The Death of the Fourth Estate

Message to readers: Wow, this one is getting a lot of traffic and comments. I tried to do an objective assessment – as much as I am able given my former background as a journalist. I personally believe we never really had an objective media, but when I was a news anchor, I certainly tried to keep my beliefs out of it. It was definitely difficult, given opinions in the news room. Here I tried to cover the issue from every side.  It’s interesting to see all the views on this, so please keep the comments going. I’m certainly not afraid of dissent, so if you feel I’m wrong on a point, do tell me. I’d love to see others’ opinions on this.


Some will argue that the media – objective media that reports the news with a keen eye for detail and a respect for the truth – has either been dead a long time, or never existed in the first place. While our Constitution and Bill of Rights strive to protect the freedom of the press, it’s easy to see that the relationships between those in power and those in the media have bred a press that is anything but free and anything but objective.

There are several reasons for this self-censorship in the media.

Access. Exclusive stories. Access to candidates and politicians. Idealism and the desire to promote an agenda. Currying favor with editors. Profit. All play a role in ensuring that what we see and hear in reporting isn’t always the complete truth – or at least twisted in such a manner as to promote a certain view.

Government officials are also complicit in this control of information flow. No, we’re not Russia, where media outlets are funded by the Kremlin and tightly controlled by threats and intimidation. That said, the government does control media outlets’ licensing to do business, as well as their access to policy makers, and we do have some historical precedent that shows our protection of free press hasn’t been as ardent as we like to pretend.

A long time ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and I was working on my Master’s degree in National Security Studies, I took a class called “Media and National Security.” The professor, a former high-ranking Pentagon official, had us read two books: “The Captive Press,” by Ted Galen Carpenter and “Manufacturing Consent” by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. If you know anything about the authors, you realize that politically, they’re fairly diametrical opposites. Carpenter is more of a libertarian, while Chomsky… well… you know. Nonetheless, they seem to come to similar conclusions when it comes to the press. From the Alien and Sedition Acts, to the Espionage and Sedition Acts, our country’s history shows we haven’t been exactly friendly to adversarial speech and reporting. And today, more than ever, the media is in the pockets of those in power.

While traditional news outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times like to pretend they’re non-partisan in reporting the truth, I can’t imagine a single person who actually believes that crap. No rational human being will claim that Fox News does not skew in favor of the GOP, just as no one with more than two brain cells to rub together will assert that MSNBC is in any way objective and unbiased toward the left.

trumpThis phenomenon is even more apparent with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle and the Internet. It’s pretty amazing to see just how deep in Trump’s pockets Breitbart really is, for instance. After Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski allegedly manhandled tiny little Michelle Fields from Breitbart and proceeded to first lie about it, and then engage in a character assassination campaign, and after Breitbart threw Fields under the bus in a transparent attempt to retain their access to the candidate, four journalists resigned in protest.

Now former Breitbart journalist Jordan Schachtel wrote he was repelled at the level of bias at the “news” outlet.

“Breitbart News is no longer a journalistic enterprise, but instead, in my opinion, something resembling an unaffiliated media Super PAC for the Trump campaign,” Schachtel said in a statement first reported by Politico. “I signed my contract to work as a journalist, not as a member of the Donald J. Trump for President media network.”

My concern was, and still remains, about how people in power – even potential Presidential administrations – treat the press. Will they cut off access to media outlets not deemed friendly to their policies? Will they bar journalists from interviews and press conferences based on the type of reports they have written?

And subsequently, how will the press treat its own journalists and opponents of an Administration’s policies?

Another report, which CNN apparently ardently denies, points to CNN president Jeff Zucker’s stated strategy to paint anyone who opposes ObamaCare as racist.

“And according to two sources, CNN sources — on the 9 a.m. editorial call, he said all of this bashing of and the Obamacare thing was in the end — come on, take a guess — racist. That people are just saying Obama couldn’t build a website because he is black and you know, they hate him. That’s the president of CNN. That’s Jeff Zucker. That’s his guidance to the troops.”

Remember Candy Crowley’s dispute of Romney’s contention during a debate with Barack Obama that he failed to call Benghazi a terrorist attack? CNN went on a full defensive of Crowley a few days later, claiming that she was, in fact, correct, and that Romney was mistaken. She claimed the President’s speech at the White House the day after the attack used the term “act of terror,” and she’s technically correct. The problem with Crowley’s twisting of the truth is that the President did not specifically refer to Benghazi as an “act of terror,” but referred to those acts in a general sense in that speech.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

The reference can certainly be left to interpretation here. CNN continued this line later in the year, claiming that the phrase “act of terror” was used repeatedly after the attack, and while they were correct, I will once again point out that the phrase wasn’t used to directly describe the attack on Benghazi. In fact, the Benghazi attack wasn’t described as an act of terrorism until September 19, when NCTC Director Matthew Olson specifically replied to a question by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about the attack. This is according to CNN’s own accounts of the use of the “terrorism” description.

“They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

So yes, Virginia, there is media bias. It exists on both sides of the political aisle. It permeates every report and what journalists write is just as significant as what they omit, and the words they use are indicative of their biases. More often than not, I wind up having to research every report I read for corroborative information – be it CNN, NBC, New York Times, or any other outlet. I’m lucky, because I can read news in several other languages, so I can also examine how the world outside our borders views our current events and compare those reports to what I see here.

press roomMany people can’t and, frankly, most don’t have time to do so anyway. We are a society that likes everything handed to us at once. Get to the bottom line. Give me the elevator speech (if you were taking the elevator with me, what could you tell me in that time that’s important and relevant?). Give me a five-second soundbite that will tell the story. Give it to me faster and more concisely. It has lead to what I like to call “McNews.” We like our information like we like our fast food – quick, tasty, and on the run.

Unfortunately, that type of information has less substance and actual depth. Most current events are more nuanced than a quick headline, but most people don’t have the time to read or hear it.

That’s partially why Trump is so popular. Most of his supporters don’t understand his policies, how they would be implemented, or what consequences they would bring. He says he will build a “beautiful wall” and force Mexico to pay for it. He blathers something about a $58 billion trade deficit. And his frothing acolytes applaud wildly and believe every word he says without understanding that a trade deficit won’t pay for a wall, and has little to do with government revenues or will, for that matter.

He claims he will force manufacturing back to the United States, and his followers crow with froth-flecked glee without understanding the increase in the price of production that is involved, which will ultimately be passed on to the consumer, consequent reduced profits for the company due to higher prices, and resulting job losses due to said reduced profits. Not to mention the deterioration in foreign relations that results from these trade wars!

He mentions China’s currency devaluation, and doofuses applaud the use of big economic terms, without actually understanding what currency devaluation did to, say, the Chinese economy, causing record capital flight, coupled with the fact that the Chinese can’t seem to control the freefall of the yuan. And while propping up Chinese manufacturing would seem to be a good idea, its causes consequences, including a possible deflationary reaction in the rest of the world, which would make it tough to buy those Chinese products, and according to the Wall Street Journal, “It could also complicate China’s efforts to get the yuan added to a basket of currencies tracked by the International Monetary Fund – efforts aimed at giving the yuan greater acceptance abroad” – something they’ve been trying to accomplish for a while.

No one cares about that. Buzzwords and platitudes rule the day in today’s political environment, and the media seems to be facilitating it and at the same time is being killed by it.

The media is supposed to report facts. It’s supposed to inform us, to help us learn about current events, so that we make intelligent decisions about the kind of government we want.

Instead, it either acts as promotion vehicles for political candidates, or props up political agendas. Few people today can even recognize the difference between reporting and opinion pieces. It takes so long to get to the truth, that many people are simply giving up on trying, and instead become part of Generation Stupid™ casting their votes and promoting their support based on nothing but social media memes and 140 character Tweets.

It certainly appears that the Fourth Estate is dead – for how long is debatable. Question is, what replaces it?


49 responses

  1. I’d argue the fourth estate has been a corpse since the days of Hearst and Pulitzer. TV only shot some electricity into the corpse.


    1. Sort of like a Frankenstein Monster? So what did the Internet do?


    2. Made things worse. Ted Turner is to blame for the 24 hour cycle. The net made it Frankenstein’s Zombie. Because now every twit with a camera phone can be a “jouralist”! And work for exposure for HuffPo.


    3. Knoll’s Law of Media Accuracy: Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true–except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.

