Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

168 Views

Recently, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell presented what he said was proof of President Donald Trump having loans cosigned by, as he put it, “Russian billionaires close to Vladimir Putin.” And how did O’Donnell prove this? A single anonymous source he claimed was close to Deutsche Bank, the bank that approved President Trump’s loans. Since his show aired, NBC came out and said they could not confirm the identity or the veracity of the claims O’Donnell made. And after a legal threat by the President, O’Donnell tweeted he made “an error in judgement.” Whoopsie!

Great journalism there, Larry. You can expect your Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting on Stories Pulled Out of the Reporter’s Ass any day now.

I know CNN is often slapped with the “Fake News” label (and deservedly so given how many stories they get wrong), but another network may take the crown before too much longer, that being MSNBC. What started out as an alternative to the aforementioned CNN has become the place for Leftists to gather, spread information, and watch like-minded talking heads bring up a laundry list of news stories designed to confirm the biases of its viewers.

As a media observer/critic/mocker, I’ve watched MSNBC’s evolution from news channel to a left-wing InfoWars without Alex Jones’ appeal. And, as you might guess, I have a few opinions on it and the various personalities who inhabit its bubble.

MSNBC

What the Left thinks it means –  one of the only true sources of hard facts and investigative reporting out there

What it really is – what would happen if CNN were run by Millennials

I’ll be the first one to admit I trust MSNBC less than I trust Nancy Pelosi’s plastic surgeon referral, but that’s not without reason. Whatever journalistic practices they had at their inception was removed and replaced with self-important Leftist figure-airheads who can best be called willing mouthpieces for the Left. Whether it’s Rachel Maddow (who I think is Chris Hayes in drag), Chris Hayes (who I think is Rachel Maddow in drag), Lawrence O’Donnell (who I think is a drag, period), or any of the other interchangeable anchors, there are two things that unite them. One, they will advance any and all Leftist viewpoints, regardless of how farfetched they may be. And, two, they suck at real news.

This is going to come as a shock to you Leftists, but some of MSNBC’s critics have an idea or two about what journalistic standards are, or were as the case may be. Take the O’Donnell bombshell mentioned above, for example. Going to press with a single source, let alone a single anonymous source, would get you busted down to reporting on zoning meetings under an editor whose goal is to report news, not rumor. Why? Because newspapers and TV stations can get sued if they get a story wrong and damage a person’s reputation. Yes, even if it’s Donald Trump’s reputation, which is damaged worse than a Ford Pinto gently tapping a wall at Chernobyl.

But that’s not what MSNBC’s editors do. Instead, they allow unfounded and poorly-sourced speculation to go to air without checking the facts first, often with hilarious unintended consequences. Remember when Rachel Maddow hyped a story she had a copy of Donald Trump’s taxes? Turns out she had a portion of the tax forms and it showed…Trump paid taxes. That bastard!

What is also showed was MSNBC wasn’t interested in finding the truth, but was interested in finding a way to get people to talk about their reporting. And after Maddow’s bombshell bombed, it was quickly “memory holed” and her credibility was untouched in Leftist circles. The same will happen with O’Donnell, and the same has happened with other MSNBC hosts like Joy Reid, Al Sharpton, and the late Ed Schultz. No matter what insanely stupid things they said or did, Leftists pretended like those were minor mistakes that didn’t reflect badly on their credibility. Of course, they don’t extend the same courtesy to anyone on the Right…

The problem Leftists face without knowing it is by relying on poorly-sourced information without doing a bit of fact checking on their own because it fits what they believe, they are becoming less informed and more vulnerable to “fake news.” And when it pertains to the President, they will jump on any accusation if it sounds plausible. Granted, the Right does this, too, so it’s not just a problem with the Left. Even so, the Right has relatively few outlets for potential misinformation when compared to the Left. It doesn’t make it right, but it does make it harder to find the truth.

