Username or Email
vet66: The recent article about the Boston bomber Zhokar Tsarnaev by Rolling Stone is indicative of the liberal and tasteless slant put forth by the liberal media. It is insensitive to the pain he caused to innocent bystanders and athletes at a signature U.S. event. Although they tried to portray him as the face of evil with his cute curls and fetching half smile they failed to capture the inner hollowness of his humanity. Of course, this is a self portrait by Rolling Stone of their own moral and ethical failure choosing cheap thrills instead of serious reporting. Journalism today has become the tool of socialist and progressive ideology without shame. The Zimmerman incident, like the Rolling Stone bomber article is a failure of the 4th estate's job to be the 4th branch of government not a 5th column supporting the executive branch's foray into socialism and big government. The truth they should be reporting was not birthed by Alinsky's Rules for Radicals but the Constitution as written by our forefathers who, despite their differences, risked hanging for their beliefs. I would not expect that sort of commitment from today's ideological, establishment water carriers masquerading as journalists.
Thursday, July 18, 2013, 1:40 pm
John Flanagan: Excellent points and an interesting perpectiveof. Some in your profession would agree, while others thrive on the idea of the notoriety of the scoop, the allegations, confirmed or not, and the raw emotions stirred by news reporting. Some journalists are so partisan in their political views that it bleeds into their reporting and analysis. Others are locked into a social worldview, influenced by progressive ideas and narratives, and cannot think critically or objectively. This is why many news stations seem to report the same faulty information, confirming their own story line and then dispense it to the American people as settled facts. I studied journalism in college as part of my English major, only 3 credits. Some of us in the class struggled with the idea of that lead paragraph and the idea of hooking the reader. Some of us who wanted an "objective" article were told we must "slant" it to reinforce a particular point of view. Since our professor was an unapologetic liberal and anti-establishment academic, those of us who were young but still social conservatives balked. In our class there were long haired hippie types, some feminists, and a few students who were indifferent....after all it was just a 3 credit elective course. To be honest, many journalists of those days in the 1960's were openly declaring and affirming their subjectivity, some stating that their passions and existential consciousness prevented them from even attempting to write objectively. When one looks at the history of American journalism, going back to the Revolution, it was no different. Pamphlets and newspapers were abundant, and small presses could be compared to today's non-professional Internet commentator. The news media of early America, going forward to today, scathed politicians while praising others, printed falsehoods, changed elections by accenting real or imagined scandals, inflamed passions, and today......we should expect nothing less. The bright star remains that there are still some good and objective reporters around, and we need to look for them and not be gullible about the news we read.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013, 8:39 am
Signing in from multiple locations may be the cause.