      Also, read this.

      “It is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1807


  2. I don’t listen to his radio show or watch his TV show, but Sean Hannity says it best when he said that “The Media” died in 2008 with the propping up and defense of Obama as a presidential candidate. With his CV that was a blank piece of paper with ‘Liberal’ stamped on top, the MSM and democrats were able to project whatever they wanted their candidate to be.


    1. Funny, considering how Hannity tongue bathes Trump’s ballsack at every opportunity, that he would opine on the death of the media, which occurred way before 2008.


    2. Sean was saying that way before he started tea-bagging Trump. And you nailed why I can’t stand that Long Island azzhole.


      1. “Tea-bagging Trump.” LMAO! The visual is fairly horrifying!


    3. @Nicky…now you can feel my pain. 🙂

      Let me know if you find a good, reliable, cheap supply of brain bleach.


      1. Ya gotta admit it’s funny, though!


    4. All kidding aside, yes, it is.

      Chlorine–better mental health through chemistry.


  3. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    Besides the Political Bias, I see a death of “fact-checking” on the part of newspapers concerning what the reporters report.

    Some of this may be due to television news were “we have to get the story out first”.

    There was a story about Walter Cronkite holding off a report that JFK had died because it hadn’t been confirmed but one of his co-workers (can’t remember his name but he later became a big name) reported it anyway.


    1. Yep, I agree. It’s a race to get the story first, and that never turns out well. Mass shooting stories are a prime example of this. Sometimes a media outlet will rush to identify the shooter, identify the wrong person – maybe with the same name – and ruin some innocent person’s day.


    2. And another bad part of that is, once they get the *actual facts* out there…some people will remember the original report, take it as gospel, and regard every subsequent attempt to correct the record as part of a “coverup” of some consipiracy. See, for instance what happened with Sandy Hook, where a mistaken report of what was left in whatzisscabcoveredcock’s trunk has led to incessant conspiracy theories


  4. It died even earlier when Newsweek (I think) spiked the Bill and Monica story until Drudge got wind of it. Then there is Walter Duranty . . . so I’m not sure the media has ever been all that good. It’s just that now with the internet we can peak behind the curtain.


  5. Gee whiz, Nicki, are you feeling okay? You only used ‘frothing’ once.

    i do not miss the days of being told about Pravda’s version of what may or may not have happened in things like the shoot-down and capture of Gary Powers in his U-2 spy plane.

    If you really want to dig up stuff on the media when it was called ‘yellow journalism’, i.e., tabloid-style reporting on actual events, I think it was worse in the months and years following World War II, in the late 1940s, and later in the early 1950s when the McCarthy hearings were going on. It was quite easy to twist facts into irrational crap and embellish stories about people when there was no basis for it in reality. I don’t think the press in this country has ever really been a truly free press because it was controlled by moneyed interests then, just as it is now.

    The worst incidents of the press distorting events were the hijacking of the USS Pueblo and the capture of its crew by North Korea; the My Lai massacre/incident; and the end of the Gulf War, when some UK reporter shot and published a few pictures of incinerated Iraqis on the road the Iraqi army followed when it ran away. It does not help that the events in the Balkans were suppressed by the White House and barely addressed in the press as a result. Sensationalism only works if you get money out of it.

    I think the only unbiased reporting I’ve seen in recent memory was on C-Span, when it covered the Gulf War by simply following the troops and what happened with little to no comment. Most of that stuff has been forgotten and buried in archives. The financial networks seem to be less politically biased than other news sources. I don’t think it helps that the tendency now is to give us 10 seconds of someone blowing his stack at people. It may serve those with short attention span disorders, but it is not reporting. Most so-called in-depth reporting has fallen by the wayside. The current method of ‘bites’ of this and that, e.g., tweets and instagramming, aren’t news. They are tabloidism.

    I think there will always be bias in reporting, colored by whatever the current political atmosphere may be at the time. It does not mean that we have to believe it or agree with it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I absolutely agree. There will always be bias and always has been. Question becomes how do we actually get real information?

