From a political standpoint, the on-going fight between the snowflake media and the Trump Administration is well documented. Newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times have gotten into almost daily barbs with the president over “fake news”, as have cable news networks like CNN and MSNBC. Of course, the broadcast networks haven’t been a fan of conservatives for decades, and have continued to lose incredible amounts of news viewers to the point where in reality, broadcast national news is almost a joke.
Well, it appears that the fuel for the liberal left’s media bandwagon may be running on “E”. The New York Times has announced that they are looking at starting a not-for-profit, philanthropic arm that seeks donations to cover the expense of some of their journalism projects. Mind you, this wouldn’t cover ALL of the news that’s “fit to print”, but certainly would be what pays for the more investigative dalliances of the Times. If it works, look for other snowflake media groups to test the waters.
And here’s why this is such a bad idea. Yes, it allows for the investigative journalistic stories to continue, but at what price? Let’s say Harvard University, which holds the nation’s largest endowment fund, decides they are going to be a major sponsor of the Times and their investigative reporters. So, when it comes to something happening at Harvard that needs investigation, are we going to read about it in the Times? Of course not! While liberal, the editors and publisher of that rag aren’t totally bereft of brain cells. So, your “investigative” journalism, becomes bought and paid for by the liberal alt-left. And in the process, you lose all journalistic integrity.
That’s a term by the way that used to carry a lot of weight. If you didn’t have journalistic integrity, you didn’t have anything. The only thing that mattered in journalism was the fact that you had credibility, that you fully researched stories, and that you didn’t make stuff up. Nowadays, that has been tossed aside. I’m not even sure if universities like Syracuse, Northwestern, and Missouri that hold the most prestigious J-Schools in the land even teach ethical reporting. I know they used to! And if you throw integrity out the window, what is to differentiate between the New York Times and Desert Musings? Answer…absolutely nothing. Other than the fact I DO report the truth, as ugly and as crass as it may seem at times. What you read here may be debated, but never denied. I wish I could say that for the Grand Old Lady of journalism, but frankly, they lost that mantle years ago.
It used to be that other news outlets in TV, radio, cable, and print, would wait until the New York Times published something before they went with it, because if it was in the Times, it was news. If it didn’t make the Times, a lot of places wouldn’t bother with it. That was the mantra at CBS News under Dan Rather for years. Nowadays the thing you have to ask is, “Did someone at the Times make up the story? How do we know it’s true?” Those are sad questions when you understand how well-respected the Times had been for so long in its stellar journalistic career.
Now, they are no different than anything else bought and paid for. The sponsor will control the content, and journalistic integrity continues to slide away. How sad!
Carry on world…you’re dismissed!