A New Playing Field
By
Michael The Libertarian
I have been suffering a crisis of conscience, lately. I've been
physically ill and that has evoked natural feelings of mortality.
Also, naturally, those thoughts lead to re-examining my life and my
work.
For a long time, I prided myself on my being a journalist. Certainly,
I maintain certain ethics, but the truth is I have been engaging in
opinion journalism.
Truth be told, while I did have a choice, I kind of didn't. Why?
Well, I've said it before, but it really is kind of simple:
I “came up” in a time when most of the media was dominated by
those with left-leaning opinions. Ordinarily, if journalistic ethics
had been upheld, it wouldn't have mattered, much. Of course, back in
those days, the Left and Right weren't as far apart as they are,
today.
You think I'm crazy? Could you imagine a Democratic president, in
this day and age, saying: “Ask not what your country can do for you
...” You will never hear anything even akin to that, today. Walter
Cronkite was a huge supporter of President Kennedy, but you'd hardly
know that from the way he delivered the news, every night.
But “Uncle Walter” is dead and the purveyors of modern-day
purveyors of news don't seem to feel any guilt pangs when they quite
clearly espouse their views and whence they originate. They've
“changed the rules” and, if left unchecked, the only thing the
media would be is a propaganda arm of the DNC.
Unfortunately, that's not what journalism is supposed to be.
Journalism is supposed to be our “eyes and ears” on our
politicians. It's why they got such a prominent amendment. Had the
media not “swung Left”, that hallowed ground of journalistic
protection would be well deserved, but they have swung left and it's
become apparent.
The former president was “protected” by the press for eight
years. The current president has been bombarded by “leaks”,
coming from the media. The latest nugget comes to us that Fusion GPS
paid reporters. To do … what? It's looking like they were paid to
“get the word out” about a dossier that's been discredited that
was opposition research.
So, the media (or certain members thereof) became paid employees of a
corporation that was working for Shrillary Clinton and the DNC. Those
that were paid, by my estimation, are no longer journalists, or
certainly weren't, at the time they were engaging in pushing a fake
dossier.
So,
why my crisis? Again, simple: I would prefer to engage in journalism
and report the news in a straight down the middle manner. In good
conscience, I can't do that while the Left-Stream Media continues to
push a narrative that is false. I'm not going to give the whole list,
but if you do the slightest bit of research, you can find all kinds
of stories that are slanted to such a degree that some of them
approach being flat-out lies. In the case of the aforementioned
dossier, they ARE flat-out
lies.
To stand silent, when I know certain things … when I know how some
things in this government work, would be a sin.
You see, when a Lefty president is in the White House, if the media
insists upon not being our “eyes and ears”, they're not doing
their job. And let's be clear: it is more than just a job; it's a
sacred trust that needs to be upheld. They're not upholding it. I
would be happy to say that they're derelict in their duty, but
they're not. They're complicit in advancing an agenda for one said.
So, any responsible journalist who has ideals that line up with the
other side of the aisle have a duty to be that counter-balance. Since
the Left-Stream Media refuses to do their job, when “their guy”
is in the Oval office, others have to take up the standard. While I
will still try to maintain my journalistic ethics, I will not sit
idly by while lies are being circulated under the banner of
“Journalism”.
I
will make this promise: While I will occasionally use terms like PPLs
(Pablum©-Puking Liberals – people that argue a point, without
anything but talking points upon which to fall back upon) or
Commander-In-Heat
or Slick Willy
to reference President Clinton, I will never accuse anyone of any
wrong-doing or suggest they're racist or rapists without three hard
sources. “Hard sources” being defined (by me) as people willing
to put their name on a quote. No “anonymous” sources will be
treated as “gospel truth”. Certainly, when there are rumors,
floating around, I will mention them, but I will always identify them
as rumors or conjecture.
Here's the difference, though: when it's a Righty that has gone
astray, I will continue to be straight down the middle, as opposed to
attacking for no reason, but if there is reason, I'll be at the head
of the line, calling for their scalp.
I'm not redefining journalism, here. I have decided to start playing
by the same rules by which the other side plays.
Lace 'em up, boys!
- Michael
Comments
Post a Comment