Journalism's political activists: The darkness that kills democracy
The resignation of editors from left-leaning outlets such as The Washington Post and L.A. Times over their lack of support for Kamala Harris's platforms further highlights the ongoing conflict between journalistic objectivity and activist journalism.
Kamala gestures as Trump speaks in the presence of ABC moderators.
"Democracy dies in darkness." The famous motto of The Washington Post seems to have been misunderstood by one of its editors, who mistook his political leanings for illumination and ultimately resigned after the newspaper refused to officially endorse Kamala Harris. A similar situation occurred with the opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times for the same reason. These resignations, rather than demonstrating a commitment to objectivity, raise questions about the impartiality of the content produced by the platforms where they worked.
If anything has characterized the Harris campaign, it is the unconditional support of left-wing media and journalists. After a long period without a candidate to spark even the slightest hope as Joe Biden headed toward the Democratic nomination against Trump, they eagerly sought to elevate the vice president into a heroine. They envisioned her as the one who could vanquish the Republican bogeyman and united a deeply diided country under her supposed moderation.
Harris' fragile facade created by the media
However, reality has set in and the facade constructed around Harris has crumbled under even the slightest scrutiny from the media. Setting aside her disastrous interview on Fox, Kamala has lost support each time she has faced a journalist, despite their efforts to assist her. Moderators, abandoning any pretense of neutrality, have turned into partison advocates, transforming candidate debates into 3-1 exchanges that cut out moments where the Democrat candidate stumbled through her frequent verbal missteps.
This shift is evident in the polls and election projections. Even left-leaning media and pollsters consistently report that Trump's endorsements are bringing him closer to the White House, while the vice president's support continues to dwindle.
While it may be bold to suggest that many left-wing media outlets are activing out of opportunism in recognizing the trend, it's clear that Kamala's momentum has evaporated along with her appeal. CNN has already publicly corrected several of her statements during the Town Hall they hosted, openly criticizing her performance. Meanwhile, the LA Times and the Washington Post have opten not to offer her explicit endorsements.
The 'blasphemy' of not endorsing Harris
This has become a kind of blasphemy for many these self-proclaimed guardians of objectivity, who view not supporting the radical Harris, mind you, none of these media outlets have endorsed Trump, as a betrayal of journalism's essnce. The fervent outcry from these media figures reveals something much deeper and more troubling: an activism that recognzies only its own ideology, disregarding any inconvenient truths.
Much has been said about the bias and chumminess of the left-wing media with the Biden-Harris administration, which has been among the most sectarian, censorious and repressive in living memory toward dissenting views. Beyond the twitter files and the criticisms surrounding information dissemination during COVID, these resignations shine a light on the troubling practices within these newsrooms, calling into question the very objectivity of their reporting.
Returning to the Post's slogan, the darkness cast by journalists whose light extends only as far as their activism poses a genuine danger to democracy.
LATEST
