THE POST-JOURNALISM ERA
In 2016, staff at The New York Times embarked on “a wrenching pivot from a journalism of fact to a ‘post-journalism’ of opinion.”
“The experiment proved controversial. It sparked a melodrama over standards, featuring a conflict between radical young reporters and befuddled middle-aged editors. The requirements of a newspaper as an institution collided with the call for an explicit struggle against injustice.”
“The goal of post-journalism, according to media scholar Andrey Mir, is to ‘produce angry citizens.’”
NEW YORK TIMES,
EVEN IF IT IS MORE OF THE SAME GARBAGE.
It never gets old! Meanwhile, let’s smear a buncha crazy Germans. It is a win-win, people!
It’s sad how so-called journalists give Hillary a pass on ethics. She is corrupt as they come. I expect more from the likes of Nicholas Kristof, though I probably should know better.
“Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.”
Seriously? What a load of crap. Quoting Jill Abramson, as if she is a neutral bystander? She is fully engaged in the propaganda war against conservatism and has been for years.
Kristof, you ain’t foolin’ nobody.
Hillary makes “decisions . . . through a political filter and a paranoid mind-set,” writes that famously anti-woman writer at The New York Times, Maureen Dowd.
Maureen Dowd & The New York Times
Promoting Good Ol’ Stereotypes
“Don’t rile up the angry white folks, because they’re a bunch of racists.” Stereotype much, Maureen?
Can a white man be “angry” without being a racist? Can a man oppose Obama without being labelled as such?
I just want to clarify that I paraphrased her line. Her original text is, “I wondered if he realized that, in riling up angry whites, he has pulled the scab off racism.”
It’s great to see this on the front page of The New York Times. I am glad to see women, like my sister and mother, who take a stand against the onslaught of propaganda surrounding “women’s rights” and abortion.