Separation of Journalism and Politics

A question that I have been asking for quite some time was brought to the fore once again with the pervasive and obnoxious liberal bias in the so-called news reporting of the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.  Why does anyone continue to purchase and read the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and other mainstream publications which have replaced accurate reporting with faux news accounts rising to the level of outright lies?  And why does anyone waste time watching "news" programs anchored and/or reported by the likes of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Christiane Amanpour, and others on MSNBC, CNN, the BBC, and the like?

Granted, the print publications to which I refer are all going bankrupt, and the cable news channels, along with their pathetic hosts, have the lowest ratings in cable television, but still -- why is there even a modicum of viewership that keeps these outlets on life support?  Clearly there are left-leaning Americans who agree with the disingenuous opinions of columnists such as Paul Krugman -- the man is in a class by himself and no doubt has a following of leftists who take comfort in reading his falsehoods so long as his assertions support their progressive ideologies.  But what will it take for the "average" American to finally reach a breaking point with mainstream media outlets and simply say, "Enough!  Report the news accurately in an unbiased fashion or I will terminate my subscription.  Fire the sneering, lying ignoramuses over at MSNBC or I will no longer turn on any television show remotely associated with it, including NBC's network programming."?

The mainstream media reached a new low with their coverage of the Tucson shooting spree by a deranged "left-wing pothead" (as one classmate described him).  It seemed that with each attempted terrorist attack on our soil by a Muslim extremist, the journalistic community's refusal to call a spade a spade and identify and report to the public the reality of a very pervasive and genuine threat to national security was a symptom of political correctness run amok.  However, the Arizona shooting proved that the real issue with news outlets is that their reporting is guided not by politically correct standards, but rather by biases so pervasive that there is no longer a moral compass involved in the reporting of world events.  Editors and producers either do not care to or are no longer able to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, victim and attacker.

And while the political rhetoric from various politicians is disappointing and vile, we have sadly come to expect partisan politics from these individuals. What the public should not be subject to, however, is political spin from purportedly unbiased media outlets.  In concluding that "sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy," Stephen Hayes pointed out:

One of the most important things journalists can do is to provide context for major events, to take a seemingly disparate set of facts and explain their meaning in a way that allows readers, viewers and listeners to understand better what has happened and perhaps even why ...

In their attempts to provide such context many journalists -- at prominent newspapers and magazines, at the networks, and on cable -- are doing more to obscure the truth than to reveal it.

Sadly, the reporting of this tragic event is only the tip of the iceberg. Media reporting of news events across the globe are no longer reliable, and the reporting of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict epitomizes this bias.  HonestReporting.com exposes lie after lie by the world's news organizations that are void of moral clarity, consistently framing the conflict as involving Israel as the attacking Goliath and the Palestinians as the weak David.  HonestReporting's affiliate, MediaCentral, is an organization that attempts to counter the public relations efforts of the Palestinians by working with Jerusalem news correspondents to bring truth to the front pages of the world's newspapers.  And while the goals of these organizations are quite noble, and they clearly are on the right side of the moral compass, AT's Leo Rennert blogs almost daily on the inaccuracies and bias in the MSM's Mideast reporting.

I am amazed at the number of individuals who continue to read the NYT, and I have concluded that it is not a lack of intellectual curiosity, but a lack of principles that causes them to continue their subscriptions.  For many of these individuals would sooner give up their Sunday Times, with its sections on travel and leisure, arts and entertainment, sports and culture, than take a stand and, horror of horrors, turn to The Wall Street Journal.

I recall the first day that I switched to the WSJ in 2003, and my friends on the train looked at me completely befuddled -- why wasn't I reading the NYT?  When I pointed out the dishonesty in the reporting (there is no attacking Paul Krugman in the New York metropolitan area, so I did not even attempt to go there), the use of words to connote opinion even in front page articles, the choice of which stories were placed front and center (the Jenin "massacre") and which were not reported at all (the thousands of Hamas rockets flying into southern Israel), I was ignored.  After Time Magazine published the September cover story entitled "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace," I hoped that I would no longer walk into a doctor's office and see the magazine sitting on the coffee table -- to no avail.

So while Democratic lawmakers abuse this tragedy, adhering to the Rahmbo manifesto of never letting a crisis go to waste, by calling for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine or introducing new legislation intended to limit free speech and make it a federal crime to use language that could be perceived as inciting violence, perhaps they should consider crafting a new law.  Democrats have recently made it clear that they do not respect the Constitution as a governing document, so they could follow the Supreme Court's example of judicial activism when it established the doctrine of separation of church and state and craft legislation requiring the separation of journalism and politics.