      And yeah, I didn’t curse in this one. I’m not angry here. I’m just introspective, I guess. 🙂


  6. I’d argue the News has had little relevance to reality throughout most of its history. The outlets have almost always had a slant to their reporting. Their sources typically have an agenda of their own. I’d say it’s the rare outlet that actually tries to report just the facts without a slant. At least as far back as His Girl Friday popular media acknowledged such bias. Heck, look at what was being put out during the Revolutionary War and it wasn’t exactly just a straightforward reporting of the facts.

    Now, whether or not the news is independent of the Government is a different story. A lot of times they work hand-in-glove, so it gets rather murky. If they are willing dupes, does that mean they are still independent, or just an unrestrained propaganda arm?


    1. Well to be fair during the revolutionary times if the News wasn’t local, it probably was filtered through a dozen or so people before it got to a local news source to publish.


  7. I just watched a Youtube video from a journalist ( I am assuming he’s probably a conservative or libertarian) complaining about basically a similar thing. In it he basically said in general the media has been lying for so long that the people have stopped believing them. In his opinion it’s one of the major reasons Trump is doing so well. Like the boy that cried wolf people automatically assume the media is lying if they say anything negative about trump, and Trump could literally shoot someone’s daughter in the middle of the street in front of rolling cameras, and if the media told them Trump did it, they would still not believe he did it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Well, it doesn’t help their credibility when they constantly get caught…lying. I mean, it’s not like they are even really trying anymore. Reuters put out an article on the wage gap back in November, quoting Payscale (of course Payscale distorted their findings as well) and one of their recent studies. Unfortunately, when you go to the payscale site and find the study and look at what they actually found, it says ‘Women Earn 2.7% Less Than Men’.

      Everyone has an agenda, and it doesn’t seem like anyone is beyond telling lies to push what they want people to believe.


    2. Dan Blather (one of the rare instances you’ll seen in print of his name being spelled correctly) getting caught out with memos that could not have been banged out on a surplus typewriter, ca. 1970, might have been the straw that broke the camel’s back for many people.

      I remember laughing out loud, very loud, when I first saw an image of a WYSIWYG memo that he was using for “evidence”

      Apparently he still believes the story. Which I took to mean that he believed GWB was a draft dodger, so it was okay to use fake evidence. A bit of epistemic caboose-before-the-locomotive.


  8. Yep, the belief that media lies has now been just as strongly internalised as the belief that politicians lie..

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I want to know why people who genuinely believe “politicians lie” bother to vote. Or maybe few people genuinely believe it when they say that.


    2. Micha, it’s either 1) they think they do know what he’s going to do regardless of what he says, and they approve of it, or (MUCH more commonly) they are even more afraid of what the other guy will do. The parties are full of people who would be willing to vote for a third party…except OMG if they do so, then the OTHER party might win! They fear/hate the other party, more than they love their own.


  9. The media has always been an unfunny joke, both liberal and conservative, they all skew things to serve an agenda. It’s nothing new but of course it has gotten much worse. Social media, facebook and twitter, where know-nothing opinions and bias are amplified into soundbites and idiotic slogans, that then translate into zombie Internet (and real life) mobs and mindless hysterics across the board and in civil society as a whole. This then feeds back into the media, and the whole thing becomes a vicious cycle of spiraling stupidity, with no end in sight.


  10. Resources Wire | Jay Currie

    General rule is that “the media” is deeply biased. Usually so much so that you can tell without much digging.

    More interestingly, the media does not even bother to get factual stuff right. Benghazi is a simple example – to this day we have no clear idea as to whether or not there were available assets to defend the compounds. It gets science wrong regularly when it reports assorted global warming stories or nutrition stories.

    A good guide to modern media are the editorial standards of the right hand column of the Daily Mail. You get a name, a wardrobe comment, a fight or a baby. But, and this is important, the Daily Mail kills it as the internet news source of choice. Their American coverage is actually often better than the NYT or Wpo.

    Dumbed down works because many people want to be “low information”. They, like my 12 year old like to say “Yuge”. They certainly don’t want a whole lot of bloviating nonsense about how The Donald is not qualified after enduring 8 years of the Obama administration.

