Say what you will about the man (and believe me I have), President Donald Trump has impacted the world on many levels, not the least of which being modern journalism. From the first utterance of “You’re fake news,” it was clear Trump was not going to be as cozy with the press as previous Presidents had been.
You know, when they weren’t calling Republicans Nazis, that is.
After the 2024 election, you could tell things were starting to shift. Almost a decade of parroting everything anti-Trump netted the media popularity and trust lower than that of used car salesmen. And to you used car salesmen reading this, I apologize to you for comparing you to the press.
Lately, this shift towards more balance reporting has the Leftists in the media (but, I repeat myself) fretting about “partisan hacks” taking over newsrooms, which means it gives me a chance to dive back into the muck that is modern news media. So, yay, I guess?
partisan hacks
What the Left thinks it means – conservatives skewing hard news reporting so they favor Trump and the GOP
What it really means – Leftist projection writ large
To say the media have a Leftist bias is like saying Hunter Biden kinda like drugs; accurate, but not nearly as thorough as it could be. Sure, they go out of their way to set up journalistic standards to let the world know they don’t root for one side or the other, but those standards are ignored more frequently than Hunter Biden ignores drug possession, gun, and tax laws.
Yes, I know I just used a Hunter Biden reference, but it bears repeating. Much like the fact the media lean more to the Left than a runner trying to make it back to first base to avoid a pick-off maneuver. Oh, and on a related note, the Chicago Cubs have not been mathematically eliminated from the post season as of this writing, but give it a week.
The Left’s control over the media lasted over a week and stretched into, oh, decades. You couldn’t swing a dead cat in media circles without hitting a Leftist, although I wouldn’t recommend it because it’s a dead fucking cat. Anyone to the right of Leon Trotsky was kept more in the closet than a gay agoraphobic hermit dodging an IRS audit. That meant only the Left’s position got promoted and anything outside of that was mocked as absurd because, to the ones in power, it was.
Even after conservative voices started being heard through talk radio, Fox News, and the Internet, the Left couldn’t give up the power it had amassed being the only voice in town. Soon, the powers that be decided to no longer hide the fact they were DNC stenographers with bylines, but openly embrace it. And if you thought reporting sucked before then, you were in for an unpleasant surprise, like having several root canals without anesthesia while Dylan Mulvaney recreates every episode of “Days of Girlhood” as it’s happening.
Oh, and your dentist? The Marquis de Sade.
With their grip on the narrative tighter than a little black dress made out of cling wrap, the Left made sure only their side got the prime gigs. And that, boys and girls, is how Taylor Lorenz still has a job in the media. This level of gatekeeping not only created a nearly impregnable echo chamber, but also an environment where they got to call the shots on what is considered “real journalism,” which was filtered down into journalism schools to create a never-ending pipeline of Leftist parrots wiling to squawk back the talking point of the day to fit in and maybe get invited to parties where other Leftists gathered to squawk back the talking point of the day.
It’s like Hell with a cash bar.
The problem with this, aside from having to hang out with Leftists for any length of time, is the gatekeepers strayed too far from what journalism actually is. During my lifetime on this planet, I saw the press go from the Fourth Estate questioning everything and tracking down the truth to being lapdogs for a President whose mental capacity was more diminished than Joe Biden’s. Which is really bad considering the President they were being lapdogs for was Joe Biden.
That’s why the media’s fear of “partisan hacks” taking over newsrooms and cable news outlets rings hollow to me. The partisan hacks were already there, and they lack even a scintilla of self awareness necessary to make the connection. Of course, they’ll come back and talk about journalistic integrity and standards they have to follow, but it’s all an act. If I had to choose between a room full of monkeys with typewriters and the entire MSNOW organization as to who could produce a straight news piece first, I’d go with the monkeys. Not only would they be more likely to accomplish the goal, but the room would be less covered in shit.
That’s not to say some news sources aren’t trying to right the journalistic ship. Prior to the 2024 election, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post both declined to endorse a Presidential candidate, which pissed off a lot of Leftists, partially because they felt the newspapers should have endorsed Queen Kamala the Appointed, and partially because they realized they were still paying for a subscription to the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. More recently, CBS hired Bari Weiss to oversee their news division, which pissed off Leftists even more. Even the Leftist-friendly CNN made editorial changes to try to be closer to the political center, which pissed off Leftists.
Hmmm…there seems to be a pattern forming. First, Leftists getting pissed, although to be fair that’s their natural state. More important is their reaction to even a slight move towards the center (i.e. where journalism should be). This goes back to how Leftists hate to lose control of the narrative. Once you attempt to get a neutral view, the Left loses the power to get you to think the way they do. Then, you might…dare I say it…make up your own mind once you find out how full of shit the Left is!
