There seems to a misunderstanding of the function of the editorial process. It used to be a place to go to to see where a publication stood regarding an issue. It has evolved into an ongoing tirade against political parties out of favor with the editorial staff. Certainly this is not true of all newspapers and magazines but the major ones have certainly demonstrated they are not so interested in analyzing as they are in snide innuendo. It has become so pervasive that to offer an example would be superfluous.
There is nothing interesting or refreshing to read snide remarks and the mantra of cynicism. Eventually this kind of mush evolves into nonsense. What is interesting about reading how the country is going to hell in a hand basket because the one the editorial staff endorsed didn’t get elected? Notice the words that are mumbled. Such words as dangerous. Dangerous how? No answer,. These editors have grown so used to throwing out adjectives they cannot verbalize their actual intent ( maybe they are afraid to).
A proper editorial states an opinion, clarifies it is an opinion and makes a tightly reasoned case why it is not just some off the wall unsubstantiated comment. None of this is evident in most editorials you see today. They are filled with slanted views designed to appeal to what they assume are loyal followers. A broader audience of curious readers is not something they wish to appeal to or even fathom can exist. They are like the car makers who cannot envision a changing market or readership. Plodding is their path to perceived success. The notion that the message is stale and uninteresting never enters their group mentality.
The New York Times talks of how it is open minded and asks hard questions in its advertisement for readers. Evidently it understands this is appealing to potential readers, yet it publishes articles that include editorial bias in their news articles and ignores the hard questions such as “Why is Sheriff Arpaio’s five year investigation of the fraudulent birth certificate ignored?” This lack of integrity makes their ads ring of dishonesty.
The Washington Post digs daily to discredit the current president but ignored the flaws and outright lies of the former president. They should know the effects of creating a brand that is based on bias yet they seem to think since they broke the story on Watergate their reputation should rest on their laurels. To be labelled a first class investigation organization one cannot simply point to the past and expect their reputation to grow.
The far left rags such as the Huffington Post simply has gone off the rails ( if it ever was on the track ) to full blown socialism. Thjs is of course what logically happens when you embrace the premises of altruism which they cling to.
The idea that journalism is some sort of mind bending mass conforming message for all to accept and adhere to is total rot. Journalism is only noble when the truth is the paramount purpose. Reporting with bias is not journalism, it is as dishonest as claiming the pursuit of justice while ignoring the evidence.
The voices of editorialists has merged into the news columns and the so called reporters are destroying their reputations and their industry. Much like the current day politicians who in spite of being handed a country with great potential have deteriorated it into a quasi-socialist state just like all that failed in the past. Why this dishonesty is embraced can only be traced to the acceptance of very bad premises. The morality of altruism is a central component that preaches and embraces sacrifice. Those who have embraced this daily onslaught of what is passed off as the “good” are inadvertently producing just the opposite and evidently don’t have a clue as to why. If they do know why and they should, the evil they embrace is inexcusable.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.