A Perfect Metaphor for What's Happened to Journalism Over the Past Few Decades.

The Gilded Temple to Themselves "The Newseum" Fails and is Stripped of it's Facade 

It was the Gilded Monument to Journalistic Vanity. A museum immortalizing their Courage and Virtue in Pantheon-esque marble, created upon the premise that the news media weren't boastful enough of their accomplishments, that reporters weren't egotistical enough about their importance that a monument to their mighty works was to be.

Dubbed by even the Washington Post in 2018 as "A Slow Motion Disaster" for the hefty price of $24.95 a head.  You didn't get to witness such historical media exhibits such as a 5,000 year old cuneiform clay tablet announcing Sargon I ascension to the Throne, nay!  But what the few who wandered in did get to see was the Watergate break-in door, props and costumes from the movie 'Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy', a mock-up of Tim Russert’s office, posters and reporters’ notebooks from the Ferguson protests, Andy Rooney‘s typewrite, a Boston Globe reporter’s running shoes, hundreds of press passes, and for some strange reason, even Bono’s jacket, and much more.

There was a time when the American News Media was who most of the world looked to for the best example of unvarnished truth as could be had.  But then came the advent of 24 Hr. news broadcast and with it the rise of the overly self-important media reporters, high payed on-air talking heads celebrities and an undeniable political bias.

So when we see such arrogant people who deem themselves higher then us because they, and they only hold the cup of truth, can we not feel a bit triumphant when they stumble and fall into a pile of their own excrement and their temple to themselves fails and raised to the ground. 

 Your journalism heartbreaking video of the day

"They should replace it with a monument to the stunning and brave journalists who stood up against Trump! Who risked their lives to give us nothing but the facts!! Heroes, all of them."

[DMF Archives]

[Ace HQ]

We Need to Stop Using the Word Journalist and Call Them What They Really Are

Few will deny we now live an age of fake news and media propaganda. I recently asked a friend who worked as a journalist before pursuing a career in advertising if there was a Hippocratic type oath or a code of ethics for journalist. They told me there was indeed an ethical code or "canons of journalism" adopted by the Society of Professional Journalist in 1922. They sent me a PDF of this "Journalist Canon"  as well as an additional PDF of the "Editors Code of Ethics". I spent an evening reading through what I can only believe are principles intentionally being ignored by today's journalist. Here is a sample of what I found. I'll let you decide as to how far we have drifted away from what was a once respected profession.....

_____________________________

This is the SPJ code of ethics that we follow as professionals:

Preamble: 
 Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity. The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by explanations and position papers that address changing journalistic practices. It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable. Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting.

Journalists should:

• - Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
• - Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy. – Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
•  - Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story. – Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
• Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
• - Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
• – Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
• – Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
• – Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
•  – Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant. – Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
• – Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate. – Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear. – Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting. – Label advocacy and commentary.
• – Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
• – Never plagiarize. Always attribute. Minimize Harm Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

• – Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
• – Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
• – Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
• – Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information. – Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
• – Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
• – Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate. – Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
• – Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
• – Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

It goes on the say "Act Independently" and "The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public." I for one don't see much of what is referred to as ethics in today's media. And Truth and Integrity seems to be practices of mythical gods of the distant past.

* Thank You Whatfinger News and MJA@IOTWReport for the Linkage!

I'm Beginning to Believe Every Damn One of Them are Nuts!

It’s really never been a secret to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that the American print media have long had a bias they really haven't tried to hide. And here is a creepy little story that shows just how deep the leftist rot is in some of the most influential media circles. 

The first female editor of the New York Times and author of “Obama: The Historic Journey,” published in 2009, Jill Abramson, was the paper’s executive editor from 2011-2014 until she was unceremoniously booted out of the NYT's Ivory Tower, and as was the 'woke' thing of those days, replaced with a black male. Being a good little leftist soldier that she is, she quietly excepted her station in those gotta be politically correct times.

Ah Jill, Sweetie That's Not a Doll

In a new piece she wrote for The Guardian Abramson has fessed up that she has been so distraught by Donald Trump's ascension to the Presidency and all that has come with it, that she is carrying around a Barack Obama “therapy doll” in her purse:

"It’s easy to look at what’s happening in Washington DC and despair. That’s why I carry a little plastic Obama doll in my purse. 

