An independent activist journalist has been digging into the case and has come up with some interesting and alarming connections and history. Worth a read: https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2019/07/08/the-jeffrey-epstein...
replies(5):
Thanks for sharing the link!
The linked site has all the markers of being untrustworthy: conspiratorial headlines ending in "What's really going on"; A fascination with cryptocurrencies; Incessant calls for donations, the name, etc.
FWIW the Epstein angle – that he is a Mossad agent – isn't "buried" by the mainstream media. I have seen this theory mentioned. It is just not featured prominently because there is no substantive evidence for it. It's just a Deus Ex Machina that could conveniently explain the dereliction of duty of the criminal justice system in the case.
Journalists never were supposed to be "activists", except for some universally accepted concepts such as democracy and transparency. There is a memorable scene in a documentation of the NYT called "Page One", where Brian Stelter is filmed asking Assange if he considers himselself a journalist or an activist.
What has changed are the widely-shared "assumptions". It's become a marker of one's smartitude to rail against "mainstream" journalism.
An informed reader should understand the biases present in anything they read and weigh the arguments accordingly—pretending objectivity discourages this kind of responsibility and is very harmful to good-faith discourse.
Another independent example: Ken Dilanian is at NBC now, but google for articles about him running articles by the CIA before filing them.
And now I sound like a conspiracy monger.
Every person who is a journalist has a bias. But the point of the practice/process of journalism is to mitigate those personal influences.
Just because you're investigating and writing does mean you're a journalist. Maybe you're doing glorified op-ed. Maybe you're being a wannabe reporter. But being a journaliat is a higher level.
If you're not aware of the difference between op-ed, reporter, and journalism then...you're not a journalist. One of the biggest communication problems we have today is that too many assume they understand the definition of journalism (and the processess and ethics on which its built), but they do not. Yet they continue to use the word inappropriately. Others blindly follow. And so on.
Long to short, people use "journalism" like they use "literally"; most of the time in the wrong way at the wrong time.
My point is that just alleging the presence of bias to call a piece 'not journalism' is wrong because all journalism is biased in some way. It's a dishonest tactic that boils down to an appeal to authority.
You should look up "literally" in a modern dictionary. For example:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
2 : in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
"will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice" — Norman Cousins
And an extended discussion:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...
It's not unusual for a word in the English language to have its own "literal" meaning and also be used in other contexts with nearly the opposite meaning. There are literally billions of words like this!
But I'll bet most people could care less.
I also have a more conspiratorial theory in reguards to the Economist, as in it is part-owned by the Exor group, owned by the Agnelli family. Now, in these 15 years I’ve only read 3 (three) multi-page articles detailing the not so kosher business dealings of big international companies/conglomerates. One of them was against Warren Buffet’s way of doing some tax-related tricks post 2010 or so, the other two were both against Italian conglomerates, one run by Berlusconi and the other one against the Ferrero group (the maker of famous Nutella among other things). I suspect that both of these articles were related in one way or another to the Exor group, as in them being printed somehow benefited the Agnelli family. Berlusconi actually sued The Economist but as far as I know he lost.
To further clarify, what you think I said is not what I said.
The practice of journalism will not eliminate bias. Nothing can. But it can and should mitigate it. And if you're not trying to mitigate the biases, then that's not journalism. To write shamelessly with bias is not journalism.
Long to short, there is a fair amount of publishing that gets called journalism, but is actually op-ed. There's nothing wrong with that per se, other than as journalism, it's fake news.
The Rachael Maddow Show is not journalism; and in that context/form she is not a journalist.
Many of the Fox News Shows are not journalism.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
The problem is too many people treat them as news and they're op-ed.
Put another way, just because you agree with an opinion doesn't mean it's journalism.
I don’t watch Fox so I can’t speak to any of their shows, but from what I’ve seen of Maddow (admittedly not a lot), she is clearly doing at least some amount of journalism in terms of seeking the truth, verifying sources and facts, etc. Sure she also pushes her opinions and has an agenda, but I would argue that this is orthogonal to her journalistic integrity, which I haven’t really seen any reason to question. She is not trying to present opinions as if they were facts—she just mixes the two in a single show. Of course she is biased in what she chooses to cover, but again the point is that everyone does that to some degree. Claiming you have ‘mitigated’ your unavoidable bias is just an attempt to privilege your own perspective above others.
Like science, journalism is falsifiable. If you can point to specific errors or falsehoods, you should do so. Otherwise you’re just dealing in innuendo.