Journalism today is a joke

  • Follow Letters

I nearly fell on the floor when I saw the byline for a Dec. 16 story out of Columbia on South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley. It actually was written by The State newspaper. I thought liberal/socialist Associated Press had first dibs on attacking, I mean, covering a Republican, as they have in the past 50 stories on Haley.

Did AP give its approval? I’ve longed figured out that journalism is a joke, with the readers paying for it, both out of their pockets and when they lose their democracy because of the best socialist propaganda their money can buy. The readers don’t object; therefore, newspapers don’t complain to AP, and AP doesn’t have to stop the propaganda. Everybody gets to be a dupe, except for AP.

The first level of journalism – professors – I wrote about in a letter to the editor May 9, 2008, noting I had found only one such person at either the universities of South Carolina or Georgia who would discuss it. He said the media wasn’t liberal, but he had done no scientific studies.

Second level of journalism: editors. I’ve written letters to the editor for the past 15 years about AP’s liberal bias, with no real change from the editors. So, that’s out. (Plus, AP is a virtual monopoly, and the other wire services are almost as liberal, and journalism doesn’t know how or why to start a new, unbiased wire service.)

Third, I’ve just written to eight of AP’s 19 board of director members, who are supposed to handle complaints about AP, including bias, and sent each a 100-page album with 100 complaints and examples of AP’s liberal and anti-America bias. Not one of those directors gave the complaints to AP, as is their job, or even responded that they had gotten the material. So, whenever AP or journalism says or gives you the impression that you’re being cared for and protected from AP bias by AP’s board of directors, that’s no more honest than any other level of journalism.

Fourth, I sent the 100-page album on AP bias to 21 conservative newspaper columnists, radio and TV show hosts and two conservative magazines, and there has been basically no response from this level of journalism.

When democracy collapses, liberal media – including AP – will have brought it down, and no one in journalism will have had knowledge or complaints. Whom will newspapers assign to write the story on who brought down democracy? AP, who will blame the FBI, as they did with the fall of the Twin Towers in a 2004 article, making sure the liberal/socialist media and the press-elected Democratic president (Clinton, etc.) are left out of the story.

And no one will know that it was journalism all along And no one will care.

Comments (26)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
omnomnom
3964
Points
omnomnom 01/05/13 - 11:28 am
3
4

.

.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 01/05/13 - 08:50 am
4
14

Bias?

" liberal/socialist media and the press-elected Democratic president"
"AP’s liberal and anti-America bias"
"liberal/socialist Associated Press"
"AP is a virtual monopoly, and the other wire services are almost as liberal"
"When democracy collapses, liberal media – including AP"
"AP bias by AP’s board of directors"

Looking for bias Tom? Perhaps a glance in a mirror is all you need.

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 01/05/13 - 08:50 am
10
3

I clear form of bias would be

I clear form of bias would be when a MAJOR news network runs a total of 5, count them FIVE stories about Benghazi, where four Americans were brutally murdered. Another MAJOR news network runs 7 total stories on Benghazi. Again, an American Ambassor and three others were MURDERED and Major news networks feel ONE story a month is adequate? Do they not want us to keep up with the invesitgation? Do they not want us to remember? Oooh yes, there is definatey a bias in the lamestream media. Only hard leftists would disagree, ask Bob Beckel.

effete elitist liberal
2760
Points
effete elitist liberal 01/05/13 - 09:08 am
5
13

give the guy a lantern

No doubt Tom Hunter sees himself as a latter-day Diogenes wandering the earth looking for an honest journalist. Hey, Tom, look on the bright side--there's always talk radio!

effete elitist liberal
2760
Points
effete elitist liberal 01/05/13 - 09:11 am
4
14

myfather

On the other hand, Fox News ran about a gazillion stories about the "War on Christmas." Is that bias too?

freeradical
824
Points
freeradical 01/05/13 - 09:19 am
5
4

onmomnom, A personally

onmomnom,
A personally biased "attack" under the guise of journalism would

be a major network " news " person , maybe someone like Dan Rather ,

giving a totally concocted , falsified , bogus , unverified , story to the

american people , being caught red handed at it , and then being

forced to resign and disappear as said same major " news " person

because of their being completely exposed as a biased liar .

Hope that clears things up for you ?

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 01/05/13 - 09:38 am
4
16

Just keep watching Faux.

Just keep watching Faux. They'll keep you updated on Benghazi. Through their thorough, unbiased journalism we learned that Rep. Gary Condit was without a doubt the murderer of Chandra Levy. They also showed that there was no "war on women", but the "war on Xmas" was alive and well.

soapy_725
43306
Points
soapy_725 01/05/13 - 10:17 am
0
0

Ignorance and Apathy

Unpublished

The true twin towers that signaled the destruction of America.

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 01/05/13 - 10:22 am
11
3

You're right Tech, there is

You're right Tech, there is no war on women!! This Country is constantly fighting to further the rights of women and minorities. There are more professional women of power in this Country than any other Country COMBINED. But don't let that fact stand in the way of your Demean America agenda. Your only reason for talking about a war on women is the abortion issue. Last time I checked, abortion is still legal in this Country, unfortunately. Your comment is complete rhetoric, lacking any senseable logic or provable facts.

And there isn't a "War on Christmas". It's actually a War on Christians, Christmas is just one aspect of Christianity they are attacking. Ten Commandments in Courthouses or public buildings are one aspect. Crosses displayed on public roadways are another. Christian organizations feeding the homeless are another. Bible studies being banned in educational institutions are another. Bible studies being banned in people homes because of ordinances are another. The list could go on and on.

carcraft
20671
Points
carcraft 01/05/13 - 10:35 am
9
1

Both Gifford's shooter and

Both Gifford's shooter and the Sandy Hooker Shooter were mentally ill! Along with the discussion of "assault " weapons have we had on the treatment of mental illness? Nope better to push the gun ban than mental health issues.

RMSHEFF
10999
Points
RMSHEFF 01/05/13 - 10:49 am
7
1

Tom is correct. It has been

Tom is correct. It has been this way for 50+ years but has gotten much worse in the last 10 years. If you want the "Data" or "facts" go to MRC.org.
There is no doubt that the overwhelming number of journalist are left of center. This is by their own admission and is also true for academia as well. Once upon a time there was an attempt by reporters to be objective despite their personal political beliefs however today they make no attempt to cover up this bias. Any objective observer will come to this conclusion if he takes time to examine the facts. The best place to witness this bias is just go back and watch a press conference given by George Bush and listen to the questions the reporters ask. An then listen to the questions that are ask of President Obama. You will not only see how different the questions are but how the questions are structured. Of course if the observer is also biased he will not recognize the obvious. Some of the questions ask of President Obama are hilarious. I remember the question he got in a serious new interview about his favorite color.

effete elitist liberal
2760
Points
effete elitist liberal 01/05/13 - 11:07 am
3
11

War on???

You're right about one thing, myfather, there is indeed a war on Christians,
and increasingly the "bad guys" are winning! We'll never succeed in getting rid of all the superstitious mumbo-jumbo, but we'll take what we can get.

palmetto1008
9782
Points
palmetto1008 01/05/13 - 11:16 am
5
8

The U.S. Constitution is a

Unpublished

The U.S. Constitution is a pesky little thing. Isn't it, myfather??

Willow Bailey
20252
Points
Willow Bailey 01/05/13 - 11:46 am
11
2

Tom, good letter. You forgot

Tom, good letter. You forgot to mention, not only does the public not care; there are actually fools who cheer them on.

eagle
94
Points
eagle 01/05/13 - 11:59 am
0
0

If you want the true facts

Unpublished

If you want the true facts about what is going on in this country, listen to the BBC. They cover it all and nothing held back. The mainstream media is a joke and making more kool-aid for their followers.