That’s why the Left is trying so hard to get people to believe any attempt to reestablish journalistic neutrality threatens the profession as a whole. And the best way to do that? Call anyone involved a partisan hack. Well, from where I sit (in my comfy recliner in the living room as it turns out), the real partisan hacks are the ones bitching about partisan hacks taking over newsrooms. To borrow a line from “Send In the Clowns” (as perfect a song as any given the subject matter), “Don’t bother. They’re here.”
Instead of being introspective and realizing the role they’ve had in fostering a healthy distrust of the media, Leftists prefer poisoning the well, posting public temper tantrums that make most toddlers look like Solomon, and cheering when things go south. But let me put a finer point on this. The Left want you to get only one side of any story, even if that side is more out of step with reality than Jasmine Crockett on an acid trip. And they will stop at nothing to prevent you from being fully informed. Instead of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on their positions, maybe they should look back at what happened with Nick Sandmann when the Left decided to spin a narrative.
And I’m sure he’ll get back to you once he’s done counting the money he got from you motherfuckers.
______________________________________________
Follow this blog on Mastodon or the Fediverse to receive updates directly in your feed.
Tag: bad journalism
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The big news of the week was a story by The Atlantic alleging President Donald Trump disparaged veterans and Vietnam veterans specifically as “total losers.” And everyone from Fox News to former Vice President and current Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden has run with it like they stole it. Whether you believe it or not depends on something we haven’t really had a chance to discuss in detail for a while.
Unnamed sources.
As it turns out, The Atlantic‘s story relied heavily on unnamed sources, which can be a positive and a negative in journalistic circles. And, thanks to your humble correspondent, you will see why.
unnamed sources
What the Left thinks it means – valuable sources of information that get to the heart of most stories
What it really means – questionable sources of information at best
As a former journalism student, I can tell you unnamed sources can be a mixed bag because their credibility is completely reliant upon how much the reporter believes them. In the past, journalists could sense when there was the ring of truth to what a source said and when it was bullshit. Today, most journalists have a bullshit meter more broken than Matt Hardy. (If you get that reference, that would be DELIGHTFUL, yaaaaaaaaaas.)
Now, imagine a journalist who is predisposed to believe anything negative about President Trump, no matter how absurd it is. Guess what, kids? He/she is going to believe the negative stuff without so much as a first thought (because expecting them to have a second thought would be way above his/her pay grade).
This is where things get sticky. Under normal circumstances, anyone in the media who gets tricked by false information would get called out and discredited to the point not even the local Super Shopper would hire them. In the current media environment, though, that only happens if you’re not in league with the bulk of the media, which might as well be stenographers for the DNC. Even when getting caught time and time again falling for bad information, Leftists don’t lose any credibility. Compare the Left’s treatment of James O’Keefe and Rachel Maddow if you question this.
What does this have to do with unnamed sources? Regardless of the veracity of said sources, the Left has nothing to lose by believing them and reporting what they say. Meanwhile, the Right could get God to certify their statements and the Left wouldn’t believe it.
You know what beats unnamed sources, though? Named sources. With The Atlantic story, they have four unnamed sources. The number of named source? Zero, the same number of delegates Kamala Harris got. On the other side, the Trump Administration noted zero unnamed source, but ten named sources (including people who were there when the President allegedly made the statements attributed to him). Now, I’m no math major, but I’m pretty sure 10 is larger than 0, and that’s not even counting the fact the 10 are named sources.
That’s the double-edged Sword of Damocles when dealing with unnamed sources. Their truthfulness can’t be measured because we don’t know who they are, but the journalists do. That’s one level away from the source, which opens the journalist to scrutiny and questions of bias. And by questions, I mean certitudes. By protecting their sources by keeping them anonymous, they take on the criticism, often willingly, but even though the Left overlooks it, they lose the Credibility Olympics against named sources who come forward because there is no degree of separation from the original source with the latter.
Plus, there’s another thing to consider. There is a known and generally accepted practice of making up sources and/or quotes as needed. When you work a beat, you won’t always get the information you want or need for a story. If you’re being honest, you either find a way to get the information or try to write around it. If you’re a journalist today, you make it up. You know who uses similar practices? The National Enquirer.
Actually, I take that back. The Enquirer has standards.
To be honest, I don’t know who to believe when it comes to The Atlantic‘s piece, but I do know you can’t discount the fact a piece reliant solely on unnamed sources has fewer legs to stand on than Captain Ahab after his prosthetic leg was stolen.