Megyn Kelly Quotes

Steinbeck also served as a journalist as did Earnest Hemmingway and other great American writers. In WWII there was a great deal of censorship and even more self censorship by the press. The result is that many of the U. S. military blunders were covered up on the grounds that it would not be good for the morale of the soldiers to know that their officers had made such tragic mistakes.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. Islamic country newspapers however, when it comes to what is perceived as material insulting to Islam, as typified by this editorial, feel that their religion should never be insulted despite the fact that Saudi Arabian media constantly insult Christianity and Judaism. Their justification of this gross double standard is that Islam is the “true” religion.

The reporters were not intimidated. They published not only the story about the joke but the threats of the Chief of Staff who later apologized publicly to minimize the political damage. The quotation is important for two reasons. First it illustrates something that occurs in all countries—political officials intimidating journalists to suppress a story they do not want public. Second, the vibrancy of the Israel freedom of the press, where even the highest ranking general in the nation could not intimidate ordinary journalists. In most counties, the journalists would have been imprisoned, and possible tortured and killed if they crossed such a powerful man. In many democracies, the journalists would have been fired.

See Adolph S. Ochs for the original slogan. {601364}

Until the 20th century almost all American political media were shamelessly and overtly biased—left or right. Political Parties had their own de facto publications much like Fox News became for the Republicans in the 21st century. In the 20th century journalism developed into a profession that evolved standards of objectivity in reporting. That norm then prevailed for about 70 years. With the extreme polarization of the later years of the 29th Century the right wing began to accuse much of the media of a left wing bias, and the media tended to react as Krugman describes in this quotation. The model of having spokespersons for “each side” of an issue works for highly subjective political preferences with a two party system, but where it broke down is with scientific and technical issues. On these, there often really are not two scientific points of view, but there is a scientific consensus of the vast majority of scientists and almost all the prestigious and accomplished scientists are in accord. However, there may be some who have a cultural, religious and/or political concern for some science and its implications for society. They in turn find a scientist or two, often one who is unaccomplished and not recognized in the scientific field to argue a different point of view. The media have tended to equate the two and have a “debate” as if there were two sides to the science when there are not. These issues tend to cluster around scientific medical issues involving sex and birth control methods, environment and conservation, evolution, the age of the earth and the method of creation of the universe. The problem is particularly exacerbated by the general scientific illiteracy of the American population and the relatively few journalists who themselves are scientifically literate who can explain scientific issues well.

Despite being a member of NATO, Turkey, in the beginning of the 21st century had a Prime Minister with very thin skin and he could not handle criticism.

Many scholars believe that complete objectivity is impossible psychologically. Hence, neutrality is a better standard and goal some argue.