Broadcast newsCultureFeaturedJohn OliverjournalismmediaMedia Criticism

What John Oliver gets wrong about Bari Weiss and CBS News

John Oliver is the host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight, which is one of the funnier news and comedy shows in the vein of progressive liberal eviscerates conservatives and Donald Trump and nonliberal perspectives. (See Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, et al.) As expected, Oliver is not happy about the news that Bari Weiss is now the editor in chief of CBS News following Paramount’s $150 million acquisition of her news site, The Free Press.

In the latest episode of his show, Oliver spent nearly 35 straight minutes skewering Weiss and The Free Press and explaining why she is a bad fit to run not just CBS News, but any news network. In doing so, he betrayed a fundamental myopia about the legacy media’s own failings.

To be fair, some of Oliver’s criticisms are perhaps not entirely without merit. It is true that Weiss has never run a newsroom of this size—CBS News has thousands of employees—though the fact that she created her own media company from scratch and successfully sold it for $150 million just three years later should more or less serve as an endorsement of her managerial skills and news judgment. It’s also true that she came up through the ranks of journalism as an opinion writer rather than a news reporter; The Free Press publishes plenty of reported content, however, as do other opinion-centric news outlets. (So does Reason, but more on us in a minute.)

Oliver has issues with several major Free Press stories, including the outlet’s reporting on starvation in Gaza. An article by Free Press reporter Olivia Reingold responded to viral images of starving children by claiming these children appeared so malnourished because they suffered from other health conditions. The article’s implicit message was that the mainstream media were overemphasizing the harms done by Israel’s war in Gaza. Reingold’s report was, at best, a case of excessive nitpicking—without question, the war had exacerbated the precarious health conditions of Palestinian children.

If Oliver had stuck to that one criticism of The Free Press, his monologue might have been more persuasive. But he also broadened his argument to be against the idea of opinion journalists running newsrooms in general. He even put the Reason logo on screen alongside those of Jacobin, National Review, The Bulwark, Pod Save America, The American Prospect, The Daily Wire, and The Federalist as he attacked the idea of a “pure opinion outlet” being in charge of the news. (Check out the 31:30 mark.)

“I wouldn’t want anyone who led a pure opinion outlet, not even one I happened to agree with, to suddenly be running CBS News,” said Oliver.

This point skips over a very basic fact that often seems to elude people like Oliver: Most mainstream media organizations are already run by people who reflect Oliver’s opinions, sensibilities, and news judgment. Reporters, editors, and managers at major media companies skew overwhelmingly to the left. The only places where this isn’t true are explicitly conservative news organizations, most of which do not pretend that their own ideological convictions can be readily set aside.

Progressive staffers may tell themselves that their own progressive political biases do not shape their coverage decisions—and they may even convince themselves that this is the case—but the fact of the matter is that reporting even straight news requires making editorial judgments all the time: These decisions are frequently ideological in nature. At its most basic, the choice to give more or less airtime to negative reporting on one political party or the other is liable to be swayed by the politics of the company doing the coverage. True neutrality is exceedingly difficult and probably requires a level of disinterest in politics that is ill-suited for the job of being a newsman.

A better route, in my personal opinion, is for news reporters, editors, and the companies they work for to be more open about their ideological perspectives and their political biases. They can work to counteract them by platforming commentary from a wide range of people who do not share their own views. Reason, for example, readily admits to being a libertarian publication; Reason writers are encouraged to be open about our ideas and even to admit who we are voting for in the presidential election. We invite nonlibertarians to participate in our videos: For instance, I host a weekly news and debate series, Free Media, which engages with viewpoints on the left and the right.

In that sense, Oliver’s own ideological offerings are narrower than ours. If you browse his show’s episode archive, it seems obvious that he has virtually never taken a stance that would alienate progressive sensibilities—not even once. That’s his right, of course: He should produce as many takedowns of nonliberals as he likes! But most of legacy media is already a lot like this.

Putting a heterodox thinker in charge of CBS News—one who disagrees with some of the progressive left’s shibboleths—is indeed revolutionary, because Weiss’ opinions are unique. The mere fact that she has opinions at all is not actually revolutionary.

 

Watch more episodes of Free Media here

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 90