newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
So how does CBS pretend to be neutral when its anchors get choked up thinking about Trump's victory? The answer is simple. The public is being told to ignore it and trust journalists who can't even discuss the election results without crying.
The message was even more jarring to Scientific American. Once a popular science-based publication, the magazine became increasingly criticized for its political slant and pseudoscientific views. Much of the responsibility falls on editor-in-chief Laura Helmut.
After the election, Helmut went on a rant and ranted on social media.
Science American editor lashes out at the 'shitbagists' who elected Donald Trump
She called Gen Because it would send them back to the moon.” He accused his fellow Indians of being “racist and sexist” for voting for Trump.
Helmut called people of his generation “shitbagists.” (Screenshot of Blue Sky)
The post removed any false claims of neutrality and revived many long-standing concerns about the magazine's direction. Helmut deleted the comment and effectively told readers to forget what he had said.
To be fair, Helmut was trying to distinguish between his personal views and his views as editor-in-chief. But her “expression of shock and confusion over the election results” is similar to how many have opposed the magazine's political turn in recent years.
In 2020, Scientific American broke with its 175-year tradition of nonpartisanship and endorsed Joe Biden for president. Conservatives are dissatisfied with the magazine's aims and arguments, which were once completely apolitical.
Importantly, Helmut's anger isn't limited to her social media accounts.
The public is once again being told to ignore the man behind the curtain. However, many of the people have already left.
The Washington Post will not endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election. (Oliver Contreras/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
As I discuss in my recent book, The Indispensable Right, many media and journalism schools explicitly abandoned both objectivity and neutrality years ago. As a result, revenues and readership plummeted as people turned to new media and other sources for their news.
At the Washington Post, publisher and CEO William Lewis put it bluntly by telling his staff, “Don't make too many excuses…We're losing a lot of money. Our readership has halved in recent years. People aren't reading your articles, right? I can't sugarcoat them anymore. ”
For more FOX News opinions, click here
Nevertheless, almost immediately after President Trump won, the Post published an editorial titled, “The Second Resistance Against Trump Must Begin Now.”
The problem is that if “people aren't reading your articles”, fewer people may be willing to join the second resistance after rejecting the first. Many doubt that the CBS anchor, who couldn't even talk about Trump's victory without losing his cool, will look at the Trump administration objectively in the coming years.
Even fewer people will believe assurances from someone like Helmut that he will restore “editorial objectivity” after denouncing Trump supporters as mindless racists.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Of course, if you believe that more than half the country is “stupid,” you might believe that they will just forget about the post-election chaos.
Perhaps they are right. It was once said, “A bastard prefers a beautiful lie to an ugly truth.” The problem is, if this election proved one thing, it's that many voters clearly felt they were being ignored by the media and the political establishment.
Drawing the curtain didn't work out for the great Oz, but it goes even worse for legacy media.
Click here to read more about Jonathan Turley
