NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
So how does CBS pretend to be neutral when the anchor chokes on Trump’s victory? The answer is simple: The public is being told to ignore and trust a reporter who can’t even discuss the election results without fighting back tears.
That message was even more dramatic in Scientific American. Once a popular, science-based publication, the magazine has been widely criticized for its political views and scientific pseudo-views. Much of the blame is focused on Laura Helmuth, the editor-in-chief.
After the election, Helmuth had a massive outburst of insults on social media.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN EDITOR DEMONSTRATES ‘F—ING FASCIST’ VOTERS FOR DONALD TRUMP
He called Gen X voters the king racists”. He dismissed “the solidarity of every ugly, stupid, arrogant high schooler celebrating early results because they’re going to the moon and back.” He went on to add that criticism of some Indiana people as “racist and sexist ” for voting for Trump.
Helmuth called members of his generation “f—ing fascists.” (Screenshot of Bluesky)
The post was circulated with false claims of neutrality, and many also raised long-standing concerns about the direction of the magazine. Helmuth responded by deleting the comment and telling readers to forget what he said.
Fairly, Helmuth tried to separate his personal views from those of the editor-in-chief. However, his “speech of shock and confusion about the results of the election” is similar to what many have criticized for the magazine’s shift in politics in recent years.
In 2020, American science broke a 175-year tradition of impartiality to endorse Joe Biden in the presidential election. Conservatives complained about the tenor and thrust of the magazine, which was once entirely political.
The point is that Helmuth’s anger is not limited to his social media account.
The public is also told to ignore the man behind the curtain. However, most of the community has left.
The Washington Post will not endorse a candidate for the 2024 presidential election. (Oliver Contreras/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
As I discuss in my latest book, Unnecessary Privilegemany in media and journalism schools have clearly rejected both neutrality and neutrality over the years. The result has been a decline in income and literacy as society turns to new media and alternative sources of information.
At the Washington Post, publisher and CEO William Lewis put it bluntly by telling employees, “Let’s not sugarcoat it…We’re losing a lot of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People aren’t reading your stuff. Are they? I can’t sugar coat it anymore.”
CLICK HERE TO VIEW MORE FOX NEWS
However, almost immediately after Trump won, the Post ran a headline that read “Trump’s second opposition must begin now.”
The problem is, when “people don’t read your stuff,” a few may be inclined to join the second resistance after rejecting the first resistance. Many doubt that a CBS anchor who can’t even discuss Trump’s victory without losing his composure will view the Trump Administration favorably in the years to come.
Very few would believe the assurance from a figure like Helmuth that he would regain “organizational intent” after denouncing anyone who supports Trump as stupid racists.
CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
Of course, if you believe more than half the country is “dumb,” you might believe they’ll just forget about the post-election meltdown.
Maybe they are right. It was once said that “chumps prefer a good lie to a bad truth.” The problem is, if this election proved one thing, it’s that many voters feel like they’re being played as villains by the media and the political establishment.
Pulling back the curtain didn’t work for Great Oz, and it will work less for legacy media.
CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE FROM JONATHAN TUREY
Source link