I pull him out every now and then to remind myself that the United States had a progressive, African American president until very recently. Some people find this strange, but you have to take comfort where you can find it in Donald Trump’s America."

Yes Jill, people do find this strange! Especially when it comes from someone who claims to be the self-appointed guardians of the truth. It's pretty obvious that Abrahamson OD'd on hopium and changium during the Barky years. People like this need to spend some serious cash and extensive time in therapy because a lost election should not bring on this sort of mental trauma with sane people. Bless Her Heart!  

Thank You Gerard VanderLeun @ American Digest for the Linkage!

The Gilded Monument to Journalistic Vanity Crumbles Before Us

There was a time when the American News Media was who most of the world looked to for the best example of unvarnished truth as could be had. But then came the advent of 24 Hr. news broadcast and with it the rise of the overly self-important media reporters, high payed on-air talking heads celebrities and an undeniable political bias.  So when we see such arrogant people who deem themselves higher then us because they, and they only hold the cup of truth, can we not feel a bit triumphant when they stumble and fall into a pile of their own excrement?

Standing just a half-mile from the U.S. Capitol  is the grand monument to journalistic vanity called 'The Newseum", a seven-level 470,000-square-foot grandiose palace with a facade constructed from 50 tons of Tennessee marble. It commemorates the news business with 60,000-plus baubles and artifacts from the trade. Its owner, the Freedom Forum Foundation, spent $450 million building its palace of journalism in 2008.  But the FFF has hoisted its flag of surrender in the form of a press release. The Newseum owners can no longer afford to subsidize the palace with their endowment's money, and are having to explore plans to sell the building.

Dubbed by even the Washington Post as 'A Slow Motion Disaster", for the hefty price of $24.95 a head you won't get to witness such historical media exhibits such as a 5,000 year old cuneiform clay tablet announcing Sargon I ascension to the Throne, oh no.  But what you will get to see is the Watergate break-in door, props and costumes from the movie 'Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy', a mock-up of Tim Russert’s office, posters and reporters’ notebooks from the Ferguson protests, Andy Rooney‘s typewrite, a Boston Globe reporter’s running shoes, hundreds of press passes, and for some strange reason, even Bono’s jacket, and much more.

The museum has posted an annual deficit of between 2 and 9 million a year since it opened, even as it has paid hefty salaries to its operators and top executives. But what the hey, it's Washington DC, where it's all about spending other peoples money. Right?

The only thing the Newseum really has going for it is its daily collection of front pages from around the country. Do you need a $450 million building to do that?

One Government Most Certainly Did Meddle in the Election

by George  NEUMAYR - The media, in its frenzy to normalize left-wing political espionage, says simultaneously of the Nunes memo: there is nothing to see in it, but don’t look. The intensity of the media’s attacks on a Republican is always in proportion to the degree to which he is impeding one of its causes. The doggedness of Nunes — his refusal to let a politicized FBI and Justice Department stonewall his committee — has thrown considerable light on the real scandal of 2016: not that Trump colluded with the Russians to win but that the Obama administration colluded with Hillary to defeat him. One government most certainly did meddle in the election — ours.

The more that the probe is put under the microscope, the more outrageous it appears, with Hillary partisans and Trump haters figuring into it at every crucial turn. Hillary didn’t need a campaign headquarters in Brooklyn; she already had one in Washington, D.C. John Brennan, auditioning to be her CIA director, laid the groundwork for the Trump-Russia probe by hyping bogus intelligence; Trump hater Peter Strzok formally opened the probe at the FBI just weeks after whitewashing Hillary’s mishandling of emails; the slop of Christopher Steele, Hillary’s opposition researcher, served as the basis for spying on all of Carter Page’s communications with the Trump campaign, while the spouse of a Justice Department official involved in the probe shoveled more of the slop to her husband.

Like Watergate, the probe was not only amateurish and paranoid but fruitless. The media, that stalwart defender of civil liberties, has adopted in recent days a comically cavalier view of Carter Page’s violated ones. Hey, the investigation into him was close enough for government work, we’re told. And, besides, it serves him right for talking to Russians.  

