Jorge Ramos, the most visible of Univision's anchors, was interviewed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News last week. Mr. Ramos, an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, said that There are certain instances in which you have to take a stand, adding that journalists cannot be objective when confronted with racism, discrimination, corruption, public life, dictatorship or violations of human rights. Mr. Ramos went on to say that journalists have a social responsibility to confront those in power.
For years, journalists have avoided injecting themselves into stories. Objectivity was a by-word of the profession, not something that was applied on a case-by-case basis. The overwhelming duty of journalists was to report the news. Commentators and editorialists had the role of commenting on the news with their personal perspectives. Journalists, on the other hand, were supposed to be the fourth estate, the phrase originated by Edmund Burke and translated to American politics in which the Fourth Estate was to be a watchdog over the three branches of government.
What Mr. Ramos and, as it turns out, other so-called journalists, are advocating is that it's all right to abdicate their journalistic responsibilities and instead become advocates against someone because they disagree with their views. It should be noted that Mr. Ramos and Mr. Trump have a history going back to a press conference in August, 2015, when an unruly Mr. Ramos was ousted from the press conference. Mr. Ramos principally objects to Mr. Trump's rhetoric on Latinos, his insistence on building a wall on the southern border and his stance on immigration. That's his right. But he has to put aside his personal feelings while he's acting as a journalist. To do otherwise causes him to forfeit his title as journalist and makes him no better than an educated activist.
There are those who applaud Mr. Ramos's stance, just as there are those, like me, who disagree with him. In fact, I don't disagree with Mr. Ramos on a couple of matters: Mr. Trump's rhethoric is deplorable, in the first place, and Mr. Ramos has every right to believe as he wishes. I disagree that he's supposed to take a stand at this time for one simple reason: Mr. Trump is nothing more than a candidate for office. He's not an elected official. Were he an elected official I might feel differently.
What's more, his position that journalists can't be objective when confronted with public life, as Mr. Ramos put it, is too expansive. Just what is public life? Does that mean someone who's in the public eye? What about celebrities? Does that mean that journalists can be subjective about which public news they can choose to report?
Mr. Ramos is also being a little bit disingenuous. His daughter works for the Cankles' campaign, which Mr. Ramos has admitted he supports (her working for Cankles, not necessarily Cankles herself). Any pretense that Mr. Ramos went into this campaign with objectivity is sorely tested.
But as Ms. Kelly herself pointed out, Mr. Ramos is on the horns of a dilemma. Ms. Kelly noted that 70% of the American public believes that Cankles is a liar. Is it something that should be mentioned in every story about Cankles? Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Ramos.
And this is precisely the problem with the MSM. Although calling Mr. Trump on the carpet for his rhetoric and positions is absolutely legitimate, and questioning his policies or lack thereof is fine, where is the same scrutiny for Cankles? How is the American public supposed to be fully informed when the Fourth Estate is constantly ignoring the misdeeds of one candidate to focus on the mideeds of another candidate because they prefer the former candidate over the latter? How is there any integrity in that stance? Doesn't this stand, to use Mr. Ramos's word, detract from the journalistic ethic? Or is it now part of journalism to pick and choose what news to report, measuring it against a jouralist's personal views?
Again, I don't begrudged Mr. Ramos his personal beliefs. He's entitled to them. But by ignoring the real dangers of a Cankles presidency, he does as much if not more harm to this country than by taking on Mr. Trump's buffoonery. If he were attacking for simultaneously, I wouldn't have a problem with this. But he's allowing his personal views to influence his reporting, and that's dangerous.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment