Journalist quits newspaper job: claims liberal media bias

Media outlet

Newscast Media LOUISVILLE—Conservative journalist John David Dyche quit his job at The Courier-Journal, after the newspaper rejected and refused to publish his column. Dyche had suggested several reforms the newspaper needed to make in order to remain competitive in the marketplace.

Dyche was told by the Editorial Director Pam Platt that his column would not be published because it did not reflect what he was supposed to be writing, which was a conservative take on the issues of the day. Dyche responded by saying conservative issues include “liberal media bias”.

“I never had a column censored or refused before,” Dyche told WFPL Radio, on Friday. “I wrote about things that were interesting to readers and things that were public issues. I thought this was both. Media bias, the status of newspapers, etcetera. This seemed to me to be interesting, and the only problem apparently was that it was about The Courier-Journal itself. They just don’t seem willing to subject themselves to the same scrutiny and demands that they routinely subject others to.”

According to WPLF FM, Platt’s predecessors—David Hawpe and Keith Runyon—never rejected one of his columns.

“No. 1, they need some revolutionary ideas or they’re not going to exist much longer,” Dyche said. “No. 2, the newspaper claims essentially a quasi-governmental status under the First Amendment, and they demand disclosure of everything else from everybody else in government.

“They claim that the reporters and editors can put aside their personal biases and be fair and objective. Maybe they can—but why not give readers the information about where these reporters and editors are coming from politically themselves, then readers can make a more informed assessment. Are they being fair or are their biases creeping into the coverage?”

The media outlets that have exhibited blatant liberal bias find themselves either running out of business or struggling to stay afloat. Even the once-objective Reader’s Digest is now filing for insolvency and has seen its readership drop by two-thirds, ever since its editors gave it a liberal slant. Reader’s Digest doesn’t seem to get it though, and is now blaming writers on the Internet for tapping into its market share.

Radio America is another outfit that was rendered irrelevant by the dominating force of talk radio that embraces objectivity. Even Al Gore’s Current TV decided to become cheerleaders for liberals and due to non-existent ratings, Gore recently sold it to the Qataris.

Dominating cable news and the Internet, are media outlets that focus more on informative material, instructive content and solutions to fixing problems, rather than campaigning for liberal rights related to pycho-social issues and behavioral choices. Even foreign media outlets in America find it impossible to hide their liberal bias and are failing to gain traction with American viewers.

The Washington Times says the “news” is little more than political campaign for a particular party. Every subject is skewed and skewered to the point that everything you see hear and read should be taken with the proverbial “grain of salt.”

The London Guardian is even more critical of CNN, which is a liberal outlet. The Guardian asserts, CNN International aggressively pursued a business strategy of extensive, multifaceted financial arrangements between the network and several of the most repressive regimes around the world which the network purports to cover…the network’s pursuit of and reliance on revenue from Middle East regimes increased significantly after the 2008 financial crisis, and caused the network to suffer significant losses in corporate sponsorships,” The London Guardian wrote in this extensive article.

This journalist has always maintained that the only way to practice pure journalism is to become and independent journalist, and start one’s own media outlet, where one has 100 percent editorial control of the content, and is not a slave to the Matrix.

A copy of John Dyche’s column that was rejected by the Courier-Journal can be read below, courtesy WPLF Radio: by John David Dyche

In an obvious oversight, The Courier-Journal’s new publisher,
Wesley Jackson, has not contacted this columnist for suggestions on
saving the newspaper from the fate of the New Orleans
Times-Picayune (which produces a paper edition only thrice weekly)
or worse. Jackson has implemented reforms related to financial
viability rather than content, but the latter affects the former. So
here, free of charge, are some ideas to promote this publication’s
prosperity.

Balanced Opinion Pages. The Courier-Journal opinion pages are
stridently liberal. Journalistic jihads against Kentucky’s
Republican U. S. Senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, and
crusades for gun control and higher taxes, are in full force and
frequently fill almost the entire editorial and op-ed pages. Such
one-sidedness neither works in the marketplace nor serves the public
interest.

Make the current editorial page (i.e., the page on the left) into a “Left
Page” and there continue presenting hopelessly liberal columns,
cartoons, and letters. Convert the op-ed page (i.e., the page on the
right) to a “Right Page” and present conservative/libertarian
columns, cartoons, and letters now largely absent from Louisville
media. Give each page equal resources, and let the competing
philosophies battle it out in the marketplace of ideas. The
community would benefit from real, vigorous debate, and
subscribers who deserted the paper due to its liberal bias might
return.

Disclose Editors’ and Reporters’ Politics. Like the rest of the press,
The Courier-Journal claims to play an exalted role in public affairs.
But while righteously demanding absolute openness and full
disclosure from every other entity and person involved in
government, the press does not apply the same standard to itself.
Change that by disclosing the party registration and voting choices
of all editors and reporters.

Journalists believe that they, unlike mere mortals, can transcend
their personal opinions to be basically fair and objective in
presenting the news. Perhaps, but readers should be the ones to
judge. To do so, they need information about the personal political
views of the editors and reporters who decide what gets reported,
and how, when, and where it gets reported. If a Courier-Journal
editor or reporter is a registered Democrat who has voted twice for
Barack Obama and Steve Beshear, advise the readers of that fact
and let them make their own evaluation about whether those
political preferences are influencing the coverage.

Open Meetings and Records. The Courier-Journal not only
demands, but often litigates to ensure, full and open public
disclosure of meetings and records of government bodies. It should
apply the same standard to itself given the prominent role the press
proclaims for itself in the political process. So live stream the
meetings of editors and reporters and post the written
communications and directives between them regarding
assignments, policies, and stories.

Let the public see how and by whom decisions are made as to what
to cover, who should cover it, and what headlines, photographs, and
placement it receives. For example, the recent confirmation hearing
of secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel received only two
sentences of coverage below the fold on A3 in The Courier-Journal.
The paper presented no hint of the bumbling, confused, and
altogether incompetent performance by the potential head of the
Pentagon.

A three-sentence dispatch about a sacrificial skull mound in Mexico
dating to 660 A.D. ran below the dispatch about the Hagel hearing!
And a few days later a much longer article entitled “Pentagon to
extend benefits to partners” appeared above the fold on A2. Peculiar
priorities.

Newspapers indignantly proclaim that their editorial and news
departments do not coordinate. Perhaps there is no explicit
conspiracy, but the hand-in-glove relationship between such
ideological soul mates is undeniable. Opening up the process might
not prevent such slanted presentation of news in the service of
liberal objectives, but it could deter and expose it.

Publish Value of In-Kind Contributions. The Courier-Journal
decries the influence of corporate money in politics and demands
better disclosure of political contributions. However, The
Courier-Journal, Inc. and Gannett Company, Inc. are corporations
that try to influence politics. Presumably their efforts have some
value. The newspaper should therefore quantify and report how
much its in-kind contributions in the form of editorials,
endorsements, etc., would be worth if valued at the rate of
comparably-sized advertisements.

Finally. Replace Fort Knox and Jump Start with Mark Trail and
Mary Worth in the comics. These soap opera strips are much
funnier, albeit unintentionally. And if you do nothing else
recommended here, enlarge Peanuts so one can more easily read its
often profound social commentary. Good grief!

http://newscastmedia.com/media-bias.htm