MONOKULTUR

Jeg skrev for et par uger siden om Washington Posts forsøg på at vende salgstallene, efter at have tabt halvdelen af læserskaren til X og almen mangel på interesse. Ingen gider læse jeres artikler, havde den nye redaktør fortalt medarbejderne, der omvendt var bekymrede for hvad det ville betyde for den identitetspolitiske dagsorden der var blevet det politiske formål for avisen med sloganet “Democracy dies in darkness”.

Det er ikke kun Washington Post, der har det problem, det er alment især i USA, hvor staten ikke holder hånden under den etablerede presse. Som stort set alle har bemærket, siden Trumps og CNN totale demaskering, af Bidens kognitive forfald (sandsynligvis Parkinson), er pressens indspisthed med den magt, de ellers burde være sat i verden for at holde i skak nærmest total. Nu hyler den og ved ikke om den skal sadle om eller skrue ‘gaslightningen’ op til 11. Jonathan Turley har fulgt op på det spor (egentligt ikke, men han taler og meget bedre om det samme) for resten pressen generelt

The media is sorry . . . sort of. After the shocking appearance of President Joe Biden in the presidential debate, the public has turned its attention to the press which has, again, buried a major scandal for years. According to CNN, the reporters at the White House are really, really sorry but explained that it was the “right-wing media” that prompted them to avoid the story. It is a telling admission that, yet again, reporters chose not to report on a story because they wanted to frame the news for political purposes. It is precisely the pattern that I discuss in my new book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage where the media now rejects objectivity and neutrality as core values in journalism.

For years, there have been questions about President Joe Biden’s mental and physical decline. Those concerns reached their apex when Special Counsel Robert Hur issued his report. While finding that Biden had unlawfully retained and mishandled classified material for decades, he concluded that prosecution would be difficult because a jury would be swayed by the appearance of an elderly man with declining memory.

The media pounced and attacked Hur while media figures attested to the President’s acuity and ability. Then, as videos repeatedly surfaced showing the President confused and fragile, the media declared them “cheap fakes” and attacked Fox News and other outlets for airing them even though Fox noted that the clips were unedited. (For full disclosure, I am a Fox News analyst). Virtually every news outlet aired the attack with politicians, pundits, and celebrities attesting that the President was sharp and engaged.

(…)

While saying that reporters “are now expressing regret,” CNN explains that “some members of the White House press corps who have regular exposure to President Biden are now admitting they were “turned off” from exposing his mental decline before last week’s debate in part because of the attention it has got from ‘right-wing media.’”

It was just part of shaping the news, which is now the priority in journalism.

A recent series of interviews with over 75 media leaders by Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this shift. As Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, stated: “Objectivity has got to go.”

But that objectivity seems to depend heavily upon what ideology you are advocating.

We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.

In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.”  Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”

Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.” 

Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism.

Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.”

CNNs “mageløse” artikel kan læses her.

Det var det samme show da Hunter Bidens computer indgik som bevismateriale i en retssag imod selvsamme Hunter, om hvorvidt han havde løjet om sit crack-misbrug for at opnå en våbentilladelse. Som jeg nævnte i min artikel om Washington Times, så har Turley tidligere hudflettet Posts Phil Bump for sine helt enestående evne til konstant at skrive den forkerte historie. Angående Hunters computer, så hudflettede han også MSNBCs juridiske analytiker Barbara McQuade for at forsøge at afvise ægtheden. Men Turley igen

The press and pundits are coming off an embarrassing couple of weeks where the Hunter Biden laptop was authenticated in federal court as real. This occurred in the trial of the president’s son almost on the anniversary of a debunked letter of intelligence officials claiming that the laptop appeared to be Russian disinformation. Biden then repeated the claim in the last presidential debates to avoid answering questions over the massive influence peddling scheme of this family revealed by the laptop.

After the story was suppressed before the 2020 election, it took years for the media to admit that, oops, the laptop is surprisingly real.

For years, the press and pundits piled on experts who suggested that Covid 19 escaped from a Chinese lab. The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible.  Now, even W.H.O. accepts the lab theory as possible and federal agencies now believe it is the most likely explanation.

The response: surprise and spin.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled that the Justice Department has unlawfully charged hundreds of people with obstruction of an official proceeding after the January 6th riot. For years, objections to the excessive treatment of these cases were dismissed as the view of the radical right. Now, even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to toss out these convictions.

Surprise.

Whether it was the false story about agents whipping migrants in Texas or the photo op claim in Lafayette Park, false stories were disproven only to have a collective shrug from those who spread them.

For years, the press and pundits have repeated like gospel that Trump had called neo-Nazis “fine people.” At the time, most of us noted that Trump condemned the racists and neo-Nazis and made the statement about fine people on both sides of the controversy over the removal of historic statues.

Six years later, Snopes finally decided to do a fact check and, surprise, found that Trump never praised neo-Nazis as fine people. The only person not surprised was Biden who repeated the false story on Friday as true.

Med Greg Gutfelds ord

Proof of God or simulation? after years of trying to persuade the world that Trump was crazy, the hoaxers get served a whopping mental illness sandwich, and they now must eat it in front of all of us. Thanks Universe!