Daily newspapers subscribe to the notion of objective reporting, and newspaper editors are always eager to defend this foggy notion. Which makes it all the more curious that New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane recently asked readers whether “news reporters should challenge ‘facts’ that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.”
WTF! Brisbane, whether he knew it or not, was calling attention to the facade that the mainstream media constructed long ago to guard against the charge that their main function is to defend the status quo. In doing so, he chose a good example to illustrate what’s wrong with the mainstream mindset:
…On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.
As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same..?
Note that Brisbane quickly jumps back behind the facade, ignoring the question of whether Romney’s accusation against Obama is based on fact. He says reporters have been trained to not ask this question, even if evidence exists that could answer it. However, it’s OK for a columnist to ask and even answer the question, because columnists merely state opinions. As if opinions and facts necessarily dwell in different realms.
More here.
Brisbane’s view is as clear as his own language when he says Krugman is free,
“to call out what he thinks is a lie.”
“what he thinks is a lie”
“what he thinks”
God dammit, you slimy son of a bitch, it’s either a lie (which in this case it is) or it’s not. Journalism (and democracy I might add) is dead in the US because of weasley twat-waffle editors like Brisbane. I don’t even use the times as fire starter anymore. I can’t stand the stench the fucking rag gives off.
Last evening Real Time with Bill Maher had on as one of its guests the reactionary-right wing-Zionist David Frum. Frum posed this question,”Given the field of Republican presidential candidates; and the possibility that Obama might not be re-elected; which one of the Republican candidates would you rather have as the President for the next four years?” That question explains the inevitability of Romney as the Republican nominee. How the Republicans, and we, were maneuvered into this trap is best answered by the oligarachy (1%). Now a few words about Bill Maher. When Maher sticks to his comedic commentary on the American political and social condition he performs at the top of his game. But once he ventures into the realm of international politics his ignorance and pro-Zionist bias becomes obvious and troubling. That’s a shame for him and for his audience.
Im, since you use the expression Zionist so frequently, I want to be sure of what you are talking about. How do you personally define that term?