4Chan’ Pees On The Internet Again, Media Says It’s Raining

Buzzfeed, CNN and to some extent our very own government GOT PUNKED! Totally punked as they all jumped on the dossier on Trump (the one with the pee hookers) they believed came from an MI6 agent… when in fact, it came from the internet group 4Chan.

According to 4Chan some documents were created by a 4Chan user and sent to anti-Trumper Rick Wilson knowing he would act on this tip. Posing as friendly foreign intelligence, they emailed documents to #NeverTrump Wilson.  4chan backs up its story that it was a hoax created by one of its users with a link to a post from November 1st. 

Some totally random 4chan user invented fake intelligence with a crazy story about Donald Trump paying for pee hookers and gave it to GOP strategist Rick Wilson, who then gave it to the CIA, who then gave it to the press so they could embarrass Trump with it right before his inauguration.  

You see, the thing a lot of people don't understand about 4chan is that they're not “sources of intelligence.” They're internet trolls, and the purest definition thereof.  They want chaos, and they want reactions.  They're the somewhat grown-up version of the boy sitting behind you putting gum in your hair and getting excited over you getting upset. They want people to think that they can create elaborate and believable hoaxes,  but sometime they've been found out within hours. 

In the past they've convinced the world that Twitter feminists were trying to #EndFathersDay because they just really hate men? Or the time they convinced radical feminists to #PissForEquality and Pee on Thyself  campaign to show support.  The number one rule of 4chan is to never, ever take 4chan seriously. 

Many of them, in fact, see the entire election of Donald Trump as a successful troll on our country. By and large, they are mostly bored idiots with so little going on in their lives that their only joy and amusement comes from the jolt of power they get from a successful troll. They do it, as they say, “for the lulz.”

90 Days Out, It's Time To Get Back on Message

by DAVID CATRON

What did the political careers of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have in common? Many observers would respond to this question by shouting, “Absolutely nothing!” These people would be wrong. In reality, the careers of Reagan and Bush shared at least three important characteristics. They were both viciously assaulted by the “news” media on a daily basis. Neither allowed these transparently partisan attacks to distract them from the core messages of their campaigns. And, not coincidentally, they are the only Republicans who have served two full terms as President since Dwight Eisenhower left office.

There’s a lesson here, if Donald Trump is able to absorb it. Media bias in favor of Democrats is a fact of life. This is blindingly obvious to most serious observers of American politics, and it has been repeatedly confirmed by serious studies of journalistic trends. It is also an utter waste of time for a GOP presidential nominee to whine about it. Complaining about the partisan press is like complaining about the weather. It accomplishes nothing. Yet, instead of emulating the successful strategies of Reagan and Bush, Donald Trump has allowed himself to be tricked into squandering increasingly valuable campaign time bellyaching about media bias.

At his rallies, where he should be contrasting his positive vision for America with the dystopian nightmare into which Hillary Clinton’s distorted worldview will transform the nation, he moans about the media. Jeffrey Lord, who highlights the disgraceful mendacity of the media at NewsBusters, quotes one of these rants. “CNN is like all Trump all the time. All Trump all the time. You walk out of an interview and you say, ‘that was a good interview’ and then you get killed for the rest of the weekend. So they are so biased toward Crooked Hillary. You know they call it: CNN, Clinton News Network.” OK, but the election is not about CNN.

Even more self-defeating than Trump’s time-consuming digressions about the partisan press during his rallies is the opportunity he is missing in social media. Neither Reagan nor Bush possessed anything like the direct access to voters that he enjoys on Facebook and Twitter. He should be using his enormous social media presence to highlight his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses. Instead, he uses it to preach to the choir. Saturday evening, for example, he fired off this querulous tweet: “I am not just running against Crooked Hillary Clinton, I am running against the very dishonest and totally biased media — but I will win!”

In reality he is almost certainly going to lose if he doesn’t stop mumping about media bias and devote the next 90 days to convincing skeptical voters that he can be trusted with the keys to the White House. And, regardless of wishful thinking about an imaginary “monster vote” by pundits who admit that they aren’t polling experts, he is in real trouble.

What no Republican needs to do, however, is allow transparent media bias to distract him from the core message of his campaign. It is quite possible to beat the press at its own game.