RUSH: I found this at one of the tech blogs. I’m not gonna tell you which one, doesn’t matter, ’cause I don’t want the attention to focus on the blogs.
They’re all anti-Trump, pro-Obama, pro-leftist, insanely so, without any critical thinking involved. And one of these blogs decided to do a podcast with a New York University journalism professor named Jay Rosen. And his appearance on this podcast was to advise journalists in Washington how to deal now with the Trump reality. What is the future of journalism? I always find this amazing. I thought journalism was journalism. You find out what’s happening that other people don’t know and you tell them.
But it obviously isn’t that. Journalism is about moving the Democrat Party agenda, and since that failed — journalism failed to move the Democrat Party agenda, journalism failed to destroy the Republican Party, journalism failed to destroy Donald Trump — journalism failed, failed, failed, failed, failed at everything they wanted to accomplish. And so they now need to rethink journalism. Let ’em, folks. The more they’re in the wilderness on this, the better. But let me give you some excerpts of what this guy said.
“In order for the press to recover some authority so that what it says about Trump makes a difference…” Well, now think about what’s behind that, just that little sentence there. They’re admitting, this guy, Jay Rosen, NYU journalism — admitting — they failed to take Trump out, they did everything they know how to do. They did everything that has always worked to destroy Republicans, but it didn’t work against Trump! So they need to “recover some authority” so that what they say “makes a difference.”
“‘In order for the press to recover some authority, so that what it says … makes a difference, I think journalists have to conduct an extraordinary act of listening that they’ve never tried to do before,’ Rosen said. ‘What I mean by listening is not asking people why they voted for Trump or asking them what they don’t like about media.’ Rather, he said, journalists need to prove that they understand their audiences’ troubles better than the politicians do. That sets the stage for critical, investigative reporting into how those leaders are governing.”
So journalists are supposed to go out there and start talking to the downtrodden, and the defeated — the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless — and become experts in understanding those problems, they become better experts than politicians are. That way they could do critical investigative reporting on how the politicians are screwing up. Isn’t that what they do anyway? They do everything but study. I mean, they presume to know. “And that’s just the ‘starting point.'” Oh, yeah! That’s just the starting point.
“[J]ournalists need to redefine their relationship with audiences. ‘Ditching the “view from nowhere,” or the “voice of God,” and instead saying, “Here’s where we’re coming from” would be very good,’ Rosen said. ‘The second thing journalists should do is make it clear: Yeah, we’re coming from somewhere, but we’ve done our reporting. We’ve talked to a lot of people. We looked at the documents. We dug up information.'”
And then he said, “I don’t think the people interviewing Kellyanne Conway know why they are doing that,” and they should stop. Kellyanne Conway should no longer be interviewed. “‘The journalistic logic of it is growing dimmer with every interview.’ That’s because Conway goes beyond spin. Frequently, Trump’s and Conway’s statements to the press will directly contradict one another,” and so this professor says, just stop talking to her. “‘The logic is, this is a representative of the president,’ Rosen said. ‘This is somebody who can speak for the Trump administration.
“But if we find that what Kellyanne Conway says is routinely or easily contradicted by Donald Trump, then that rationale disappears.’ ‘Another reason to interview Kellyanne Conway is, our viewers want to understand how the Trump world thinks,’ he added. ‘But if the end result of an interview is more confusion about what the Trump world thinks, then that rationale evaporates'” for talking to Kellyanne Conway.
“‘Just be real about it and say, “This isn’t actually of journalistic value,”‘ he said. ‘”It has a different value and that’s why we’re putting it on the air.” Just don’t pretend that this is a normal interview, with the normal rationale.'” In other words, don’t interview effective Trump spokespeople. It’s not helping anything, it’s not furthering any purpose. It’s not helping us become authoritative on who Trump is so that people believe what we say about him. Our problem is that people like hearing what Kellyanne Conway says about Trump.
So you need to stop talking to her. That’s the advice Mr. Rosen is giving to journalists on a tech blog podcast. And by the way, the tech blog people think this is the greatest thing they’ve ever heard. They’re out hyping this. “Oh, this is magnificent! This is miraculous! This is brilliant!” We really have nothing in common with these people, folks. Values, definitions, worldview, nothing. It’s striking.
RUSH: This Rosen guy, journalism professor at New York University is advising journalists (paraphrased), “You need to let your audiences know who you are. You need to let them know where you’re coming from.” No, you don’t. We have known where you’re coming from for 35 or more years. We’ve known every objective you’ve had. Your best idea is to keep trying to fool us, because we know who you are and where you’re coming from. In fact, do you know what would shock us more than anything is if they start doing their job.
That would give us pause. We would think, “What’s wrong? What’s in the water? Have they been poisoned?” if they actually started doing their jobs. If there was just one day, one day of total media objectivity from all the networks, tell me, you wouldn’t know what to do with it, you would suspect a conspiracy. You would think you’re being set up for something. You’d think a trick is being played on you. That’s how bad it is: If they did their jobs, you’d be more suspicious than ever. (laughing)