Broadcasting 24/7 isn’t a right; it’s a privilege, one that comes with an awesome responsibility to not cause harm to its viewers or listeners. For the second-highest rated cable news network to be so cavalier with the truth as frequently as it does is frightening because it violates the implied contract between the maker and the consumer. We still put our trust (as misguided as that may be) in media outlets from talk radio to cable news to newspapers to give us the facts. Yet, as recent polling data shows, the public’s trust in the media is lower than an earthworm’s belt buckle. That hasn’t come because the media have done their jobs. It’s because they haven’t, and MSNBC is a prime example of what happens when a member of the media get something wrong.

I don’t want MSNBC taken off the air, and the same goes with CNN, Fox News, and other news media. (Although, I do think Hallmark Movie Channel needs to seriously cut back on the Christmas movies. At this rate they could run them every day of the year and never repeat one.) What I want is for the media to get back into the news business. And, yes, that requires a bit more effort than asking a Republican when he stopped beating his wife while asking a known Democrat wife-beater what his favorite color is. It means asking tough questions on both sides, not dismissing one side of an issue because it doesn’t line up with yours, and above all else have a poker face better than the ones on Mount Rushmore. We shouldn’t put up with alleged news anchors rolling their eyes, literally or figuratively, when a guest says something that doesn’t square up with the narrative. As we’ve seen, the narrative can be wrong, and when coupled with ideological fervor that makes the Spanish Inquisition look indecisive create an uninformed populous ready to pick up torches and pitchforks at a moment’s notice because Orange Man Bad.

But you do you, MSNBC.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

169 Views

The recent Antifa attack on Andy Ngo has opened up a number of interesting questions. Is violence necessary to bring about political and societal change? What responsibility do the police have to protect people? How many Antifa members still live at home with Mommy and Daddy?

One of the more intriguing questions is what constitutes a journalist. Leftists can’t seem to define what a journalist is in this case, but they know for sure Ngo isn’t one of them. According to them, he’s a hack, little more than a provocateur for a radical alt-right website who defends Nazis and President Donald Trump. Instead, they think people like Jim Acosta are “real journalists” when he’s little more than a provocateur with a CNN press pass. (Actually, I take that back. It’s far too insulting to compare Ngo to Acosta, so I apologize…to Andy Ngo.)

So, let’s take a moment to delve into what a journalist is…and isn’t.

journalist

What the Left thinks it means – a hard working person charged with the task of revealing the truth

What it really means – an overworked individual charged with the task of revealing the truth, even if his or her colleagues don’t agree with it

As a former/recovering journalism student, I have my own perspective on what constitutes a journalist today, but I will save my thoughts on the term for later. Right now, I want to get at the Left’s concept of journalists and journalism in general. And it starts with a favorite phrase of theirs: “Facts have a liberal bias.” The Left believes they always have the high ground when it comes to factual discussions, so naturally they treat any reporting that supports their ideology or personal biases as the truth. Granted, we all do that to some extent, but this is confirmation bias on steroids.

Remember that old chestnut that 97% of climate scientists agree with the hypothesis of manmade climate change? The Left throws that out like candy at a parade run by the National Tooth Decay Association. Yet, when you dig a little deeper, you find the 97% is just a little overinflated by…oh, I don’t know…a factor of two. Going from almost certainty to a coin flip should take the steam out of the argument, but it doesn’t to the Left. They repeat the debunked 97% claim as though they get paid by George Soros to do it. Then again…

Anyway, the point is the Left is perfectly willing to ignore, cherry-pick, or out and out deny facts if they clash with their ideology and talking points. Apply that same logic to the news, and you have the Left’s approach to journalists and journalism. That’s why you’ll hear Leftists continue to bow at the altar of Dan Rather as a credible reporter/commentator in spite of the fact he and some of his CBS cohorts got fired for…making up a news story out of whole cloth in an attempt to discredit and possibly defeat George W. Bush in 2004. It’s also why the Left champions the cause of people like Jim Acosta, who is little more than a pimple on the late Edward R. Murrow’s ass.

By now, you might have noticed a trend. Leftists’ positive examples of journalists tend to be…Leftists themselves! Why, that’s…completely expected! In reality, Leftist news sources merely reinforce what Leftists already believe because they never take off their ideological blinders to see else is going on out there. They still can’t figure out how Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton even though the facts are right in front of them.

