SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics & Broadcast News Media - Nightly -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jimpit who wrote (137)1/10/2002 4:04:47 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 165
 
AND YOU WONDER WHERE THE LEFTIST JOURNALISTS COME FROM
boortz.com

It is clear to me that the mainstream New York and Washington press corps carries a decidedly liberal bias. It’s just this simple … do a comprehensive search of news stories, commentaries and editorials and see how many times you see the term “religious right” used. Then look for “religious left.” Try the same with “right wing extremist” and “left wing extremist.” If you just listened to the news on ABC, CBS, and NBC and only read The Boston Herald, The New York Times and The Washington Post you would come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the “religious left” or a “left wing extremist.”

Callers continually ask me just why so many of these journalists are so tilted to the left? There’s a variety of explanations. One is that this is just the accepted media culture. To feel included – to have a sense of belonging – you simply must adhere to the leftist dogma. Another explanation would be – journalism schools.

I got lucky yesterday. I logged on to the Drudge website and saw a story by some Columbia University journalism about how the Media was leaving George W. Bush alone out of patriotic concerns. The Columbia University School of Journalism is to journalism what Harvard Law School is to the legal profession. It is commonly accepted to be at the top of the journalism school heap --- and a heap it is.

The article I refer to was by someone named Joan Konner. She is a professor at Columbia and is the dean emerita (the feminization of the word “emeritus”) of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Konner seems to be a little upset that there is so much patriotism in the country today, and that this patriotism is driving news coverage.

Let me just share a few of Konner’s thoughts with you:

Journalists are currently reporting from behind a “red-white-and-blue curtain of war and national unity.”

We are now seeing a “gap-toothed smile of self-satisfaction” on our TV newscasts.

Fox News is a “blatantly biased, conservative news service that is challenging the long-time supremacy of the more balanced news networks.”

If you think that Fox News is gaining ground because there are more conservatives out there, you’re wrong. It’s only because their reporting is “more passionate, less inhibited and deliberately more dissident.”

To compete with Fox News other news outlets need to find a fresher formula “without betraying their bedrock journalistic principals.” (That would mean without abandoning their leftist journalist outlook.)

The Media Research Center is a “right-wing media watchdog” that is causing the presidents of CBS and ABC to “flinch.”

Our budget surplus has disappeared down “a rabbit hole of tax cuts” which is endangering social security benefits for future retirees.

President Bush’s economic stimulus package is aimed at “retroactive tax giveaways to corporations and the wealthiest Americans.” She refers to these “tax giveaways” as “gifts.”

I am sure you folks recognize these ideas as the usual leftist, Democratic mantra. By the way --- I ran a search on the other writings of Joan Konner and couldn’t find one reference to “left-wing” anywhere.

So, there you have it! This woman is teaching the journalists of tomorrow. She is influencing the young men and women who will one day be writing the editorials, columns and news stories and who will be spending no small amount of time arguing against the notion that there is a left-wing bias in our mainstream media.

By the way, Matt Drudge did something else interesting yesterday. He researched the political contributions made by Joan Conner. Going back to 1992 we see multiple donations to Emlie’s List. Emlie’s List, in case you don’t know, is a campaign fund for liberal Democrat females. She also donates to the Women’s Campaign Fund, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Bill Bradley. All of her donations are to leftist Democrats. Go figure.



To: jimpit who wrote (137)7/27/2002 2:29:43 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 165
 
Pedophile Priests’ and the Boy Scouts
By David Kupelian
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com; originally posted May 8, 2002
cultureandfamily.org
“Pedophile priests.”

The phrase has such a great ring to it — for journalists, that is. It’s hot, punchy (with that double-p alliteration) and short enough for headlines. All in all, a great tag for summing up one of the most sensational news stories of the year.

The only problem is — it’s a lie.

It turns out the vast majority of the Catholic priests’ offenses do not involve “pedophilia” — sexual contact between an adult and a pre-pubescent youth. Rather, they amount to sexual seductions of teenage boys by predatory homosexual men who have abused their position of authority and trust.

“The real problem the Catholic Church faces,” explains Father Donald B. Cozzens, author of “The Changing Face of the Priesthood,” is the “disproportionate number of gay men that populate our seminaries.”

“I think we have to ask the question: Why are 90 to 95 — and some estimates say as high as 98 — percent of the victims of clergy acting out against teen-agers, boys? Why isn’t there … a higher percentage of teen-age girls?” Cozzens declared on NBC’s Meet the Press recently.

Stephen Rubino, a lawyer who has represented over 300 alleged victims of priest abuse, estimates 85 percent of the victims have been teenage boys. And Catholic psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, who has treated many victims and offending priests, agrees with that figure, noting that 90 percent of his patients are either abused teenaged males or their priest abusers.

“This is chiefly a scandal about unchaste or criminal homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood,” sums up National Review senior writer Rod Dreher. “For Catholics, to start asking questions about homosexuality in the priesthood is to risk finding out more than many Church members prefer to know. For journalists, to confront the issue is to risk touching the electrified third rail of American popular culture: the dark side of homosexuality.”

Of course, the American press has been white-hot in exposing the Catholic hierarchy’s inexcusable toleration of known sex offenders, transferring them to other posts and generally looking the other way, rather than reporting their crimes to the police, ejecting them out of the clergy and into jail.

Yet something stinks in all this.

You see, there’s another major, ongoing news story involving homosexuality — namely, the controversy over the “discriminatory” policies of the Boy Scouts of America.

In the last year or so, many Americans, organizations and corporations have withdrawn their financial and moral support from the Boy Scouts of America, marginalizing and condemning the organization as bigoted and hateful. Many United Way chapters have ceased to fund the BSA, some local governments have declared it to be discriminatory, and, toward the end of his presidency, Bill Clinton signed an executive order used by a federal agency to try to evict the Boy Scouts from federal lands.

And what did the Boy Scouts of America do to deserve this vilification?

Before we answer this question, take a moment to ponder this nearly 100-year-old organization. By one comprehensive tally, 63 percent of U.S. Air Force Academy graduates have been Scouts, 68 percent of West Point graduates, 70 percent of Annapolis graduates, and 85 percent of FBI agents, not to mention 26 of the first 29 astronauts — all Scouts.

Currently 5 million boys and 1.2 million adults are involved in Scouting. That’s today. Now add in the tens of millions of former Scouts who count their scouting years as having played an essential, positive role in shaping their lives, and you’ve got an outfit that deserves the undying gratitude and support of Americans.

So, why the relentless assault on the Boy Scouts, with major cheerleading in the news media?

Well you see, unlike the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts’ organization doesn’t knowingly allow homosexual men to hold official positions of trust and authority over young males.

Historically, the BSA has had a serious problem with sexual offenses by male leaders against Scouts — so serious that prevention has become a major preoccupation, with constant leader screening and training, the “two-deep leadership” requirement and programs for Scouts to identify warning signs of inappropriate advances by adults.

The Scouting folks know what everyone with half a brain understands: that adults interested in sexual contact with young people gravitate toward careers and volunteer positions allowing proximity to their prey, positions such as coaches, teachers, scoutmasters — and priests.

The Scouting organization simply refuses to allow what the Catholic Church has allowed — to let known homosexuals occupy positions of authority and trust, positions too easily and too often used to prey on vulnerable young people.

So, the big question: Why does the “mainstream press” condemn the Catholic Church for allowing predatory homosexuals to destroy the lives of boys, while simultaneously condemning the Boy Scouts of America for not allowing precisely the same thing in their organization?

What? You don’t see the media condemning the Boy Scouts?

The press provides widespread and sympathetic journalistic voice to absurd and unconstitutional (remember, the Supreme Court already ruled in favor of the Scouts) arguments and campaigns of those reviling the Scouts, cutting off their funding, and casting them as a hateful, prejudice-based organization.

Without the cheerleading of the news media, the shrill condemnations of radical homosexuals would be seen for what they are — furious and pathetic attempts to destroy one of the most beneficial and positive institutions that has ever existed in world history. And all because the BSA excludes homosexual leaders. That’s a good thing — especially in light of overwhelming evidence that the homosexual subculture is inordinately preoccupied with sex with young people.

Today’s “mainstream news media” — which includes many open homosexuals who regard the news media as a powerful activist tool — love to reflect their fellow travelers’ condemnation of the Boy Scouts’ organization.

For the same reasons, many in the media secretly enjoy seeing the Catholic Church — and the Christian church in general, because of its traditional condemnation of homosexuality — under attack. The fact that the Catholic hierarchy has allowed homosexual priests to prey on teenage boys serves as a useful sledgehammer for discrediting the entire Christian church — as well as the religion it so imperfectly represents.

The only problem for pro-homosexual journalists in all of this is: How do you get around the fact that it’s smooth-talking predatory homosexuals that are the cause of the problems with the Catholic Church and with the Boy Scouts of America? Doesn’t that spoil the “gays-are-just-normal-folks-who-want-equal-rights” argument?

