A privileged but dishonorable profession 4

In return for fawning on the Leftist leadership of the United States for the last seven and a half years, Leftist  journalists (a large majority) have no doubt been accorded many types of ego-flattering, career-enhancing privileges. And that on top of the joy of following their own inclinations anyway.

If after January next year the leadership will no longer be Leftist (a possibility looking more like a probability with each passing day), they’ll have a hard choice to make. Either they must report fairly, accurately, objectively at last; or, if they cannot and will not, be prepared to find themselves at a disadvantage in competition with others who can and will.

Those who decide to make the necessary adjustments will need to begin soon.

Right now would not be too soon.

Of course true objectivity is impossible, as Roger L. Simon points out in an article at PJ Media. But fairness and accuracy can be genuinely attempted, and the attempt if genuine enough will bring a report nearer to the impossible ideal.

Donald Trump, while detailing his veteran donations at a news conference, thoroughly dissed the press and called a reporter “sleazy”. …

Well, of course Donald did because they are mostly sleazy, all of them, including me. I’m particularly sleazy when I’m reporting, slightly less so when I’m writing an opinion piece. And that’s the point — it’s all opinion when you examine it closely, reporting not so much. Nothing is really objective. It can’t be. We’re all biased for one obvious reason — we’re human. Ever meet an unbiased human? It was probably a corpse. An old one. …

Reporters are most sleazy when they pretend to be objective, following diligently in the footsteps of the Grey Lady herself and her onetime motto “All the news that’s fit to print”. Only the Times chose what news [was] fit, not to mention what news “fit” on the front page and what on page twenty-four. Bias anyone? (It took years for theTimes to put Auschwitz on the front page.) Trump knows this behavior well since he’s been manipulating the press for years. Call him Charles Foster Trump.

(After Charles Foster Kane of Citizen Kane – the movie portrait of the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst.)

I’m surprised Donald hasn’t bought a newspaper by now, not that he needs one. He has a – excuse the expression – trump card, meaning the press needs him (for clicks or viewers) more than he needs the press


The rest of us are not so lucky. We don’t get to so easily attack the press, even when it attacks us. We don’t have Trump’s megaphone. No one has his megaphone these days.

So Donald is acting for all of us, a solid majority anyway, when he disses the mostly liberal press. It’s certain to be popular.

And I for one am glad we might have a president who seems clued in to alternative voices (i. e., social media) as well and pops off on Twitter. I hope he doesn’t stop (although he might want to work with an editor). The reason is simple. We need as many voices as possible since none is unbiased. A multiplicity of sources is the only way we can even have a chance to get at that truth, to find even a hint of transparency. The current government is doing everything it can to suppress information, as was made obvious Tuesday by the astonishing number of State Department and DOJ lawyers sent to defend Cheryl Mills at the Judicial Watch deposition.

This is likely to get worse. To say we live in dangerous times is an understatement. Traditional sources of information and communication are not the answer. Or are only part of the answer. …

Trump is doing the right thing in holding the press to account. They are a privileged class. I am part of it, peripherally anyway, and have enjoyed that privilege. It is a far stronger privilege, I assure you, than the color of my skin. It gets me into places that many can’t go.

Posted under media by Jillian Becker on Sunday, June 5, 2016

Tagged with ,

This post has 4 comments.


What the public has no right to know? 4

Concerning Obama’s membership of the extreme left New Party, this from ‘the corner’ of the National Review:

New Party: Where’s the Press?   [Stanley Kurtz]

In "Something New Here," I laid out Barack Obama’s ties to the far-left New Party. Blogger Trevor Loudon, of New Zeal, did the pioneering work on this issue. Today, Loudon has posted good quality scans of New Party documents and pictures confirming Obama’s membership. We’ve seen most of this information before (although only recently), but never so clearly.

With all its lengthy background pieces, has the New York Times ever noted that Barack Obama was endorsed by, and was a member of, the New Party? What about theWashington Post? Has any major television network, any national news magazine, or any major daily newspaper ever mentioned that Barack Obama was endorsed by, or was a member of, the New Party? If any such outlet has ever mentioned that fact, have they ever gone on to explain in any depth exactly what the New Party was? For example, have they laid out the extremely close ties between the New Party in Chicago and ACORN? Especially with issue of Obama’s ties to ACORN so much in the news, isn’t this a major story right now?

Can any blogger out there answer these questions? I repeat: Has any major television network, any national news magazine, or any major daily newspaper ever mentioned Barack Obama’s membership in, or endorsement by, the New Party, and then gone on to explore and explain what the New Party was, including its ties to ACORN? Isn’t the membership of a major party nominee and currently favored candidate to become president of the United States in a third party a major news story? Is it not the height of press irresponsibility to ignore this fact?

Now some folks might be disturbed by Obama’s New Party membership and/or endorsement, and some may not. But isn’t this something the American people are entitled to know and decide on for themselves?

Posted under Commentary by Jillian Becker on Thursday, October 23, 2008

Tagged with , , , ,

This post has 4 comments.