NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I don’t believe you.” Those words come to mind as mainstream science and news outlets lose any restraint or neutrality in lamenting the results of the presidential election. After recovering, the public was told to ignore what they had just seen.
It’s no surprise that Trump’s victory last week caused a furore among some Harris supporters, from women who pledged to divorce their men to others who cut their hair to those who promised to flee the country (including one who surprisingly announced that he was “leaving the country. United States” of Hawaii).
It would also come as no surprise that New York Gov. Kathy Hochul labeled more than half of voters “anti-American” by voting for Trump or other Democratic politicians, declaring that we are now officially entering a totalitarian state because of this. democratic elections.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN EDITOR DEMONSTRATES ‘F—ING FASCIST’ VOTERS FOR DONALD TRUMP
It is the most interesting media group to watch. Obviously, the response on MSNBC and CNN was expected as figures like contributor Claire McCaskill cried on air.
However, some news organizations such as CBS News have long maintained claims of neutrality as their networks have been criticized for openly pushing the Harris-Walz ticket. That includes the alleged handling of the vice presidential debate as CBS insists its hosts and reporters were completely neutral in the election.
However, after the election, there was CBS news anchor John Dickerson who choked on national television in an interview on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”..” Dickerson chose to enter a show that has been openly anti-Trump for years. Still, many were surprised that, even days after the election, Dickerson was still reeling from grief.
Colbert asked: “How would you explain that to a 14-year-old today? How would you explain this election?”
“I’m going to try not to think about my boys because…,” Dickerson started to answer before losing his temper.
It was one thing for late-night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel to tear through the results, but this is one of the top news figures on one of the top three networks.
So far there is no backing down from CBS. That’s in stark contrast to the recent controversy involving CBS News anchor Tony Dokoupil who was quickly criticized by CBS for criticizing the author for his biased anti-Israel views. Dokoupil was reportedly thrown into a “touchy-feely meeting” with the network’s staff, angered by his pro-Israel bias.
So how does CBS pretend to be neutral when the anchor chokes on Trump’s victory? The answer is simple: The public is being told to ignore and trust a reporter who can’t even discuss the election results without fighting back tears.
That message was even more dramatic in Scientific American. Once a popular, science-based publication, the magazine has been widely criticized for its political views and scientific pseudo-views. Much of the blame is focused on Laura Helmuth, the editor-in-chief.
After the election, Helmuth had a massive outburst of insults on social media.
He called Gen X voters the king’s racists.” He dismissed “the unity of every ugly, stupid, selfish high schooler celebrating the first results because f–k they’re going to the moon and back.” He even added that criticism of some Indiana people as “racist and gender” for voting for Trump.
Helmuth called members of his generation “f—ing fascists.” (Screenshot of Bluesky)
The post was circulated with false claims of neutrality, and many also raised long-standing concerns about the direction of the magazine. Helmuth responded by deleting the comment and telling readers to forget what he said.
In fairness, Helmuth tried to separate his personal views from those of the editor-in-chief. However, his “speech of shock and confusion about the results of the election” is consistent with what many have argued about the magazine’s political turn in recent years.
In 2020, American science broke a 175-year tradition of impartiality to endorse Joe Biden in the presidential election. Conservatives complained about the tenor and thrust of the magazine, which was once entirely political.
The point is that Helmuth’s anger is not limited to his social media account.
The public is also told to ignore the man behind the curtain. However, most of the community has left.
The Washington Post will not endorse a candidate for the 2024 presidential election. (Oliver Contreras/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
As I discuss in my recent book, “The Fundamental Right,” many in media and journalism schools have clearly abandoned both neutrality and neutrality over the years. The result has been a decline in income and literacy as society turns to new media and other sources of information.
At the Washington Post, publisher and CEO William Lewis put it bluntly by telling employees, “Let’s not sugarcoat it…We’re losing a lot of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People aren’t reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it.”
CLICK HERE TO VIEW MORE FOX NEWS
Nevertheless, almost immediately after Trump won, the Post ran a headline that read “The second resistance to Trump must begin now.”
The problem is, when “people don’t read your stuff,” a few may be inclined to join the second resistance after rejecting the first resistance. Many may doubt that a CBS anchor who can’t even discuss Trump’s victory without losing his composure will view the Trump Administration favorably in the years to come.
Very few would believe the assurance from a figure like Helmuth that he would regain “organizational intent” after denouncing anyone who supports Trump as stupid racists.
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEWS PROGRAM
Of course, if you believe that part of the country is “dumb,” you might believe that they will just forget about the post-election meltdown.
Maybe they are right. It was once said that “chumps prefer a good lie to a bad truth.” The problem is, if this election proved one thing, it’s that many voters feel like they’re being played as villains by the media and the political establishment.
Pulling back the curtain didn’t work for Great Oz, and it will work less for legacy media.
CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE FROM JONATHAN TUREY
Source link
