the big lie "the media is liberal"

[nw30]

American journalism is collapsing before our eyes

By Michael Goodwin
August 21, 2016

Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand-in-hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang, suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil-rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like, began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way, and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other ­“abnormal.”

Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.”

Also, you don’t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the Times’ Web site. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton’s view as its own, then tries to justify its coverage.

It’s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate.

It’s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in others, but is blissfully tolerant of its own. And with the top political editor quoted in the story as ­approving the one-sided coverage as necessary and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy.

It’s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper’s own traditions. Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That’s the whole point of standards — they are designed to guide decisions not just in easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust.

The Times, of course, is not alone in becoming unhinged over Trump, but that’s also the point. It used to be unique because of its adherence to fairness.

Now its only standard is a double standard, one that it proudly ­confesses. Shame would be more appropriate.

For the rest~
http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

[swchandler]

"Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, ..."


And how did the so called Americans come to that conclusion? The journalistic media has been hammering it over and over nonstop. There's no denying it.

The reason that Donald Trump is finding so much difficulty is because cultivated and nourished it saying and doing so many outrageous things. How often did he brag during the primary process about how much media attention that he was getting for free? He boldly used the media by feeding it WWE type theater, and now he's regretting it and screaming foul? Trump is reaping what he sowed.

[mac]

Too funny. NW posts from a Fox News guy--official mouthpiece of the Republican Party--that other media sources are easy on Hillary.

[mac]

Apropops of NW's posting and the self brainwashing of the right: They pay folks off, just like Murdoch papers got caught doing in Britain. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/fox-news-sex-abuse-victims-payouts/2016/08/19/id/744337/?ns_mail_uid=95718647&ns_mail_job=1682761_08212016&s=al&dkt_nbr=51gntzfr

[real-human]

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/22/1562889/-Colin-Powell-suddenly-forgets-a-conversation-he-remembered-quite-well-back-in-June

http://www.newsweek.com/did-colin-powell-advise-hillary-use-private-email-492376
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/hillary-clinton-told-fbi-colin-powell-advised-her-to-use-private-email.html?_r=2

[nw30]

How quickly the liberal main stream media turns.

Just like John McCain, who was their darling until he became the presidential candidate, Colin Powell was their darling also until he disputed Hillary's claim that he suggested she go rogue with her own server in her basement.
Totally predictable, and expected. And this is supposed to be news?

[nw30]

And speaking of the liberal main stream media, a bit of a flashback~

Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals
05/15/15

NBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation's records show.

The donations, which range from the low-thousands to the millions, provide a picture of the media industry's ties to the Clinton Foundation at a time when one of its most notable personalities, George Stephanopoulos, is under scrutiny for not disclosing his own $75,000 contribution when reporting on the foundation.

The list also includes mass media groups like Comcast, Time Warner and Viacom, as well a few notable individuals, including Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company, and James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox. Both Slim and Murdoch have given between $1 million to $5 million, respectively.

Judy Woodruff, the co-anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour, gave $250 to the foundation's “Clinton Haiti Relief Fund" in 2010.

The following list includes news media organizations that have donated to the foundation, as well as other media networks, companies, foundations or individuals that have donated. It is organized by the size of the contribution:

For the list~
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228

[boggsman1]

A little balance for those that are choking on the brainwashing from the Drudge Report:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/08/23/clinton-mail-scandals-are-pure-fiction/ryXZoEeqANOPSiL7O33QuJ/story.html

[mat-ty]

[boggsman1]

matty...please. You constantly link stories to the Washington Times, a newspaper owned by the Reverend Moon, that doesn't even attempt to hide it's motives. You have no credibility. Its just an opinion. Its hilarious that Righty's call all mainstream newspapers, "liberal rags" how is that paranoia theme working for ya?
Here is the bio from the guy who wrote the Globe column, pretty accomplished smart guy :


Michael A. Cohen is a regular contributor for The Boston Globe on national politics and foreign affairs. He is a fellow at the Century Foundation, a lecturer at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and has written for dozens of news outlets, including a column for the Guardian and Foreign Policy. He previously worked as a speechwriter at the US State Department. He is the author of “Live From the Campaign Trail,” which looked at presidential campaign speechwriting, and he is currently writing a book on the 1968 presidential election.