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 01/05/13 - 12:06 pm
7
1

@EEL

Just remember my friend, EVERYTHING your team is doing, is forewarned about in the Bible. It tells us of all the little tricks and lies you guys shall tell to confuse the people. The only problem is, I've read it completely through and I do believe in the END, We win. Whats it worth to win a few battles, if in the end YOU LOSE? Of course, you don't believe in that "Superstitious mumbo-jumbo" so I guess my comment doesn't effect you in the slightest. But it SHALL, some day very soon. I just hope to see people like you on that day, when He is here and you can see Him, after all the lies you've told about Him. The Bible says you will lie and claim you loved him, but it won't work and He shall say "Depart from me, I never knew you." It shall be too late at that time. You had many years to come around. I just hope you do, of your own free will, before it's to late.

Riverman1
70591
Points
Riverman1 01/05/13 - 12:20 pm
9
1

Benghazi cover-up was obvious

The Benghazi cover-up was obvious. It was an election changing event completely suppressed by the liberal media. The liberal press feels like it's proper to support society changing economic and international policies. Their reporting and editorials reflect their goals. It won't change until our economy bounces like a credit card in a pawn shop.

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 01/05/13 - 12:39 pm
7
2

@Palmetto

Why yes, that constitution is a pesky little thing.

Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about the 2nd Amendment? Because it clearly states the exact right; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But most on the left don't believe this applies because the Founding Fathers could neeeever have imagined the firearms we have today.

As opposed to your and the lefts (mis)INTERPRETATION of the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, I could be mistaken; But I don't see a single line in there that states "Seperation of Church and State".

It says, Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Now again, I could be mistaken and please correct me if I'm wrong but there is no LAW on the books saying everyone must be Christian. I also don't think there are any laws prohibiting someone from being ANY religion, to include muslim or atheist. Tell me something; Has any representative EVER TRIED to pass a law, mandating everyone must worship the same god? Thats exactly what this was meant to do was protect people from being punished for not worship a certain god. The radical leftists of this Country and have intentionally misinterpreted this amendment over and over to pass their godless agenda.

Any common sense utilitizing Chistian doesn't want to MAKE everyone worship our God. Why? Because that would be directly against God's will. HE, read that again, HE gave EVERYONE free will and for US to attempt to take that away is dangerous. He even commanded such in Matt 13, The people asked him "Should we cut down the tares (evil people), He said let the TARES GROW, leave them alone and at the end I will gather the wheat into my barn and burn the tares. He doesn't want us KILLING or FORCING non-Christians to worship Him. It wouldn't be true love. It would be like a man kidknapping a beautiful woman and beating her until she says she loves him. Yes, eventually she will say it, but it isn't true.

But the 1st amendment doesn't mean we can't display the faith of the majority of the people of this Country in public, or pray in schools, or put a cross on the road to mark where a loved one died, or place ten commandments in a public building. Explain to me how ANY of those are ESTABLISHING a law. Your interpretation of the 1st amendment is WRONG. So how about the 2nd?

Bantana
2071
Points
Bantana 01/05/13 - 12:52 pm
8
2

When the primary focus of

When the primary focus of television journalism became a function of profit oriented business practices (NBC/General Electric) rather than a civic obligation, everything changed. I've worked with some of the most respected network journalists in this country and all of them lament the shift to commercial interests as the death of objectivism. Tom Brokaw is a gun owning, conservative, midwesterner that eventually gave up the anchor chair over his disagreements with management regarding the changes in journalism. Today's television news division managers are more often than not, business-degreed number crunchers who don't even know the history of Fred Friendly, Edward R. Murrow and Don Hewitt. Don't blame the "faces" of television news, blame the principles of capitalism and profiteering that drive the message whether it be progressive or conservative. They've discovered that there is a base of consumers to suit every slant. Thus explaining the existence of Fox News, as well as, MSNBC. It's all about the dollars.