    Eventually the media will, in very different form, catch up. At the moment MSM is as dead as the trees it’s printed on.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. tl;dr


    1. My point about mcnews proven.


  12. Prof Tim Grosclose (UCLA econ & poli sci dept’s) – THE authority on proving media bias.


  13. It is impossible for the News to NOT be biased; even with the best will in the world to be unbiased, there is just too much out there to report all of it. So, being a specialized form of entertainment existing to sell advertising time/space (there was no substantive difference between Dan Rather and Monty Hall, except for Rather’s pretensions; Limbaugh makes no bones about it, with his “obscene profit breaks”), the things that would attract the most readers/viewers are what gets covered. And since “If It Bleeds, It Leads”, that has no option but to give a distorted view of the world. Adding political bias only slants it in a different direction, but it’s ALWAYS slanted.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. “…there is media bias. It exists on both sides of the political aisle.”

    That may be strictly true, but the right is far outgunned by the left.

    The right has talk radio and Fox, which has been tarred as rightwing extremist from the beginning, and that is its reputation with the public, so everyone assumes they’re biased.

    The left has ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS/NPR, whose customer base dwarfs Fox. They had a reputation for fairness for 50 years which was totally unearned, but since they fully controlled the narrative, was not apparent. They still trade off this faux “fairness” with the public, while they have always been in the tank for the left. Then toss in CNN, MSNBC, out of the closet now, and even ESPN(!) has jumped on the bandwagon.

    Add in all the so-called “news”papers like the NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, et al, the “news” magazines and periodicals, “News”Week, Time, the Economist, for which the right has no counter, and it’s like swimming against a tsunami.

    A prominent member of the media admitted several years ago that their bias is worth 15 points in every election, larger than nearly every winning margin where a Democrat wins. They should be forced to declare themselves an in-kind political contribution to the left.


    1. The left tells people what they want to hear, the right tells people what they need to hear.

      Guess which is by far the more popular of the two.

      No, there’s nothing that can really be done about it. People want to be entertained, they want to be told that, yes, their lives are crap; no, it’s not their fault; and all you have to do is make a contribution to the entertainment industry’s current fad of choice (socialism, for now, until it once again leads inevitably to genocide) to make it all get better someday.

      Telling people the truth will never be popular enough to be profitable. You have to engineer ways to get them to want to hear the truth, because it only happens naturally when the people are in serious enough danger and sick enough of the leftist yes-men smiling and nodding while ushering them into the labor camps to actually WANT the truth.

      Trump is actually turning out to be pretty good at that, and he’s doing it by manipulating the media into telling such outrageous lies about him that people start looking into whether he actually did any of the things they accuse him of. When they find out he didn’t, they get mad enough at being hoodwinked that they start investigating all the things they’ve been told, to determine which is true and which is false.

      The internet has settled on a term for this (a reference to The Matrix, of course): “getting red pilled.”


    2. Never said there wasn’t a preponderence of “Progressive” bias in the news; just that some bias is built into the system, so anyone expecting unbiased news is fooling themselves. The problem, as we who are here discussing this see it, is that what claims to be unbiased can not be unbiased, no matter how hard it tries, and usually the bias is toward the Left when it comes to matters political. And if 100,000 children go to school this morning, and 99,999 come home safely this evening, the need to report something that will draw readers/viewers will cause the one who didn’t come home safely to be the one reported, which, even if the media outlet didn’t intend anything political, will give the consumers of the entertainment (remember, that’s what it is; if it doesn’t turn a profit, it goes out of business) the impression that there is a terrible problem, which must be addressed, usually by the authorities… (Do not assume that I would not consider that one child to not be a tragedy, to be prevented if possible, but one consequence of this sort of story is a loss of perspective, which is encouraged by lawyers, politicians and others who make their living distorting Reality, as do journalists.)

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    One aspect of “bias” and the news media is that “once upon a time” most towns above a certain size had several newspapers.

    Each newspaper had a “bias” but it was different than the bias of the other newspapers.

    Of course “everybody knew” the bias of the newspaper because none of the newspapers “crowed about their un-biased reporting”.

    Now with National Television and Cable news (save for Fox News), the bias is generally the same bias but they boast that they’re un-biased.

    To make things more “interesting”, local news often depend on “news services” which collect stories from several locations and sell them.

    At one time, there were several such “news services” and the local news could choose which “new service” to use.

