Examples Mount That Journalists Are Less Focused on Reporting Than Activism – Opinion

Journalists will now work toward an agenda, as it has grown beyond a fashion trend in the past year.

Although we are used to hearing journalists speak up for animal causes, it is not something we should accept. It is now that the public must push back. We are beginning to see the fading of impartiality and nonpartisan journalism as media takes on the role narrative-pushing.

Currently, the most glaring evidence of this activity is on coverage of the January 6 Commission — but this is far from the lone example. Of course, we are told constantly that the J-6C would make a strong case. But then it becomes clear that there is no hard evidence. It has been pure insistence over revelation. In the past, I have mentioned this. Sources for Lie-Able podcast, it is less of a hearing and entirely more of a “telling.”

We can see that the journalist sector is filled with stories of journalists doing more reporting than undertaking. Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation was an example of this trend. Opposition groups relabeled the legislation the ‘Don’t Say Gay Bill’ inaccurately, and soon, this agitprop was regurgitated entirely by the press.

When the idea of homosexuals being banned by a state became commonplace, the press began to take action. A prime example This was taken from The Hollywood ReporterKim Masters (left-lurching columnist) attacked the Disney Corporation, saying that it was not doing enough in order to combat this legislation.

Press didn’t learn any lessons from Florida’s bill. They felt even more empowered collectively for some reason. The leftist media began to roar when the famously leaked Alito draft memo was released by SCOTUS. You can see examples of journalists going on the streets, or more precisely to their phones and using social media all over the media landscape. 

Townhall Media

No examples are being provided of how reporters responded to corporate correspondence; rather, journalists work to generate these press releases. CNBC They contacted many companiesin order to get reactions and opposition statements to the law change on abortion. The Washington Post soon followed suit. Video game companies were targeted specificallySimilar results were observed by Nathan Grayson (activist and videogame columnist).

This silence is especially conspicuous following the industry’s near-uniliteral support of causes like Black Lives Matter in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and anti-Asian hate as a result of the covid-19 pandemic. Both cases saw large companies issue statements and donate to charities. They also updated their internal policies, added features that allow players to show support, and made updates to the game’s code.

This tone is almost mandatory for these companies. They are expected to announce publically, and those announcements are expected to mirror the positions taken by once impartial reporters.

Fast Company, an entrepreneurial magazine went about its business in the same way. They engaged in similar pressure campaigns. Joseph Wolfsohn The email was received The magazine asked companies for positions in abortion and pledged to publish information on companies that refused.

In an email to one of the companies seen by Fox News, Fast Company says it is working on an “editorial package” about “how corporate silence on abortion impacts employees” and “what responsibility of businesses should be when it comes to abortion care and access.”  

It’s revealing that so many of these companies refused to play along, and the activist intent of these journalists gets exposed. Reporters have grown accustomed to companies taking a position on social issues. This allows them to report on those topics freely, while maintaining the facade of objectivity that a company acts as their avatar. This agenda is not ours.The delivered subtext This is a report on public statements made by companies.

But as corporations have eventually come to a reckoning – that issuing a position on controversial topics means they alienate a core of their customer base – more are choosing to abstain from commenting. Journalists are no longer able to dodge the public relations hurdle, and instead take on an activist role in order to influence corporate messaging.

Riffed from the Headlines
Townhall Media

More examples were presented this week, but at a more local level. New York Times sports journalist Billy Witz demanded that the NCAA take action in support of his position about abortion. Oklahoma City hosts the College Softball World Series every year. Oklahoma has strict abortion laws. There are RoeWitz was concerned about the threat to his annual event and hoped for pressure from the governing body. The NCAA should be forced to take action and threaten to cancel the event.He offers up an extremely slanted piece.

Oklahoma’s Abortion Law Raises Questions About N.C.A.A.’s Softball World SeriesThe headline says it all, but Witz is the one who is raising the questions. Witz outlines his plans to put financial pressure on the cursed state.

The move of the softball champions would prove difficult. The stakes over a softball showdown would be significant, both for Oklahoma City, which estimates that the Division I tournament pumps more than $20 million into the city’s economy, For the N.C.A.A.

Witz didn’t get much support from the public when he asked for opinions on his proposition. The NCAA refused to comment. All eight of the head coaches from the finals were asked to reply. The only person who did so was the one that said she could not answer his question. One player was asked about abortion at a press conference. The coach stopped the question, explaining that they were only there to talk about the sport.

Next, Tim Carman, Washington Post food critic, works on behalf of Democrats in Pennsylvania. Tim saw a need to enter the political fray – over bread. It was learned the namesake of the Martin’s Potato Bread company, James Martin, did something unacceptable. Doug Mastriano received a personal donation from the man. It was enough for restaurants to stand up to the breadmaker and to suspend their business.

Carman suggests we now see Martin’s Bread will face a boycott over this – with all of TwoBusinesses that stop purchasing from the company. However, when one of them was reached they would not confirm that they had stopped buying from the company. Another food critic said area businesses were also seeking alternatives – in San Francisco, for some reason

Riffed from the Headlines
Townhall Media

Carman, in the not-so-expected manner, tried to persuade other businesses to take part in his supposed boycott. He had no takers. “The Post tried reaching several chefs, pit masters and publicists for chains that, according to Martin’s site, buy from the wholesaler.” All were reluctant to talk about it.

His most obvious example is the Democratic nominee for the election. Mastriano’s opponent, Attorney General Josh Shapiro takes a more serious approach to the issue.

“Personally, I think Martin’s makes a damn good potato roll and I’m not for boycotting a Pennsylvania business that supports hundreds of Pennsylvania jobs,” Shapiro said in a statement to The Post. “The Martin family runs a private company and has the right to support and employ whomever they want.”

This is the political opposition proving that it’s wrong to attack a company and individuals like these over political issues. No better example could be given of this kind of unbalanced thinking that is prevalent in media today. They engage in personal and partisan hits to try to forcibly companies into culture wars. This is a far cry from what you see in campaigns.

These types of roles are bad for businesses, and companies have slowly come to realize this. The exception – those companies that own and operate these news outlets.

About Post Author

Follow Us