DanK
754
Points
DanK 01/05/13 - 01:30 pm
6
2

Perspective and Freedom

Mr. Hunter, whatever gave you the peculiar notion that any particular newspaper, magazine, television network, radio station, or reporting service must present the stories or use the words you want to hear? They are for-profit enterprises. They write and broadcast information in ways that contribute to the economic success of their business. That's the way capitalism works. If there were no market for their product, they would lose money and go out of business.

Whatever gave you the peculiar notion that Associated Press or any major news service should alter its reporting practices in order to conform to your opinions, just because you send them a box of papers explaining your opinions? From their perspective, it is you who are biased, not they.

The fact is, there are plenty of conservative media sources out there. Fox is unabashedly conservative. Virtually all talk radio is deeply conservative. The Wall Street Journal is a large, influential conservative newspaper with a national audience competing with New York Times. There are conservative news magazines with large readerships, like New Republic. Lots of newspapers like the Augusta Chronicle are heavily conservative. If you want news presented using words and opinions that you like better, simply turn to the sources that share your bias.

News and editorial opinion are a market commodity just like any other. Companies produce a variety of products for consumers. You can use the product you like best, or you can market a competing product yourself. You obviously believe that you could do a better job than those services.

In the end, your bias is no less egregious than AP or The New York Times. Your opinion is not objective. You view everything through the red filter of conservative opinion. Slinging around words like "socialist" and "liberal" really do not scare people anymore, because using them gratuitously and improperly, as is the wont of the far right, has desensitized America to the words.

Perhaps you should redirect the energy you've been investing in trying to convince companies to conform to your personal perspective, towards a more productive endeavor. I recommend gardening. It is a great way to relieve stress, and produces beauty rather than hate.

DanK
754
Points
DanK 01/05/13 - 01:50 pm
4
5

The death of objectivism

Bantana, would you say that Fox News and New Republic are "objective" sources for information? The fact is, news corporations are for-profit enterprises. They market a product. There are many competing products. Consumers choose the product they like best.

I am pretty sure you choose Fox News over other news reporting companies. But if you really believe Fox is an "objective" news source, I've got news for you. It is not unbiased, it's just a different bias.

The best solution for consumers of any product, news included, is competition. There are many sources available to consumers. Everyone can pick the flavor they like best.

effete elitist liberal
2760
Points
effete elitist liberal 01/05/13 - 01:55 pm
4
5

"my comment doesn't effect you in the slightest"

Actually, myfather, you're almost right. And it doesn't, of course, since my view is that the Bible is mostly nonsense. I've just heard it all so much before--that in the last days we non-believers will finally see the truth and it will be too late. The gloating, the fake pity for us lost ones, the sad we-told-you-so head shaking--I've heard it all for years. You Christians have it made. If you're right, good for you. If you're wrong, it never mattered after all. But that's the amazing cleverness of the Christian con--you have the security of believing you can't lose!

Jake
30337
Points
Jake 01/05/13 - 03:10 pm
1
7

"Christian con.....

.....you have the security of believing you can't lose!".
Sounds a lot like the lure of Las Vegas.

RMSHEFF
10999
Points
RMSHEFF 01/05/13 - 04:07 pm
5
1

Dank

The least "objective" and most liberal of all is PBS....a not for profit news group. Just ask the liberal Jaun Williams.

palmetto1008
9782
Points
palmetto1008 01/05/13 - 04:28 pm
2
5

Myfather, MY interpretations

Unpublished

Myfather, MY interpretations of the 1st or 2nd Admendments don't matter. And neither do YOURS. It's a beautiful thing...along with the protection of minority interests at which you seem to thumb your nose.

RMSHEFF
10999
Points
RMSHEFF 01/05/13 - 04:40 pm
4
3

Palmetto1008

Where did you come up with "protection of minority interest?"

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 01/05/13 - 04:56 pm
4
1

Here we go again.....

If you don't believe the way palmetto and the left believe, you're a bigot, racist who "Thumbs your nose" to minorities.