    Now there’s only one or two and thus the local news can’t get “outside” news that doesn’t reflect the bias of the “new service”. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Neal Boortz would often issue a challenge to his listeners to find one instance of an actual *lie* during Fox News’ actual news content. Most of the things that got sent to him were off of its many hours per day of talking head programs (it seems like all of the news networks except maybe Headline News fill primetime with talking heads; I could never watch actual news when I got home from work back when I still got cable). Talking heads programs are by definition editorial in content. Anyhow, he claims no one ever actually found an actual lie during fox news channel’s news programming (i’d have to assume he meant other than a lie of omission). The problem is most of their content is *overtly* editorial in nature, and thus shouldn’t even be taken as pretending to be news, and the same is true of the other “news” networks.


  17. The worst thing about a Trump administration will be that NO POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE ALLOWED TO SUCCEED. Trump might “grow in office” as many before him have, but the hatred and treasonous sabotage of the of the Democrats against GWB will be like a love fest in comparison.


  18. tatterdemalian

    I guess the other video from a different angle, that shows that Lewandowski never even approached within arms’ reach of Fields and that the original video was shot at an angle that concealed the distance between the two and made it look like he was grabbing her, was also faked?

    Breitbart has finally learned from the James O’Keefe scandal, that creative editing can make anyone sound like they’re saying, or even doing, something else entirely. This isn’t the death of the fourth estate, it’s the birth of a new one that’s true to it’s principles. Protecting criminals from justice is just as deadly as refusing to protect innocents from injustice, and as the Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown cases have shown, showing kindness to the cruel is what’s really killing America today.


    1. Actually the latest video shows very clearly that he DID pull her back, but not as hard as she claimed, and yet hard enough to leave bruises.

      What is really disturbing is that the Trump campaign let this get so out of hand instead of having Lewandowski simply apologize. It’s clear that he grabbed her. He admitted it in the beginning. Then he denied it. And THEN, he and the campaign engaged in a media campaign of character assassination. And now he admits to having grabbed her (based on the latest video), but it wasn’t hard, so it’s OK.

      NO. Not even remotely.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. It also seems to me that until recently the bias was usually expressed not in an outright lie, but rather the choices of what stories to cover and with what “spin.” Ignore Clinton scandals or focus on the political motivations behind bringing them up. vs. Watergate, which of course consumed the news timeslots for years and never, ever, were the Dems accused of pursuing it for political gain. The choice-of-what-to-cover bias has always been there, it creeps into the process early as the editor decides what is, or is not, “newsworthy.”

    Dan Blather got caught in an actual lie, which his why they actually shitcanned him. Nowadays even a lie is acceptable, and perhaps that is the change that people are perceiving.


  20. I agree with you about media bias but you may want to take a deeper dive into that Michelle Fields/Breitbart business:


  21. Yes with ABC, NBc, CBC, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post as pillars of leftist thought, we should shut down Breitbart because we can’t have one populist site going against the establishment hack news organizations posing as objective. This is the internet age, love it or dislike it, it is reality.


  22. In many ways, we’re all low information voters because the media doesn’t supply information about candidates. They run stories about the election process (ZOMG! Rubio must win Florida!) not about policy. I find that far more annoying than the bias, which is generally quite obvious.


  23. The press has always been biased but back in the day you could still find the factual information. In the late sixties I, and many folks I knew would go to the Manchester Weekly and the Christian Science Monitor for facts on world events. Both had their bias, of course, but we knew what they were and they did answer the basic questions pounded in to the heads of every cub reporter by editors before the advent of journalism degrees; What, When, Where, Why?

    The death of the 4th Estate: Yes it died a long time ago when reporting the 4 Ws as the basis of each and every news article was replaced by the query heard every night as the hard hitting reporters on TV news as they ask instead of what, when, why where; “-and how does that make you feel?”

    Liked by 1 person

  24. What always amazes me is that most lib journalists have zero sense of history, nor do pundits. They forget that when the left attains full control, journalists are prime targets for oppression. This goes for celebrities as well.

    The old “this can’t happen here” mythology is made possible only by real journalism that puts politicians in check, drains off absolute power by exposing it.

    Yellow journalism, as bad as it was, was less insidious because it was widely called by its real name, but today’s media pretends to be high-minded, even spiritual when, in fact, it has no respect for its audience.

    Then, why should they respect us? We don’t cal them to account….yet.

    Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: