Outcome Journalism

NewsBusters reports:

On Thursday, Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters noted that none of the three broadcast networks had covered the intent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the words of Byron York at the Washington Examiner, to “send government contractors into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public’s ‘critical information needs.'”

I think the roaring silence from the majority of the media over Obama’s FCC wanting to “monitor” the newsrooms of broadcast and print news media speaks volumes.

I’ve long posted that those who support tyranny only do so because they never expect its evil to vested on them, that those who propose it can actually control it and protect them – but like the old fable about the scorpion talking the frog into ferrying him across a flooded stream and then stinging him anyway, tyrants are tyrants just like scorpions are always scorpions – it is their nature.

The media is in league with the Democrats, somewhat because they agree with the ideology, but in greater measure because this alliance gives them the chance to actually participate in the exercise of influence and power, not just to have to report on the outcome.

It is common in leftist regimes for the media to become nothing more than an agency of the government, spouting propaganda, toeing the line and guarding the palace gates. Our so-called “free press” has become nothing short of an additional branch of government, joining the federal bureaucracy as the two unelected, un-appointed and un-vetted tools of the statists.

The Anchoress (Elizabeth Scalia) has a brilliant take on this here, writing:

“The biggest problem in our nation is not the Democrats, or the Republicans; it is not the Obama Administration, just as it wasn’t the Bush Administration, and it won’t be future Clinton or Warren Administrations. Our biggest problem is that the press has voluntarily surrendered its freedoms for the sake of idols and ideologies..

Because this is true, our government is either factionalizedfictionalized and bombarded with daily media outrage and indignation, or it is given an utterly free pass, with no accountability required. Either way, it is a process of illusion, which gives assist to the necessary distraction, and that’s all.”

While I agree, I also would add that ever since the media saw investigative journalism of Woodward and Bernstein destroy a sitting president, they awoke to a new world where they could actively assert power instead of merely reporting on it, giving rise to what I call “outcome journalism”.

Outcome journalism is the process by which the media selects a particular outcome that they desire to see achieved and then 1) actively pursues reportage that supports that end, 2) passively ignores any information to the contrary and 3) actively shields its chosen standard bearers from any damage or responsibility.

A free press is the necessary watchdog over the affairs of government but its master must be the people. When the dog accepts handouts from the wolf it is on guard for, the game is over.

16 thoughts on “Outcome Journalism

  1. I saw the news earlier this week, and like many others, have sat patiently awaiting the outcry from the leftist … only to find they literally have nothing to say.

    I’m curious if McPherson feels the same.

        • they are called links, moron, follow them and read the truth if can stand the truth, if you can read. …

          Jesus Christ, you people are just plain stupid, believing in Utah and B’ deliberate lies and obfuscations

      • With Utah saying you are not welcome here and down-votes in the 40s by readers who don’t like you nor want your Hate-speech….. you are proving you are a Troll.

        And also proving that you have no life …… so just take your gov’t handouts and go sit by yourself under your Rock.

        • kells, did you bother to read the links I provided? obviously not

          Why do you people prefer lies to the truth? are you sounsure of your beliefs that you are afraid to dig in and find the truth?

          Look, Obama obviously has something to hide re the Fast and furious affair, I have said that he should appoint a special prosecutor; the fact that he hasn’t is quite telling.

          I did the research to come up with; I didn’t trust Issa’s committee, nor did I dismiss the charges because they came from the right, I formed my opinion AFTER doing due diligence, why in the name of God can’t you do the same?

            • I see that the study includes WATCHING tv ! If they were placing monitors in studios, I would be as up in arms as you are about nothing. Since this report involves examining barriers that might keep smaller entrepreneurs form accessing local media markets, you should be in favor of this study. Of course, you would be were it being done in a republican administration..

              What I see is that the media likes excitement; it draws viewers and ad revenue. No news service would be able to keep a story about govt monitors in newsrooms hush-hush, nor would they want to risk having the story broke by a competitor.
              , ….

  2. Utah , it may be time to ban Melfamy. At least on this forum, he only uses free speech to stir trouble, ridicule the posters that we like to keep up with, will use vile untruths about family members of posters. I don’t have the time I would like for the forum, but when I have read Melfamy he has been a nasty piece of work with nothing factual to offer.

    • We don’t ban commenters – put him on ignore. He was a co-equal contributor here until his irrationality and personal attacks became too much. He was removed from the group of bloggers who post here. I have only banned on person from this format and that was for grossly profane personal attacks bordering on total insanity.

      I do not respond to him, perhaps you have noticed that I never directly address his comments. To me he is a non-entity, a waste of time but he does provide evidence to the kind of idiocy that rational people of all political persuasions face, he illustrated the hypocrisy of someone who will spout irrationality and yet not live his life that way.

      Takes all kinds, I guess.

  3. And I agree with your thinking. Melfamy’s snarling and name calling brought out my nasty side. I should have hit delete, instead of post comment.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.