Ahhhhhh! I think we’re onto something here! To borrow a line from Ben Shapiro, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” The Left thrives on emotions, and their truths are deeply rooted in what they feel to be true. Hmmm…I swear I’ve heard that articulated by a Leftist darling of recent memory, but I can’t remember exactly who…oh well. Good thing she’s not a Congresswoman who represents a district in New York City or anything because that would be really embarrassing, right?

Speaking of embarrassing, the modern journalist falls into one of two categories: Leftist stenographer, or relatively unknown person who has a nose for digging up truths, no matter where they are. While the former get awards and recognition for merely repeating the tired refrain Orange Man Bad, the latter rarely get noticed until they find themselves within the stories they cover, as Andy Ngo did. Then, the “real journalists” come out in droves to mock and/or discredit the real journalists for daring to do what they do (at least in their opinion). In truth, the latter group is doing what the former group used to do and fail to do now.

It’s been said there is more real journalism going on in cyberspace than there is in editorial boardrooms across the country, and I tend to agree. What passes for journalism today wouldn’t have gotten past my Journalism 101 professor’s desk without being returned with a failing grade and a request to rethink journalism as a profession. Regardless of who is putting in the legwork and where their work is getting published, the derided reporters are the ones carrying the torch for the profession, not the perfectly quaffed talking airhead who makes Ron Burgundy look like a MENSA candidate. For the Jim Acostas of the world, hitting a beat means having to walk to get to the open bar at a party. And for those of the current journalism field offended that I am taking their jobs less seriously than a paper on atomic energy written by Cardi B, suck it up because you have been doing the journalism profession a grave disservice for decades, and to claim you’re on par with firefighters and are in danger because President Trump says mean things about you is the height of narcissistic cluelessness. Andy Ngo had to go to the hospital because he dared do what you Brooks Brothers-clad bores wouldn’t do: report on actual news as it was happening at risk to his own life to cover Antifa after they targeted him.

You know, I really need to learn how to open up a bit more on certain subjects. I hold back too much.

Seriously, I don’t envy those who hold true to the principles of good journalism. Not only do you have the usual grind of fleshing out stories, building trust in sources, and finding good leads and story ideas, but you have people who wouldn’t last 10 minutes on a beat telling you that your work isn’t journalism because they say so. And those of you who are out there in the field risking life and limb on top of all that? Nothing but respect.

The sign of a real journalist is not what they report and how it’s reported, but what they don’t report or deem as newsworthy. The fact the “real journalists” haven’t bothered to do even a little research on Antifa being violent Leftist thugs should tell you loads about how disconnected they are to reality.

And that should tell you everything you need to know about their judgment on what real journalism is and who is doing it.

State of The Onion, or Journalism Dies in Dumbness

102 Views

journalism as it’s being practiced today. There are some who excel at their profession, but there are far more who stink up the profession. (I’m looking right at you, Jim Acosta.)

Since we’re getting close to the State of the Union Address, I figured I’d give my own twist on it focusing on the state of journalism today.

Hey, media knuckleheads. I’ll bet you weren’t expecting someone to insult you right out of the gate like that because you’re important, but let me tell you something. You’re not as important as you think you are. If anything, you’re becoming more and more irrelevant by the day.

And it’s not a new phenomenon, either. For eight years, you rolled over like faithful lapdogs at everything President Barack Obama said or did and held him about as accountable as Massachusetts held Ted Kennedy. Now that there is a Republican in the Oval Office, and one that you find particularly nasty, you act like the watchdogs and guard dogs you claim you’ve always been. That notion may fly with your fellow talking airheads, but not with me. You have let your personal opinions poison your profession. Well, that, and you’re pretty much dunderheads.

By this time, you’re probably ready to write scathing responses to my statements. Good. It will give me much to laugh at while you fume. As brave as you think you are, it takes no courage to stand up against someone you hate. It takes courage to stand up against someone you love. And, yes, I know you’re fond of saying you don’t take sides, but you do.

Just take at look at how you’ve covered the border crisis. If your reporting were more ham-fisted, it wouldn’t be kosher or halal. And before you get indignant, let me point out you were caught trying to pass off photos from 2014 as photos from last year. And who was President in 2014? Why, it was Barack Obama! You know, the President you fawned over like women at an Ed Sherran concert while he was implicated in crimes and general incompetence that you should have reported? Please, go on about how you’re the real deal when you spent time covering Obama’s NCAA Final Four picks.

That’s one of the reasons people don’t trust you to report the facts: you’re dishonest. If you tell lies enough times and get caught, people stop listening to you. And, news flash kids, fewer and fewer people are listening to you for that very reason. Granted, some might stop listening because you’re not telling them the truth they want to hear, but most people stopped listening when they realized you lied about something meaningful to them. When the people charged with telling the truth get caught in lie after lie over trivial matters, they tend not to listen when the real news hits.

I know why you lie, and it’s not hard to figure out. You let your desire for fame, ideological purity, and egos get in the way of your job. You’re basically like Congress, only you have to pay your own bar tabs. You think you’re one story away from being the next Woodward and Bernstein, but you’re closer to Joanne and Leonard than you are to Bob and Carl. A huge part of that is you went into journalism for the wrong reasons. Journalists are not supposed to be the centers of attention on a story, or ever for that matter, because they are supposed to work behind the scenes to keep those in power in check. When you trade in the role of watchmen for that of media darling, it gets harder to keep the powerful on their toes because you think you become one of them. They will let you into their circles and talk you up, but only so long as they think you’re useful to them in some capacity. And no matter what kind of crap they do to you, you will go along with it because you like being noticed. But know this. They won’t lift a finger to help you if you can no longer help them. To them, you are just the hired help.

So, why keep doing it? Do you like to be treated worse than Louis Farrakhan at a bar mitzvah? Are you still struggling with self-image issues from high school because you weren’t one of the “cool kids”? Or are you so delusional as to think you can be the one to become one of the elite? Whatever it is, it’s not working. You are writing checks your egos can’t cash, and justifiably so. Whatever worth you once had is waning, and you’re stuck looking for answers.

Here’s a helpful hint from your ole pal Thomas. Instead of chasing celebrity, chase leads. And, no, whatever Beyonce and Jay Z are doing/wearing/hawking. Do some real reporting for a change. If you think there’s something to the Trump Russia story, do some digging and figure out where the bodies are buried, regardless of whether you agree with the outcome. There are some things more important than being allowed into exclusive parties, and one of those things is the truth. The reason Donald Trump keeps outmaneuvering your best efforts to bring him down is because he’s spent enough time around you to know your habits. Break those habits and hit the beat for a change, and you’ll find out more information about him and his political fans than you ever could by attending elegant dinner parties with celebrities and collectively looking your nose down at the rest of the country, as you are wont to do.

And as far as your haughty attitudes, dump those, too. You’re not better than us because of where you work or who you cover. You’re basically history’s steno pool, and you’re not even doing that right (which is ironic given how concerned you are about being on the “right side of history.”) Try being on the right side of the factual divide for a change. Write stories with actual facts and actual sources, not the scuttlebutt you might hear around the office water cooler, and people might start trusting you again.

Something else that will go a long way with people is to honestly apologize for your screw-ups and show them you’re working to fix them. And, yes, that means being willing to show multiple sides of an issue. Even if you think that side is bat-crap crazy, you owe it to your audience to show us that side and let us make up our own minds. We may not have gone to Columbia Journalism School, but we’re not dullards. Okay, some of us may be dullards, but that doesn’t remove your responsibility to deal straight with us as people, not as mindless sheep.

In closing, the state of journalism today is sorrier than a televangelist getting caught using church funds to get hookers and blow. The only way to fix that is to get better at what you do, and that starts with you. You tell us you’re only reporting on what we want, but that’s not exactly true. You’re reporting what you want us to think we want. That power corrupts absolutely, and you’ve abused that power like Ike abused Tina. Don’t shape our opinions for us; let us shape them.

And put a muzzle on Acosta, would ya?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

98 Views

When I was growing up, there were very few journalists and reporters who became well-known, and most of the ones I knew tended to be local. With the advent of cable news, the Internet, and social media, that has changed. People may not be able to name the three branches of government, but they might be able to name at least one journalist, and that one would probably be Jim Acosta.

Jim Acosta is CNN’s White House correspondent, and he has made a name for himself by being the proverbial thorn in President Donald Trump’s side. Lately, he has been embroiled in a controversy following a press conference where it appears he touched a female staffer doing possibly the most dangerous job in America: getting a microphone from Jim Acosta. Because of this, Acosta’s press pass was revoked, leading to CNN suing the President and others on the basis the White House violated the First Amendment right to a free press.

Why has so much attention been brought on one man? Glad you asked, or else this week’s Leftist Lexicon was going to be a few words short.

Jim Acosta

What the Left thinks it means – a hard-nosed reporter holding the Trump White House to task and risking life and limb to get us the truth

What it really means – a loudmouth with a Napoleon complex to rival the original Napoleon

When I went to journalism school, one of the first lessons that got pounded into me was a reporter was never to become the story because it distracts people from the actual news. I can’t say if Jim Acosta learned that lesson, but judging from his actions I guess he must have been sick that day…each time it was brought up in a class.

Acosta’s contempt for the Trump Administration has seen itself play out in numerous conflicts, which has made him a Leftist superstar. To hear Leftists talk, Acosta is the only one who asks really tough questions and hounds the Administration for answers. Of course, to hear Leftists talk, socialism hasn’t ever really been tried, so we don’t know whether it will suck out loud. (Spoiler Alert: it will suck out loud.)

As a recovering Leftist and former journalism student (which, these days is pretty much one in the same), I don’t see what Acosta is doing as journalism so much as it is agitprop. Agitprop is language crafted with the intent of enflaming the public to advocate for a certain idea or position, and it can be very effective. Remember the alar scare of the 1980s? That was agitprop in its purest form. And it turned out to be complete bunk after cooler heads did their homework and figured out what alar was.

That brings us back to Mr. Acosta. I know the press is supposed to be like attack dogs when it comes to reporting on the government, but there is still a fine line between being an attack dog and being an overbearing dick. And Acosta flamenco dances on that line consistently. His behavior is, at best, childlike, which oddly enough corresponds to his Lollypop Kid stature.

Sorry, Jim. That was a low blow. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist!)

And that’s part of the problem I have with Acosta. He just doesn’t look like one. He looks like a little brother who wants to hang out with his older brothers to be one of the guys, but he winds up being more annoying than cool. I know this because I am the youngest of three boys and I did exactly what Acosta seems to be doing while pretending to be a journalist. And he’s just as annoying as I was, or still am depending on who you ask.

The larger part of the problem I have with Acosta, though, is his disrespect for his profession and, more specifically, his colleagues. Yes, I know he works for CNN, which gives him as much gravitas as, well, anyone else who works at CNN. But Acosta seems to think it gives him the moral authority to run the White House Press Corps from the floor. That, in turn, gives him the moral authority to hog the spotlight, at least in his mind. The problem is…there are plenty of other reporters in the room when Acosta goes all Journo-Spartacus on the President, and I’m sure they would like to get their questions answered. But for the grace of the man who thinks he’s the God of Journalism go they, unfortunately, and he rarely if ever gives them a chance to go.

As far as CNN’s lawsuit against President Trump and members of his Administration is concerned, for me it’s a non-starter. The First Amendment will not be in jeopardy if Jim Acosta doesn’t get this press pass back because CNN can always find someone else to take his place. Yes, Jimmy, you are expendable.  If you are too much of a headache to deal with (and from accounts I’ve seen from other journalists, he is), you can and will be replaced by someone else. Just ask Keith Olbermann about that. The First Amendment doesn’t protect you from getting the hook because you’re an asshole, nor is it threatened if you are not allowed to be one during press conferences.

Yes, I know Fox News filed an amicus brief defending CNN and Acosta, but they are looking out for their business interests going forward. From 2009 to 2016, they were on the business end of a lot of Presidential harassment, so it makes sense for them to take up for their peer. But, really? Is Jim Acosta’s behavior the hill you want to die on? His presence in the room makes a mockery of the profession I learned and still respect on some level. And, news flash Fox News Kiddies, the next Democrat President will be as much, if not more, of a ballbuster than President Barack Obama was because Leftists don’t believe in the two-way street unless it benefits them directly.

And Jimbo, if you’re reading this, understand your bravado and behavior doesn’t make you the next Edward R. Murrow or Sam Donaldson. Yes, they asked tough questions and were adversarial when needed, but they understood where the line between adversarial and assholishness was. You clearly don’t, and it’s hurting your credibility, CNN’s credibility (or what’s left of it), and the credibility of the other reporters in that room. You are not a diva, but a divot.

To the Leftists out there who worship at the altar of Acosta, you need a better role model for journalists. Start with Murrow and see how a real newsman did it. Jim Acosta falls short every time.

Sorry, Jimbo. Had to throw in one last short joke, buddy.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

125 Views

It’s been a bad stretch for CNN over the past couple of years. Once they were the beacon of news reporting, able to get the hottest stories before anyone else and bring it to their audience with solid facts and analysis. Today they are getting beaten in the ratings by The Food Network. How did CNN go from the #1 news source in the world to making The Weekly Reader look like they have gravitas by comparison?

Do what Leftists do: blame Donald Trump.

Although Trump’s use of “fake news” to describe CNN has a lot to do with it, there are several other factors that play just as important a role. I hope you brought your hazmat suits because this one’s gonna be toxic!

CNN

What the Left thinks it means – a news network targeted by conservatives and Trump supporters for telling the truth about Donald Trump

What it really means – a news network that has lost its way in the pursuit of being liked by Leftists

Although CNN has been around for a couple of decades, people really took notice of it during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. They had reporters on the ground (including one Wolf Blitzer whom we’ll be talking about here in a bit) giving up-to-date reports on the fighting in Kuwait and how our military forces fared against Iraq’s military. That impressed a lot of viewers, myself included, and it made me proud to be learning the journalism trade at the time.

Shortly after the Gulf War ended, CNN went back to reporting the news, and giving airtime to a certain Democrat President who wowed audiences, ate Big Macs while being seen jogging almost every day, and seemed to echo what the media wanted to hear. Yes, CNN had a serious man-crush on Bill Clinton, and that crush grew into another arm of the White House Press Office. Slick Willie could do no wrong in their eyes.

After Clinton left office, CNN remembered “Hey, aren’t we supposed to be watchdogs against the government?” and went back to reporting hard news. When Barack Obama was elected, those watchdogs went back to being lapdogs and had a new man-crush to impress. Now, we’re back to CNN being watchdogs, albeit deaf, dumb, and blind ones. Although I do hear they sure play a mean pinball.

Today’s CNN bears little resemblance to the CNN of the early 1990s. Here are a few of the current “stars” on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer – a reporter who cut his teeth in Iraq, but got stomped like a new kid in a rough school during an episode of Celebrity Jeopardy where the questions were dumbed down

Jim Acosta – a Sam Donaldson clone washed in hot water, always shouts questions at the President even when told not to, gets threatened by people chanting “CNN sucks” and flipping him the bird

Brian Stelter – host of a program “Reliable Sources” but gets so many facts wrong people are thinking his show is ironically named

April Ryan – a White House correspondent whose questions rival those of Jim Acosta at asking ideological “gotcha” questions based more on fee-fees than facts

Chris Cillizza – a political editor who is concerned about the incivility against the media in this country while unwittingly contributing to it

And there are many, many more. Right now the only passible journalist at CNN is Jake Tapper, and he’s 50-50 at best. Still he has a higher batting average than the bulk of CNN reporters and newsreaders.

