Columbia Journalism Review
Money talks – and journalism is no exception. On Monday, Columbia Journalism School announced that digital media expert Raju Narisetti will serve as a full-time faculty member in two capacities: Professor of Professional Practice and the director of the Knight-Bagehot Fellowship in Economics and Business Journalism. But neither he nor the Columbia Journalism School disclosed his unprecedented number of political donations to Hillary Clinton while working in the media.
News stories might have cost Hillary Clinton the presidency, but they were real stories from Manhattan, not fake stories from Macedonia. That’s the major takeaway from a new content analysis of media coverage of the 2016 campaign that the Columbia Journalism Review published on Tuesday.
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne seems to be the personification of what the Columbia Journalism Review meant when its writer Jon Alsop noted on November 9 that Media too thirsty for a narrative shift on Trump. Alsop pointed out that the liberal media, desperate for a win against President Donald Trump, have latched onto last Tuesday's election results as confirmation of their urgent hopes. Perhaps none was more thirsty for such a narrative shift than laughably failed prognosticator E.J. Dionne as we shall see.
Columbia Journalism Review says journalists should continue tying climate change to Hurricane Harvey. The Soros-funded liberal publication of Columbia University’s journalism school said that although that strategy can be perceived as “insensitive,” “That doesn’t mean they should be avoided.” Hurricane Harvey news coverage has been full of attempts to link the storm to manmade climate change or portray it as exacerbated by global warming. Editorials and op-eds making the same arguments also proliferated even as Houston remained flooded and rescue efforts were still underway.
The New York Times shut down their Public Editor position last May, a position established in 2003 in the wake of the mortifying scandal involving reporter Jayson Blair. Andy Robinson talked to all six former Public Editors of the New York Times for the Columbia Journalism Review. Among the questions about anonymous sourcing and testy newsroom relations, Robinson re-surfaced one that conservatives have a ready answer for: “Is the Times a liberal newspaper?”
Univisión y Telemundo casi nunca pierden la oportunidad de criticar al presidente Trump. Por ello, no fue de extrañar que ambas cadenas de habla hispana hicieran un gran alboroto sobre el hecho de que el presidente Trump, en un día en el que tenía otros tres actos públicos (el Día Nacional de la Oración, la revocación y reemplazo de Obamacare por parte de la Cámara de Representantes y el 75 Aniversario de la Batalla del Mar de Coral), no asistió a la celebración del Cinco de Mayo en la Casa Blanca este año.
Almost fifteen years ago, South Park paid tribute to a trailblazing animated TV series by calling an episode “The Simpsons Already Did It.” According to Columbia Journalism Review columnist Joel Simon, regardless of the current hubbub over President Trump’s media-bashing, several “Latin American populist” heads of state, including the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, already did it, or something a lot like it, long before Trump dubbed certain MSM outlets “the enemy of the people,” a description he reaffirmed Friday morning in his speech at CPAC.
On Tuesday, Kyle Pope, Editor in Chief and Publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, posted "An open letter to Trump from the US press corps." Pope informed Mr. Trump, as if the man who is now this nation's 45th President didn't know already, that "while you have every right to decide your ground rules for engaging with the press, we have some, too."
The truth, as they say, hurts. Nowhere is this better illustrated recently than over there at The Columbia Journalism Review. Where CJR staff writer and senior Delacorte fellow David Uberti has penned this seriously misleading piece about my recent remarks on CNN concerning the “rigged election” controversy brought to the fore by Donald Trump.
Galileo, the famous Italian astronomer and scientist, once said, “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Tell that to the UN IPCC and the news media. Presumably, Galileo would find the use of the so-called “scientific consensus” on global warming as the basis to call for prosecution of dissenters unsettling. Everyone should find it downright chilling.
When the signature publication of the nation’s most elite journalism school hosts a panel discussion on how reporters cover the gay marriage debate, you’d expect the same level of thoughtful balance the media generally gives the topic. Which is to say none at all. And the June 12 Newseum event hosted by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and sponsored by the ACLU didn’t disappoint.
Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism is America’s most prestigious journalism school, and its graduates can be found throughout the establishment and left-wing media. Columbia established the CJR in 1961 to “encourage excellence in journalism in the service of a free society.” The publication “monitors and supports the press as it works across all platforms.”
The ongoing controversy surrounding the actions of two members of the New Black Panther Party at a Philadelphia polling place during the last presidential election has become increasingly less about facts and more about opinions. The mainstream media ignored the story for so long, basically giving Fox News exclusive rights to deliver the story to a mass audience and now they’re incensed over Fox’s coverage.
On Sunday Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander wrote “Indeed, until Thursday’s story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories” and “For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case.” Alexander’s column prompted a response by Joel Meares in the Columbia Journalism Review. His point was that Fox News’ coverage cannot be trusted because of the channel’s alleged conservatism and, in a nice example of ideological bigotry, that the story is not worth being covered because conservatives are interested in seeing it covered.
He wrote “The story has been mostly told online and on TV by those whose political shadings have dictated the angle, and the content” and questions The Post’s motivation in publishing something its readers apparently want to read: