Chuck Todd and the Demise of True Journalism

[rangerrebew]

Chuck Todd and the Demise of True Journalism
 
By Mark Hemingway
October 08, 2019
 

Chuck Todd received plaudits from his media peers for lambasting Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s investigation of the FBI as “Fox News conspiracy propaganda stuff” during a hostile 10-minute “Meet the Press” interview on Sunday.

The Washington Post offered up a story headlined “‘Who leaked?’ An analysis of GOP Sen. Ron Johnson’s conspiracy-minded defense of Trump.’” The Daily Beast declared, “GOP Sen. Ron Johnson Loses It on ‘Meet the Press.’” Business Insider went with “GOP Senator Ron Johnson had a 'Fox News conspiracy' meltdown.” Columbia Journalism Review covered the story under the banner “The Sunday shows turn on Trump’s enablers.”

But far from being a laudable moment of press accountability, the “Meet the Press” interview was a disappointing turn for Todd and the show, once one of the media’s flagship brands. Indeed, the full interview illustrated how the media are increasingly obsessed with performative demonstrations of their political views, and less concerned with simply being informative.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/08/chuck_todd_and_the_demise_of_true_journalism_141438.html

[skeeter]

Partisans will be either outraged or approving of Todd's performance on Sunday, depending upon how they feel about Trump.

But those not invested in either position, the truly open minded, have to agree Chuck Todd has thrown off all pretense to objectivity, checked his objectivity and has openly become an advocate for the rats.

This is a good thing - the leftist media has gotten alot of mileage out of faking impartiality over the years. Due to their performance over the past several years thats over now.

[goatprairie]

I'm beginning to wonder if there ever was a time when the media played it fairly?
It was certainly incredibly biased against Republicans when I was young  fifty-sixty years ago. Things haven't changed much.
Remember, it was back in the 1930s when Walter Duranty went to the Soviet Union and swallowed Stalin's lies whole.  Because he, and probably the big shots at the Slimes, wanted to believe them.

[Fishrrman]

In reply to goat's question above, I reckon "the media" (which of course was first the print media, then came radio, then television) has always been "biased".

But back in the newsprint-only era, there was more of an "equilibrium of bias", with both sides having significant representation.

But starting in the 1920's, as Marxism first began to take hold in politics, that equilibrium began to shift leftwards.

And that shift turned into "a full tilt" by the 1980's. It's fallen completely over by now.

That's the way I see it.

[aligncare]

My journalism degree is gathering dust in a box somewhere—class of ‘78. Never did make much use of it.

But, I can tell you this, my professors taught us old school journalism: The five W’s, verbatim quotes, present a balanced picture of the news event, named sources only, editorializing verboten except on the editorial page.

Chuck must have skipped a few classes.

[LMAO]

It's why trust in the media by the general public is at an all time low

[goatprairie]

My journalism degree is gathering dust in a box somewhere—class of ‘78. Never did make much use of it.

But, I can tell you this, my professors taught us old school journalism: The five W’s, verbatim quotes, present a balanced picture of the news event, named sources only, editorializing verboten except on the editorial page.

Chuck must have skipped a few classes.

One of things I harp on constantly is the media's habit of telling the half story.  For instance, when Reagan was president, the media was always doing stories on people who were "harmed" by Reagan's economic measures and pretty much ignored the gigantic overall growth of the economy during his two terms.
As gatekeepers, the liberal media are experts at stopping news that's damaging to their vision of America where the government is in control of everything.