No problem. Just call the bad priests “pedophiles.” And pretend there is no connection between the issue of homosexual Scout leaders and sexual attacks on Scouts. And bingo, the homosexual issue drops off the public’s radar.

By the way, I don’t blame homosexual activists in any of this. They have a right to lobby, to persuade, to picket — they even have a right to twist facts, intimidate people and lie, as they typically do, as long as they aren’t breaking the law.

I blame the news media. Unlike activists and lobbyists, the press is “sworn to tell the truth,” so to speak. It’s a sacred trust between them and the public who rely on them for accurate information. But they violate that trust as easily as breathing.



To: jimpit who wrote (137)5/11/2005 5:35:57 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 165
 
Googling the future

By John Leo


The year is 2014. The press as we know it no longer exists. Traditional reporting has collapsed. News is churned out by the media giant Googlezon. (Google has taken over many companies and joined forces with Amazon.)

The news consists of blogs, attitudes, discoveries, preferences, claims and random thoughts, gathered and shaped by computers and a few human editors, then fed back to ordinary people who produce the continuing conversation.

The New York Times is off the Internet. It still publishes, but the newspaper has become a newsletter read only by the elite and the elderly.

This is the finding of a clever, eight-minute mock documentary, "EPIC 2014," produced by the fictional Museum of Media History (in reality, journalists Matt Thompson of the Fresno Bee and Robin Sloan of Current, a new cable news channel in San Francisco). Messrs. Thompson and Sloan recently added a short section taking the story up to 2015.

The mockumentary is starting to reach a mass audience at a time of unusually high anxiety for the news industry. The news business has been hobbled by a string of scandals and credibility problems. Skirmishes between reporters and bloggers seem like the beginning of a long war between old media and new. Newspaper publishers are nervous -- some would say paralyzed with fright -- over polls showing young adults are not reading papers. Their audience is dying off. Many young people say they get their news from a brief look at headline news or from late-night comedians.

Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the recent convention of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, advised members to encourage their readers to use the Internet more as a supplement to print coverage. Newspapers, he warned, risk being "relegated to the status of also-rans" if they don't make use of the Internet.

Columnist Richard Brookhiser had a blunt comment in the New York Observer: Mr. Murdoch was just being polite -- what he meant is newspapers are dead. The older electronic media are nervous, too. According to Advertising Age, Google and Yahoo will take in as much ad money this year as the prime-time revenues of the three major networks combined.

Another sign of the times: Bloggers now try to set up a consortium to draw heavy advertising themselves. In the mockumentary, the new electronic media basically blow away the old by paying attention to what people want, most of which would be called soft news or non-news today.

In 2006, the mockumentary reports, Google combines its services -- including Gmail, Blogger and Google News -- into the Google Grid, which provides limitless storage space and bandwidth for storing and sharing media. In 2010, Google defeats Microsoft in the news wars (no actual news organizations are involved in the conflict).

In March 2014, Googlezon produces EPIC, the Evolving Personalized Information Construct. "Everyone contributes now -- from blog entries to phone-cam images, to video reports, to full investigations," the video says. Everyone is a news producer as well as a news consumer. Computers strip and splice items, adjusting for each user's needs and preferences. News is prioritized according to how many users read each item. There are no gatekeepers who decide what we should see and which items are more important than others.

The video seems an unusually dry satire, but taken at face value, most of it is plausible -- and scary.

Without gatekeepers, no one stands ready to verify reports as accurate, so there's no difference between real news and agreed-upon gossip or low-level fluff. Issues debated today -- Are bloggers real journalists? Is there a clear line between news and entertainment? -- would be irrelevant. Everyone would be a journalist. And though some contributors would be paid, it isn't clear the flow of money would be enough to fund complicated reports and investigations. Reporters would be paid according to the popularity of their stories. Good luck if your job is to cover Rwanda or global warming.

In pointedly ponderous tones, the mockumentary breaks into one of those on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand analyses we all love to hate. At best, we are told, EPIC is deeper, broader and more nuanced than anything seen before. On the other hand, a lot of EPIC is shallow, trivial and untrue. "But EPIC is what we wanted, it is what we chose, and its commercial success pre-empted any discussions of media and democracy or journalistic ethics." "EPIC 2014" is a very sharp bit of media analysis. Check it out at www.robinsloan.com/epic.

John Leo is a contributing editor and columnist with U.S.News & World Report and is nationally syndicated.

washtimes.com