Just like Dank said, when you throw around terms without any basis, they begin to lose meaning and effect. Liberals have far to long thrown out terms like Bigot, Hater, Homophobe, Racist, Sexist, etc. towards people whom disagree with them. They've cried wolf way to many times and now hardly anyone pays attention when they hear it. There was a time in this Country if someone actually called you a racist or bigot, it was big time trouble. Now people look right over it, unless you have some smoking gun.

Just like the lefts continuous attack on Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. The NAACP actually said this man doesn't care about minorities rights. Here is a clue, THIS MAN IS A MINORITY. Just because he isn't a LEFTIST minority, doesn't mean he isn't and it doesn't mean he doesn't care about minority rights. This type of rhetoric is what has made people numb to the name calling. People don't pay any attention to it anymore because they realize the left are just using it to further their agenda.

The bottom line is, when a person doesn't have a foundation to stand on in a debate, they throw out the minority rights rhetoric.

But one thing your right about is that it doesn't matter what OUR opinions of the Bill of Rights are. But it does matter how the Supreme Court Justices interpret them. And they are increasingly becoming more and more left. Which is good for you guys, for now!!

By the way palmetto, you were the one brought up the "Pesky Constitution" using it to support seperation of church and state.

But you still didn't give your opinion of another Right gaurenteed by that same constitution. I would like to hear your opinion of the 2nd amendment, but I believe thats one you would gladly do away with.

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 01/05/13 - 05:02 pm
6
2

@EEL

Yes, if I'm right I've lived a good life, completely fulfilled, and now have found the fountain of youth and shall live a perfect life after this dispensation of time. If I'm wrong, I've still lived a good life, oh well.

If you're right, you've lived a good life and oh well, it's over. If you're wrong, you've lived a good life and then it's over again, while others live a perfect life, free of any crime or anyone who would harm you. Possessing a perfect body that doesn't age or get sick and doesn't feel the elements. The shame is you will miss that perfect life. Doesn't everyone want to find the fountain of youth? HE is out there.

palmetto1008
9782
Points
palmetto1008 01/05/13 - 05:39 pm
1
4

myfather and rmsheff.....by

Unpublished

myfather and rmsheff.....by "minority interests" I was not talking necessarily about racial or ethnic minorities. I was speaking of protection from the tyranny of the majority....no matter what that majority may consist of.
And, myfather, it was specifically directed at this comment of yours: "But the 1st amendment doesn't mean we can't display the faith of the majority of the people of this Country in public, or pray in schools, or put a cross on the road to mark where a loved one died, or place ten commandments in a public building"

myfather15
42140
Points
myfather15 01/05/13 - 06:05 pm
4
1

@palmetto

And all I was pointing out is that the majority of American's believe in a creator and claim some sort of Christianity. So, how exactly is that passing a LAW that FORCES everyone to be Christian? How are ANY of those things mentioned, FORCING anyone to be Christian. The constitution of the United States, especially the Bill of Rights, doesn't protect everyone from being offended. If you're offended by a cross on the side of the road, SO WHAT!! If you're offended by the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse, SO WHAT!! None of things are PASSING A LAW WHICH ESTABLISHES a mandated religion.

No, I wouldn't force any religion on anyone and wouldn't descriminate against them because they don't believe as I do. But if they are offended by what most people do believe in, SO WHAT!! In no way are any of these displays of faith, discrimination. The majority needs to stop bending for the minority. That doesn't mean allowing descrimination base on sex, race, etc. But again, we aren't protected from ever being offended by something. So if these things offend you, SO WHAT, get over it and have a nice life!!

But you guys will just keep pushing and eventually the sleeping dog will bite!!

Back to Top

Top headlines

New chair gets vet off-road to fish

Army veteran Henry Kent's new Action Trackchair has attachments for fishing, with a holder for his fishing pole and a built-in tackle box, but others can be outfitted with gunracks for hunting.
Loading...