily.

[Gunny]

I don't care if the owner and/or editorial board have a partisan preference. What turned me off to the major newspapers was editorializing throughout the news stories. The only paper I can stand to read anymore is the WSJ. I subscribe to some journals, but they're mostly on foreign affairs and history. Back in the day I read 4 papers daily.

It totally matters who the owner is. Editors are given strict instructions as are the reporters by the editors. The owner dictates the policy and the writer leads the reader where they want them to go. It's a total art of syntax.

Editorials are different. They're just old-school pundits.

[Russ]

Started with Nixon. He hated the media because of how he got treated against JFK in 60. He waged war against the media. Then Woodward and Bernstein broke Watergate. Had any previous president done that it would have been hushed.

The Washington Post was out get Nixon and they did. The MSM has not been right wing friendly since.

The media itself is based on freedom of speech. They're going to lean left. Good question for them is what to do with all these leftwingnut college willling to give FOS away.

This is an interesting theory, and perhaps right on the money. I'll have to canoodle on that for a while.

[Gunny]

This is an interesting theory, and perhaps right on the money. I'll have to canoodle on that for a while.

Actually not a theory. We were taught it in school. The first President the media went against was Cronkite's "we can't win this war" BS. LBJ refused to run again. Up until that time, the media stayed silent.

Nobody knew FDR was crippled. Nobody knew Eisenhower was a waste of space. JFK got Marylin. None of that was reported.

Nixon hated the media. He was awkward in his debate with JFK. He never forgave them. He was completely noncompliant with the MSM as President. Let's look at the facts though ...

He took 49 states in 72. He was forced to resign over some tapes that are completely allowed today, and he did nothing Hitlery has done. Who cares what the DNC had to say in 72? Their candidate was McGovern.

Oh, and I'm not a Nixon fan. I just have good long term memory (short term not so much :laugh: ). And I'm a history buff. Straight A's without studying. The whole thing was a joke.

He was taken down by two leftwing MSM reporters from the Post.

[aboutime]

Actually not a theory. We were taught it in school. The first President the media went against was Cronkite's "we can't win this war" BS. LBJ refused to run again. Up until that time, the media stayed silent.

Nobody knew FDR was crippled. Nobody knew Eisenhower was a waste of space. JFK got Marylin. None of that was reported.

Nixon hated the media. He was awkward in his debate with JFK. He never forgave them. He was completely noncompliant with the MSM as President. Let's look at the facts though ...

He took 49 states in 72. He was forced to resign over some tapes that are completely allowed today, and he did nothing Hitlery has done. Who cares what the DNC had to say in 72? Their candidate was McGovern.

Oh, and I'm not a Nixon fan. I just have good long term memory (short term not so much :laugh: ). And I'm a history buff. Straight A's without studying. The whole thing was a joke.

He was taken down by two leftwing MSM reporters from the Post.



Agreed Gunny, he was taken down by two lefties....but Nixon also lied to the American people, just like Bubba Clinton, and Obama have been doing since day one. If he hadn't been forced to resign. He probably would have been Impeached. That's a fact too!

[Gunny]

Agreed Gunny, he was taken down by two lefties....but Nixon also lied to the American people, just like Bubba Clinton, and Obama have been doing since day one. If he hadn't been forced to resign. He probably would have been Impeached. That's a fact too!

I don't disagree with those facts. My point is he was held accountable. Neither Bill nor Hitlery have been held accountable for jack. The MSM ignores or downplays their crimes. We're going what? 30 years of unaccountability?

You're a comm guy AT. You know what ComSec is. You want that fatass leaking the whereabouts of your boat then failing to send assistance? Screw THAT. Not one of those lives is worth her lies.

And do you really want her in charge of nukes? "Oh, I'll just put my half of the code on my unsecure server".

Nixon got taken down for a LOT less.

[aboutime]

I don't disagree with those facts. My point is he was held accountable. Neither Bill nor Hitlery have been held accountable for jack. The MSM ignores or downplays their crimes. We're going what? 30 years of unaccountability?

You're a comm guy AT. You know what ComSec is. You want that fatass leaking the whereabouts of your boat then failing to send assistance? Screw THAT. Not one of those lives is worth her lies.

And do you really want her in charge of nukes? "Oh, I'll just put my half of the code on my unsecure server".

Nixon got taken down for a LOT less.


Gunny. Not disagreeing with you there. I know, from personal experience in radio/comms aboard ship, and shore stations like NAVCAMSLANT that just ONE CLASSIFIED MISTAKE could mean an end to my naval career, and my family would have had to visit me in KANSAS.
Hillary has abused the SECURITY SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES, and even the FBI is looking the other way...just like the idiot FLAG OFFICERS who work under Obama in the Pentagon.
They have all placed their OWN CAREERS ahead of the security of our nation, and OBAMA approved it.