The perversion of the objective of journalism

Hunting and trapping for fur in this day in age is inhumane.

…and it hopefully isn’t over yet. The Clinton Foundation, the relationship with Fusion GPS and the email investigation need an independent special investigator to examine them all.

Well said my friend. Thanks.

1 Like

Yeah, run with that. If only the GOP had the balls when they controlled the entire government. I wonder why they didn’t.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye …

The founders would not have recognized “objective journalism” as a practical matter. It didn’t really exist at the time. Generally, newspapers were openly partisan; there was no real theory or rules of practice for the “profession” of journalism, as we have today. The idea and principle of journalistic objectivity is a relatively modern concept.

That being the case, please explain who, when, or what defines your golden era of “objective journalism,” which has since been perverted? Maybe we can go from there . . .

It didnt start with Trump.

The GOP isn’t any better. All of this went down under Bush II. That doesn’t change the fact that Maxine is crazy and blatantly incompetent for the position.

Yet more free marketeers lamenting the failings of our free market media experiment.


I really wouldnt have it any other way. To me, it’s kind of like free choice. With free choice, people are able to choose something I do not agree with, like to have an abortion for example. I wouldn’t want to lose free choice. I think liberty is more important than my wants and desires even though people may do something that I dont approve of.

Kind of choking on your ideals, innit?

So, so many conservatives lament the media. Not because of fake news or their imagined bias, but because for the most part the mainstream media isn’t biased and won’t put their thumbs on the scales, and conservatism and Republicans are generally pretty unpopular in the real world. That’s why the press is so unpopular with conservatives, because they generally report things neutrally and the reality is, conservative politics and Republicans are about as popular as a ham sandwich at a bar mitzvah.

“Fake news” is just a way to reject factual information that is not good for Republicans or conservatives, without having to think about it.

When you hear people kvetch about the media, they sound like they want something oh I don’t know, a doctrine of fairness or to make it illegal to knowingly lie, but then they remember that those are anti free market and markets uber alles.

1 Like

That “lament” goes back further, but this speech is such a Rosetta Stone or ur-text: a classic of the genre:

Whoever heard of truth put to the worst in free and open encounter? We couldn’t get the truth to the American people.

You and I know that that’s extremely difficult to do where our newspapers are owned by out-of-state interests. Newspapers which are run and operated by left-wing liberals, Communist sympathizers, and members of the Americans for Democratic Action and other Communist front organizations with high sounding names.

However, we will not be intimidated by the vultures of the liberal left-wing press. We will not be deceived by their lies and distortions of truth. We will not be swayed by their brutal attacks upon the character and reputation of any honest citizen who dares stand up and fight for liberty.


Go back to the 1964 Republican Convention, with Ronald Reagan railing about the press, and the delegates threatening and shaking their fists at the press.

Conservatives hate the press because they play it pretty straight, not for any imaginary bias. That’s just a political strategy first codified by Nixon, Pat Buchanan and Edith Efron as a way to deflect criticism of Nixon during Watergate. “Nixon can’t get a fair shake because of the Jew controlled media” was really what they, especially Nixon and Buchanan wanted to really say, but even they knew they couldn’t quite come out with it like that, so they settled on the political strategy of saying “liberal media bias”, and a couple billion dollars and 40 some years of hammering on that point and people think its a real thing, even liberals who should know better.

But remember, when someone says “liberal media bias”, what they are saying, wittingly or not, is “Jew controlled media”.

Not really.

My ideals lean towards liberty. What I dont like about the press is that many of them think they are above everyone else. I also dont like how many conflicts of interest there are between the press and the politicians. or Meet the liberal press - Washington Times

I feel members of the press should recuse themselves if they have any type of relationship with a subject in a story, similar to how a judge recuses him self if he knows the defendant.

Recuse is a legal term. But if a member of the press is openly championing and supporting a candidate and regularly advising them, then yes, they should disclose that. I can think of one very prominent and relevant example.

So if a member of the press is, oh I don’t know, openly promoting a politician, advising them reguarly, then they should disclose that to their audience?

Absolutely. It should also work the other way too, if they have animosity for them.

Uh, “absolutely” what now?

Just to be clear, you are saying “absolutely” to what part of George Wallace’s rants against the liberal media?

Sorry, I was trying to respond to PeterGriffin. Very often when I try to respond, it brings in a different post and I can not figure out how to edit.

I’m perfectly content with the media and the Democrat controlled congress burning its self on the white hot edges of Trump’s vengeful blade. The next two years will be one hell of a roller coaster. Bring on 2020.