CNN doing Journalism Dirty

Not gunna happen. Media no longer has a goal to describe reality. Its goal is to usher readers and viewers to the correct political conclusion. ‘Journalists’ by and large are now activists. And so the events they cover become ‘stories’ and how these ‘stories’ are presented clearly and unambiguously serve the ideological allies of these activists in the press. The right question to ask is who is being served by whatever one encounters in the press. As soon as you do that, the ideological bias – left or right – becomes obvious and the activism is clearly revealed not just by what is presented but most especially by what is not presented.

Just a quick homegrown example: in Halifax this July and lesbian couple out celebrating their anniversary were catcalled and then beaten by a mob of about 10 Syrian ‘refugees’. Because this event does not fit the simple ideological narrative of who the victimized people are, it just… disappeared. Commenting or addressing this rise in immigrant intolerance to western values does not serve the ideological allies – the readers – of these ‘journalists’. So the story is simply dropped. But had the facts been reversed and Syrian refugees had been verbally and physically assaulted, I think it very obvious just how big of a story it would have been for these journalists to ‘champion’.

So, no, I think there is no chance of any return to honest reporting by legacy media. It is beyond redemption now and justified falling public trust in it guarantees its demise.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Oh, like you I read all this stuff but I read a bunch of more ‘liberal’ sites (even communist, for that matter, by Freddie DeBoer) like Heather Cox Richardson’s daily apologetics for all things Democrat, a handful of other good writers and left wing blogs and get a bit of a cross section with Quillette (great ongoing series on Canadian history).

For Canada’s news and commentary and politics, I subscribe to The Line and Tara Henley’s Lean In, Paul Wells, True North, Rupa Subramanya, Eva Kurilova, and Maclean’s among others. For the British bit I enjoy reading Andrew Doyle, Andrew Sullivan (The Weekly Dish has had some outstanding writing), and Douglas Murray among other spokespeople for various issues. Yasha Mounk’s (German) Persuasion offers interesting global takes. I read Kara Dansky, Colin Wright, Eliza Mondegreen, Abigail Shrier, the Fair substack, Blocked and Reported by Jessie Singal and Katie Herzog, Pirate Wires’ 3 daily takes, WEIT, all things Dawkins and Harris, Greg Lukianoff’s blog The Eternally Radical Idea (all about free speech and often co-authors with Jonathan Haidt and Rikki Schlott)… and a bunch of others.

I like reading best cases from whatever sides are involved with various important issues. Like you, I also keep tabs on various right wing organizations and tend to buy books that support the ‘bad’ side of controversies just to know what the opposing party might think and why (like Grave Error about the hoax of Residential Schools graves and the ‘genocide’ that never was… to date raking in over 70 billion for transfers from the federal government to (no oversight) ‘leaders’ of supposed tribal concerns… with no end in sight and zero accountability to produce or fix anything. I still say it would be cheaper to give 5 million bucks to every registered indigenous person to give up Indian status and become a ‘Canadian’. Far cheaper. This country is so broken and in so many ways).

I probably spend up to 3 hours a day reading all this stuff. I like to be informed.

LikeLiked by 1 person