Years ago, journalism was a respected profession. A prominent journalist then was typically a blend of muckraker, public advocate, whistleblower, and protector of the weak - a mixture of Clark Kent and Perry Mason. Okay, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but as a group, reporters, editors, and newscasters cared about the truth. They tried to protect the public, wanted it to be informed, and in some cases risked their necks to break a good story.
How things have changed! These days, newscasts are often one-sided, predictable, and willing to slander people and even entire groups they disagree with. Obviously, this is unprofessional, but there is precious little anyone can do about the pain and damage it causes
Think of The New York Times. It was once widely respected for the caliber of its journalists and for its motto “All The News That’s Fit To Print.” Sadly, it has deteriorated into a well-written rag sheet that attacks anything that still promotes traditional values, and that includes yeshivas and chasidim.
As of February, they had printed at least 18 recent articles critical of and offensive to the Orthodox community. Maybe one or two could pass under the guise of news, but 18 articles! This has never happened to any other community or group.
If you find this difficult to believe, please read the following statement, which was issued by Agudath Israel of America in response to those articles. In part, it urged all people of good faith to “join the chorus of voices calling out The Times’ disturbing and unrelenting obsession with demonizing Orthodox Jews; its lack of balance; and its irresponsibility in stoking the blazing flames of antisemitism.” Agudah doesn’t make statements like that casually.
Unfortunately, it’s not The TImes alone that condones offensive views; so do other sectors of the main stream media, hammering the public with bizarre agendas that no one would even have considered years ago. Still, such broadcasts and columns are watched and read by tens of millions of people, and after a while they take a toll on people’s thinking. Their views on important issues, decisions about whom to vote for and, to an extent, even their lifestyles are influenced by these endless one-sided reports.
Did the dramatic change in the way news is covered come about spontaneously or was it part of a much larger plan intent on influencing elections? Can talented journalists espousing traditional views still get hired by the mainstream media?
The Tucker Conundrum
In case you don’t know, Tucker Carlson is one of the most widely-followed journalists in the industry; he also flouts Conservative views on his show on Fox News – at least he did until Fox fired him in late April. Neither Fox nor Carlson provided details, and this came as a complete surprise – not just to viewers but even to Carlson himself, who signed off the air in the previous show saying “See you Monday.”
Fox’s move did not go over well with Carlson’s huge audience. And it may have backfired big time. Fox now is paying a high price.
Brian Kilmeade is substituting for him and drew an audience of 1.33 million. Usually that’s considered pretty good. However, according to the data firm Nielsen, it’s down a whopping 56% from the 3.05 million who tuned in Carlson the week before. Moreover, there are rumors that some of the remaining anchors at Fox may soon move on to greener pastures.
Freedom Of Speech
For his part, Carlson, now free from the restraints of being politically correct, had a thing or two to say about journalism. The undeniable big topics, he said, the ones that will define our future, get virtually no discussion at all, and as examples he mentioned war, civil liberties, demographic change and corporate power, among others.
“When was the last time you heard a legitimate debate about any of these issues?” he asked. “Debates like that are not permitted in American media. Both political parties and their donors have reached consensus about what benefits them, and they actually collude to shut down any conversation about it.”
Why would they do that? For the answer just “follow the money.” This phrase became famous in a 1974 movie about Watergate, and means if you want to learn about a possible crime or suspicious activity, just follow the financial transactions.
A recent column in “End Of The American Dream” blog explained that the pharmaceutical industry spends far more on advertising than anyone else.
“According to Adweek,” it noted, “the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $403 million on national TV advertising in March.” That was almost twice as much as the second top spending category for the month, which was autos.
“If a certain industry is showering you with millions…do you think that you will have an incentive not to do any negative stories about that industry?” it asked. “During the 18 months that stretched from the beginning of 2020 to the middle of 2021, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $2 billion on ads during primetime cable news.”
Interestingly, Fox News received more money from Big Pharma than anyone else.
Less than a week before Carlson was axed, he had a blistering report about corporate news media. “Sometimes you wonder just how filthy and dishonest our news media are,” he began…. “(They) shilled their sketchy products on the air… and maligned anyone who was skeptical of those products. At the very least this was a moral crime; it was disgusting.”
Although Carlson made clear he was not referring to Fox, his firing just days later makes one wonder. After all, Big Pharma is very powerful and certainly was not pleased by it.
The Story About The News
In 1986, most of the media in the US was controlled by 50 companies. Today 90% of the media is in the hands of just a handful of companies.
The biggest media conglomerates in America are AT&T, Comcast, Disney, National Amusements (which includes Viacom Inc and CBS), News Corp and Fox Corporation (which are both owned in part by the Murdochs), Sony, and Hearst Communications.
These are six separate companies; however, often enough, there’s an overlap in the way they present the news.
It should be pointed out that Jewish publishing is in a separate category; it is geared to a frum audience that has standards and objectives that are very different than those of the mainstream media. But this represents only a very small part of the overall news business.
Possibly Carlson was fired because he was seen as uppity, posed a threat to ad revenues, and served as a lesson to other journalists not to step out of line.
The news now seemingly has become driven by power and profits, not the public interest. If true, this in itself is headline news.
Sources: www.baselgovernance.org; www.endoftheamericandream.com; www.pwestpathfinder.com; www.salon.com; www.titlemax.com; www.zerohedge.com
Gerald Harris is a financial and feature writer. Gerald can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
