Young activists’ reporters brainwashed by misinformation in college have largely taken over the New York Times and steered into a realm that has ceased being news.
But if anyone on the paper dare raises a stink, they suddenly become public enemy number one.
As was the case the Atlantic hit piece a few months ago, journalists protect journalists regardless of what side of the political spectrum they happen to be on.
And so, we get a historically inaccurate piece of crap being pushed on the unsuspecting public as a reflection of history, and when a reporter challenges that stance, all hell breaks loose.
Unfortunately this is an example of misinformation on every level of journalism and is plaguing a number of papers, including the Wall Street Journal where older seasoned reporters make up the opinion page while questionable young Turks try to turn it into leftist propaganda rag.
All this comes at an unfortunate time in history when we need journalism to be journalism, but we get a media determined to take a side.
Part of the problem is how we breed journalists these days, forcing them to come up through a university system which leans so far left that it makes the leaning tower of Pisa look straight.
A journalist today must suffer through the politically correct educational system in order to arrive at a news beat – and few of these graduates manage that passage unscathed by some professor’s misguided vision of the world.
This has translated into a strange new hybrid of news and opinion and reporters who can’t tell the difference, and worse, don’t care.
The 1619 Project is a perfect example of misinformation that is based on a particular biased – like Climate Change science – leaves out any theory that does not support the conclusion the author starts with.
One brave reporter working (for the moment) for the Times took this abortion of history to task and is now the subject of sharp rebuke by colleagues who claim that a journalist should not take this stuff public – even when the end result may result in some measure of honest journalism.
The Atlantic hit piece suffered the same problem, when journalist after journalist, refused to refute the claims even though it was clear from the start that there was very little if any validity to the story.
Even a Fox News reporter would not, could not, dared not, challenge another reporter or get dumped out of the club.
We talk a lot about a blue wall, meaning cops, or the medical wall, meaning doctors, but we rarely talk about the ink wall of journalists that defend other bad journalists even knowing that the attack on them is right. We suddenly see any attack on places like The Washington Post or The New York Times as an erosion of the First Amendment when, in fact, we refuse to police ourselves, refuse to correct journalists and their institutions when they step over the line.
The 1619 Project is not only bad history, or even bad journalism, it is symbolic of a culture of bad journalism and the inability of journalism to clean out the crap from our own house.
No comments:
Post a Comment