Ronic Indignation: Caller Daily Practice Wwhat It Preaches Against:"American journalism has died today."This is a bold statement from Andrew Breitbart follows the story on Tucker Carlson Caller Daily blog which outlines, as described by its title, "the media of conspiring to kill a story about Rev. Jeremiah Wright" in the period after April 16, 2008, debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Mediaite Steve Krakauer provides a good overview of this issue, pointing out - correctly - that "pay is largely non-existent."
The fact that the Daily Caller proves that many liberal commentators believe, not necessarily a supposedly objective journalists, did not like the media to talk about Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This is not surprising.
The irony, of course, is that the Daily Caller (founder of the conservative judge Carlson and Neil Patel, the former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney) is used in a journalistic attempt to shift the political arena - that an accurate charge level of 40 mostly liberal journalists and bloggers , who co-wrote a letter criticizing the ABC debate moderation. Descriptive quote about the journalists, by the way, from the simultaneous article New York Times "about the criticism in the debate. In other words, when she left the letter was understood to represent the political position.
It should take the same understanding in reading the article of the caller.
Andrew Breitbart openly conservative (he of glory BigJournalism) yesterday offered a prediction for those whom he sees as representing the left: "Relax. Tomorrow gonna be a long day and the first of many in a row. Now he has an opinion piece, who sits next to the Caller history, from which my opening quote was taken. In the play, he wrote:
There is a strong journalistic rule curve when it comes to the study and protection racket, which is modern journalism, in particular, political journalism in the United States today. The end justifies the means for the Democrats the Media Complex. They are lying when they say that to be objective. They are lying when they claim that objective, because these so-called "truth seekers" are guilty of participating in open political struggle.
Breitbart proclaims this day as the death of American journalism, because he sees in American journalism, as intrinsically partisan - and partisan as he is. Or, anyway, because he wants to see it that way.
It masks the real moment with his offensive language. As I discussed earlier, there is a shift in the understanding of how journalists deal with their own personal predilections. It's not that journalists "lie" about the goal - is that it is virtually impossible to actually be objective.
Removal of today: a group of journalists who seek to undermine the tacit bias story does not agree. But the takeaway is as much about daily Caller and Breitbart as it comes on the original article. Those who think that it was not the same e-mail back and forth between staff and Caller Breitbart as being among those who signed the letter criticizing Caller is, I'm afraid, a little naive. If these reports came to light that we must think about them?
And that brings us to the key issue in this storm. What's worse: a journalist who seeks to be objective, but saw partisan - or someone who wants to be partisan and is seen as a goal?