Put simply, if CNN were a theatrical production, it would definitely be a Greek tragedy because they keep harming themselves unintentionally while in the pursuit of looking like they’re on top of their reporting game. And they have their enablers…I mean fans who will defend them against any insults slung their way by Trump supporters and other people who don’t think CNN’s doing a good job.

Guess which group I’m in.

And before the Left goes to their default excuse, my disdain for CNN has nothing to do with Trump. It does, however, have everything to do with what I consider to be professional malpractice. I studied journalism in college, so I know how the way reporters are supposed to do their jobs. What we’re seeing out of CNN in 2018 is The Resistance with press passes. Oh, they’ll claim to be doing their jobs and wrap themselves in the First Amendment, but they don’t realize when people tell them CNN sucks or flips them the bird, those people are exercising their First Amendment rights. The same Amendment that gives CNN the right to report on the news of the day gives people the right to react to that reporting, or in many cases the lack thereof.

Just look at how Jim Acosta and his cohorts have reacted to a recent Trump rally in Florida where people were very expressive with their disdain for CNN. They and many others painted those Trump supporters as a hate mob fueled by the President saying CNN was the enemy of the people. Well, here’s a thought: maybe you’ve earned that designation by playing favorites instead of playing fair. There are limits to this, though. The minute you physically attack a CNN reporter, you have taken this disdain too far. Flipping the bird to Jim Acosta isn’t nice, but it’s not violence, nor does it provoke violence (except possibly for the target).

Let me give CNN a piece of free advice. Get back into the reporting business. It’s Journalism 101: the reporter should never be the story. Remember Dan Rather? Although he’s a darling of the Left now, he let himself become the story when he tried to make George W. Bush look like a draft dodger who went AWOL. The problem? The facts didn’t match up with the reporting and Rather had to resign and be forever tainted as a liar. Apparently, lying about a Republican is a resume enhancer to the Left.

Instead of learning from Rather’s mistake, CNN is doubling down and making themselves look foolish in the process. (Which I’m perfectly fine with, by the way.) But if CNN wants to be taken seriously as a news network in the future, it needs to dump the Rather reporting method and go back to what got them to being a respected news organization in the first place.

If not, expect reruns of infomercials to beat CNN in the ratings.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

81 Views

We are living in a new golden age of journalism!

At least, that’s what the media want you to think. With Donald Trump’s Presidency in full swing, the media who fawned over Obama more than young girls fawned over One Direction are now back in full watchdog mode, tracking down every detail of any story that might put the President in a bad light. With the New York Times and Washington Post playing a game of Liar’s Poker over the number of anonymous sources they can put into a story, it might be time for us to take a closer look at journalism.

journalism

What the Left believes it means – the reporting of indisputable facts

What it really means – the reporting of thoughts, feelings, and agendas where the facts may be sketchy

As you might have guessed, my opinion of today’s journalists is lower than a snake’s belt buckle. That’s not without cause, however. In my younger days, I studied journalism in college. Everything was going along great (especially when it comes to racking up student loan debt) until I took a class where the final project was to analyze the media coverage of an event and write a report on it. Since it was still fresh in my mind, I chose the Rodney King beating. That one project changed my mind about the journalism profession because I saw how the media manipulated the footage and how they reported the incident to create a narrative. I completed my degree and swore never to go into the journalism profession.

As disheartening as that was, watching the profession I once loved go into being the steno pool of the DNC was worse, but it made me aware of the little things they do to nudge news consumers in a certain direction, as well as the overt things they do to shape opinion. Since my college days, this trend has only gotten worse.

Today’s journalists are all gunning to be the next Woodward and Bernstein (if they even know who they were in the first place), and with news cycles shrinking to a period that is somewhere between a New York minute and the blink of an eye, the drive to be first with a story is greater than ever. And with attention spans shrinking in line with the news cycle, the drive to grab attention with a story is greater than ever. Put those two elements together and you have the current state of journalism: fast and sloppy.

But to hear the Left tell the story, today’s journalists are real heroes worthy of praise. Some have gone so far as to say they’re superheroes on par with firefighters. Yeah, but I wouldn’t want to see a reporter from the New York Times try to put out a tire fire. In fact, given the current ownership, they might try to buy it and put it on the editorial staff (or endorse it for President…oh, wait, they already endorsed Hillary Clinton. Nevermind!)

The image of the heroic reporter is a nice fantasy, but the reality is most reporters in the mainstream media are merely PR agents for a person, ideology, or cause, and actual reporting is rarer than the way Dracula likes his steaks. Anymore, bloggers and vloggers are doing the work reporters used to do, which has the mainstream journalists up in arms. I mean, how dare they actually dig into stories instead of letting the trained professionals determine what stories are important? After all, they went to school to learn how to ignore important stories that don’t follow their ideological mindset!

The thing is we’re seeing people like you and me looking into stories the big guys won’t touch or poking holes in the stories they do touch. In that way, journalism is experiencing a new golden age because it’s no longer being done by a select few, and it’s being done better than the professionals are doing it. Maybe that’s why the professionals feel they can dismiss bloggers and vloggers; they’re threatened by the new kids on the block.

Of course, it doesn’t help matters when the professionals play more favorites than a wedding DJ while simultaneously pretending they don’t. The mainstream media have become more lapdogs than attack dogs, and they don’t see a problem with that as long as their ox doesn’t get gored in the process. The funny thing is bloggers and vloggers wouldn’t have so much sway over people if the mainstream media actually practiced their trade the way it should be: with balance for all and malice towards none.

Until the media start going old school with journalism, any claims of a new golden age are only going to find pyrite.

The Death of Journalism

129 Views

There has been a lot of talk in media circles lately about President Donald Trump’s comments about the mainstream media. To put it mildly, he ripped them a new asshole. As a result, the media have responded by saying journalism is being threatened.

Yeah. As someone who has studied journalism for decades, I call bullshit. Donald Trump isn’t a threat to journalism; so-called journalists have been.

At one time, journalists could be counted on to report the facts without personal biases. Now, the journalism profession is filled with political hacks advocating for a cause or an ideology with little regard for facts. They may not know or want to admit it, but there is a reason Trump called out “fake news” so many times during the campaign. And I’ll give you media types a hint.

It’s because you’ve engaged in pushing false narratives, knowingly or unknowingly.

For the past 8 years, you were more concerned about kissing up to Barack Obama than you were pursuing a litany of stories that could have and should have been reported. And I’m not just talking about high profile ones like Benghazi or Fast and Furious, either. I’m talking about the little deeds that deserved attention, like the illegal firing of an Inspector General without Congressional consultation, let alone approval. Don’t remember that? Let me tell you who does: former Inspector General Gerald Walpin, the guy Obama fired.

The IRS targeting conservative groups? Another story that you guys missed and/or misreported.

The targeting of James Rosen and Sharyl Attiksson, two people in your profession? Ignored.

The sexual assault of Lara Logan, another colleague of yours, by radical Muslim males? Little to no reporting done.

But you’ll devote column inches and airtime to investigating Sarah Palin’s daughter’s ex-fiance’s cousin’s uncle’s college roommate’s pet groomer’s neighbor’s lawn care guy just to dig up a little dirt?

With journalistic standards based solely on ideological grounds, the heart and soul of the profession have been ripped out, stomped on, pissed on, burnt, pissed on again, and used for compost. And that’s if the profession is into organic farming.

Journalists have the power to shape opinion with how stories are presented. A turn of a phrase, the use of a particular descriptor, how people are presented, all of these and other tricks of the trade can turn a renowned professor of history into a woman-hating monster who would rape a woman at the drop of a hat. And believe me, it’s happened.

But to blame Donald Trump for the well-deserved assault on journalists is disingenuous at best, delusional at worst. The journalism profession is dying the death of a thousand paper cuts, and the journalists worrying about the way Trump is treating them still aren’t getting how they are responsible. Trump may be an easy target for their ire, but a little self-reflection is long overdue for them to see why they’re less trusted than a used car salesman working straight commission.