Posted on 02/27/2019 8:44:42 AM PST by centurion316
I saw that watershed firsthand as a journalism student beginning in 1970. There was a sea change in people entering the field after 1973 but they not only wanted to change the world, they wanted to be celebrities in their own right like Bernstein and Woodward. What we see now, thanks to Watergate and the 24-hour news cycle, is a vicious “look at me” campaign which has largely superseded the change-the-world attitude.
Watergate and coverage of the Vietnam war destroyed my belief in journalism. The worst part was that the bias was so clearly anti-American.
“I’ll agree they sure did get quite an ego rush from being able to end a war”
They didn’t end the war. The fact is, they prolonged it.
Ms. Logan need only speak with Sharyl Atkisson and Cal Thomas about what the mainstream news does to anyone who gets red-billed and realizes that it is all a liberal scam. They are only interested in propaganda not truth. They are only interested in getting Democrats elected by any means necessary.
I’m glad you’ve figured this out but it’s not going to change.
Journalists are destroying peoples faith in journalism.
And to this very day, some 45 years later, we STILL have self-congratulating movies and self-congratulating look backs at Watergate and every activist journalist who abandoned ethics and made it their mission to bring down a president. At the time, Americans were too naïve to understand or see what these political hack journalists were doing. And then we had Bill and Hillary Clinton and the "journalists" suddenly lost their curiosity. Of course Obama and Hillary were the coup leaders to which journalist again, turned a blind eye.
There is no way these people are journalists - they are partisan activist hacks and the jig is up, everyone knows this. All the old people who continue to sit in front of their TV watching the nightly network news and believe it as gospel are dying out now. Newspapers are dead.
You are correct. There just aren’t many “Journalists” around any longer. For the most part the so-called journalists are simply shills for a particular political agenda, mostly the leftist agenda.
What passes for reporting on nearly all cable and broadcast news shows is actually GOSSIP. You get maybe 5 minutes per hour of selected headlines, weather and sports, with all of the rest of every show being total gossip by so-called experts and opinion mongers.
Logan has over the years proven more outspoken about the subjects she covers than some other journalists might be. In 2012, a month before her “60 Minutes” report on Benghazi aired, she gave a speech suggesting actions the U.S. should take in response to the attack on the Benghazi compound. Those remarks came under fire late from her former employer.“From a CBS News standards perspective, there is a conflict in taking a public position on the government’s handling of Benghazi and Al Qaeda, while continuing to report on the story,” a review of the “60 Minutes” segment found.
Yet, other "journalists" do this all the time, even on CBS. I suppose the difference is whose side the "journalist" decides to takes.
I thought that Lara’s tenure at CBS was threatened because of her insistence on facts vice the desired political stance. Once she started making common sense observations based on hard discovered facts, she was doomed at CBS.
Me or her?
Christopher Hitchens (no conservative) nailed it with his book "Nobody Left To Lie To" in which Clinton was still a candidate in 1992. If you'll recall, the Gennifer Flowers tapes came out where he told Flowers that he thought Mario Cuomo was a mafioso. Clinton defenders insisted that this was not Billy Boy but an imposter and meanwhile Clinton sent his apology to Cuomo. Hitchens tried to ask Clinton why he should apologize if he also claimed that the tapes were fake. The rest of the gathered media shushed and shamed him as if that was a question that shouldn't dare be asked. That's when Hitchens realized Clinton was the media's candidate and he had violated their "rules".
You did a good job in searching through the article and finding the best parts. Thank you.
Thanks, Keeping an extract to 300 words or less is sometimes difficult.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)Since the advent of the wire services before the Civil War, people of the trade of journalism have been meeting together, virtually, on a continual basis. That had to produce “a conspiracy against the public” sooner or later. It was inevitable.The conspiracy inevitably came in the form of a self-serving propaganda campaign by journalists for journalists. That is what is used to delegitimize criticism of the “objectivity” of any journalist in good standing. Violate the code and you are “not a journalist, not objective.”
Being negative about society sells newspapers. Claiming that that negativity towards society is objective is cynicism towards society. Being cynical towards society makes you naive about government. Makes you, that is, a “liberal.”
"We dismiss conservative media outlets for their political bias, but we don’t hold liberal media outlets to the same standard. Many journalists who claim to be objective have publicly taken a political stand, saying the urgency of the time justifies a departure from journalistic standards. Yet they ask us to believe their reporting is still unbiased?
It is not hard to find examples of how far we have strayed from reporting standards in the Trump era. A simple example is Time Magazine falsely reporting on President Donald J. Trump’s first day in office, stating that he’d removed a statue of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. The news went viral. But the writer did not follow the most basic rule of journalism — pick up the phone and ask the White House if it was really gone, and why? The writer late wrote a correction on his Twitter account, stating “The MLK bust is still in the Oval Office. It was obscured by an agent and door.”
Did this feed a racist narrative Time and the reporter wanted to advance and believe, so no fact check was needed? I don’t know — did it? We all make honest mistakes and I am no exception. I’ve made a few of my own in three decades of reporting. But consider this mistake alongside 70 other examples on a running list compiled by independent investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who is one of the bravest journalists I know. Is it a mistake when media outlets keep beating the same drum over and over? With our credibility as low as it is today, it’s a question worth asking."
My comment: When there are 70+ "mistakes" all going the same direction (liberal), it becomes obvious that this is a well-established, deliberate pattern, not just a series of random "mistakes."
“It all meant to depress voter turnout so the political elite can govern without interference from the serfs.”
The arrow you shot hit the heart of the matter. Rush constantly reminds his listeners that the purpose of the propaganda press is to depress resistance.
“What did I miss here?”
Pretty much everything.
For one thing, Johnson did not withdraw. Nixon did, years later.
For another, Nixon was elected on the promise not to “cut and run,” leaving our allies to be murdered. Nixon promised, and delivered, peace with honor.
It is simplistic to say that “support for the war collapsed.” The majority of Americans still opposed abandoning South Vietnam to a bloodbath, as late as Nixon’s second term. Sure, Walter Crankcase deceived a lot of people, but not a majority.
The communists were ready to quit as early as 1968, after the Tet betrayal failed. It was the traitor Cronkite and the pro-communist movement in America that gave them the optimism to continue. It is the plain truth to say that the leftwads prolonged the war, because but for them, the war would have been over in 1968.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.