Daily Caller

July 20, 2010 by USA Post 

Daily CallerDaily Caller — “American journalism died today.” This bold pronouncement Andrew Breitbart is a story in the Daily Blog Tucker Carlson calls it describes, as its name describes, the “media conspiracy to kill the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stories about” following the debate April 16, 2008, between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Mediaite Steve Krakauer provides a good overview of the issue, noting – correctly – that “paying a large part, is not there.”

It shows that the daily call is that many liberal opinion columnists, not necessarily supposedly impartial journalists, did not like the media talking about Reverend Jeremiah Wright. That’s not surprising.

The irony, of course, is that the daily call (founded by the conservative expert Neil Carlson and Patel, former chief political adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney) is using journalism in an attempt to change the political landscape – which is the exact charge that at forty “, most journalists and liberal bloggers” who co-wrote the letter criticizing the ABC debate moderation. The appointment descripteive on journalists, by the way, Article contemporary New York Times “on the critical debate. In other words, when it published the letter was interpreted as representing a political position.

One must have the same understanding in reading the article calling.

Andrew Breitbart openly conservative (the Big Journalism fame) last night offered a prediction, which he sees as representing the left: “Get some rest. Tomorrow will be the first of many & in a row.” Today days, has an opinion piece that sits alongside the history of caller who was brought to my date of introduction. In the piece, writes:

There is no firm rule of journalism is unbendable when it comes to justify and protect the racket that is modern journalism, in particular the political journalism in America today. The end justifies the means for the Democratic Media Complex. They lie when they claim to be objective. They lie when they claim to be impartial, since these so-called “truth seekers” are guilty of participating in open political warfare.

Breitbart proclaimed this day as the death of American journalism because it sees the U.S. as inextricably partisan journalism – and not partisan in the same way it is. Or in any case, because he says they see it well.

He masks a valid point with his insulting language. As I discussed before, there is an understanding of how to change reporters outside his personal prejudices. Not that journalists “lie” about being objective – is that it is almost impossible to be truly objective.

The takeaway for today: a group of journalists who are biased to undermine tacit narrative disagree with. But that is to carry both the daily call and Breitbart, as is the theme of the original article. Those who think that it was the same email back and forth between staff and Breitbart calls as there was among the signers of the letter criticized the calls are, I fear, a little naive. If the emails came to light, what should we think of them?

And that brings us to the key issue in this storm. What is worse: a journalist, who strives to be objective, but is seen as partisan – or one that strives to be impartial and is seen as objective?

Report to Team

Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.


Comments are closed.