On second thought, I am with John Green, the father of the nine-year old girl who lost her life to a crazed gunman.  Green stated, "I think that's the price we have to pay for our freedoms."  And in the meantime, I will keep waiting for Americans to finally take a stand and stop supporting the left-wing rags that have lost their moral compass and who, through their dishonesty, fail to show respect for those freedoms.
A question that I have been asking for quite some time was brought to the fore once again with the pervasive and obnoxious liberal bias in the so-called news reporting of the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.  Why does anyone continue to purchase and read the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and other mainstream publications which have replaced accurate reporting with faux news accounts rising to the level of outright lies?  And why does anyone waste time watching "news" programs anchored and/or reported by the likes of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Christiane Amanpour, and others on MSNBC, CNN, the BBC, and the like?

Granted, the print publications to which I refer are all going bankrupt, and the cable news channels, along with their pathetic hosts, have the lowest ratings in cable television, but still -- why is there even a modicum of viewership that keeps these outlets on life support?  Clearly there are left-leaning Americans who agree with the disingenuous opinions of columnists such as Paul Krugman -- the man is in a class by himself and no doubt has a following of leftists who take comfort in reading his falsehoods so long as his assertions support their progressive ideologies.  But what will it take for the "average" American to finally reach a breaking point with mainstream media outlets and simply say, "Enough!  Report the news accurately in an unbiased fashion or I will terminate my subscription.  Fire the sneering, lying ignoramuses over at MSNBC or I will no longer turn on any television show remotely associated with it, including NBC's network programming."?

The mainstream media reached a new low with their coverage of the Tucson shooting spree by a deranged "left-wing pothead" (as one classmate described him).  It seemed that with each attempted terrorist attack on our soil by a Muslim extremist, the journalistic community's refusal to call a spade a spade and identify and report to the public the reality of a very pervasive and genuine threat to national security was a symptom of political correctness run amok.  However, the Arizona shooting proved that the real issue with news outlets is that their reporting is guided not by politically correct standards, but rather by biases so pervasive that there is no longer a moral compass involved in the reporting of world events.  Editors and producers either do not care to or are no longer able to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, victim and attacker.

And while the political rhetoric from various politicians is disappointing and vile, we have sadly come to expect partisan politics from these individuals. What the public should not be subject to, however, is political spin from purportedly unbiased media outlets.  In concluding that "sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy," Stephen Hayes pointed out:

One of the most important things journalists can do is to provide context for major events, to take a seemingly disparate set of facts and explain their meaning in a way that allows readers, viewers and listeners to understand better what has happened and perhaps even why ...

In their attempts to provide such context many journalists -- at prominent newspapers and magazines, at the networks, and on cable -- are doing more to obscure the truth than to reveal it.

Sadly, the reporting of this tragic event is only the tip of the iceberg. Media reporting of news events across the globe are no longer reliable, and the reporting of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict epitomizes this bias.  HonestReporting.com exposes lie after lie by the world's news organizations that are void of moral clarity, consistently framing the conflict as involving Israel as the attacking Goliath and the Palestinians as the weak David.  HonestReporting's affiliate, MediaCentral, is an organization that attempts to counter the public relations efforts of the Palestinians by working with Jerusalem news correspondents to bring truth to the front pages of the world's newspapers.  And while the goals of these organizations are quite noble, and they clearly are on the right side of the moral compass, AT's Leo Rennert blogs almost daily on the inaccuracies and bias in the MSM's Mideast reporting.

I am amazed at the number of individuals who continue to read the NYT, and I have concluded that it is not a lack of intellectual curiosity, but a lack of principles that causes them to continue their subscriptions.  For many of these individuals would sooner give up their Sunday Times, with its sections on travel and leisure, arts and entertainment, sports and culture, than take a stand and, horror of horrors, turn to The Wall Street Journal.

I recall the first day that I switched to the WSJ in 2003, and my friends on the train looked at me completely befuddled -- why wasn't I reading the NYT?  When I pointed out the dishonesty in the reporting (there is no attacking Paul Krugman in the New York metropolitan area, so I did not even attempt to go there), the use of words to connote opinion even in front page articles, the choice of which stories were placed front and center (the Jenin "massacre") and which were not reported at all (the thousands of Hamas rockets flying into southern Israel), I was ignored.  After Time Magazine published the September cover story entitled "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace," I hoped that I would no longer walk into a doctor's office and see the magazine sitting on the coffee table -- to no avail.

So while Democratic lawmakers abuse this tragedy, adhering to the Rahmbo manifesto of never letting a crisis go to waste, by calling for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine or introducing new legislation intended to limit free speech and make it a federal crime to use language that could be perceived as inciting violence, perhaps they should consider crafting a new law.  Democrats have recently made it clear that they do not respect the Constitution as a governing document, so they could follow the Supreme Court's example of judicial activism when it established the doctrine of separation of church and state and craft legislation requiring the separation of journalism and politics.

On second thought, I am with John Green, the father of the nine-year old girl who lost her life to a crazed gunman.  Green stated, "I think that's the price we have to pay for our freedoms."  And in the meantime, I will keep waiting for Americans to finally take a stand and stop supporting the left-wing rags that have lost their moral compass and who, through their dishonesty, fail to show respect for those freedoms.

RECENT VIDEOS