Sunday saw Fox News Channel’s Media Buzz host, Howard Kurtz, point a stern finger at mainstream media’s recent flavor of “deception journalism.” The recurring theme: unjust smearing of conservative Supreme Court Justices. The line between ethical journalism and smokescreen propaganda seems to have blurred significantly, and Kurtz is calling it out.
The recent scandal involving Lauren Windsor’s “secretly-recorded” conversations with Justices Alito and Roberts has triggered a flurry of outraged media response. However, what was so disastrous about Alito’s supposedly scandalous words? Kurtz, joined by ‘Outkick’ founder Clay Travis, picks apart this staging.
Travis puts it simply: Alito committed no wrongs. Deceptive taping in itself is unethical. Alito’s comments, Travis argues, were nothing more than cocktail party chit-chat. No startling revelations, no earth-shattering confessions; just some friendly banter.
And accusations of hypocrisy? Travis counters that Alito didn’t proclaim that Ten Commandments were the only law of the land. Instead, the subsequent unanimous Supreme Court ruling on the Morning-after Pill was a clear testament to the rule of law being upheld, far from a Christian theocracy assumption.
The real issue, Travis posits, lies in the lack of security for our justices. As protesters flout laws and become more aggressive, discussion must shift to safeguarding the esteemed Justices, rather than contorted media narratives.
As Travis eloquently puts it, mainstream media outlets, in their rush to pounce on any negative perception of the high Court, may be forgetting their own fundamentals of ethical reporting. He challenges the motivation behind permitting Windsor’s questionable reporting methods, tacitly endorsed by outlets that would ordinarily refrain from such behavior.
Kurtz backs up Travis, noting a significant shift in journalistic ethics over the years. With damning examples littering recent history, it’s known that undercover journalism is deemed mostly unethical. Yet, Windsor’s deceitful tactics are not questioned by the majority in the industry.
In response to these revelations, Travis notes the contrast of liberal media’s approach, which would never endorse this sort of journalism but appears to condone it when the outcome suits their narrative. He likens it to a media equivalent of sleight-of-hand trickery: as long as someone else does the dirty work, they can react, comment, and fire up the outrage.
The tirade against the Supreme Court, instigated by unprincipled journalism, undermines the foundation of trust in the court. This must be addressed, rather than permissive shrugging off such unethical tactics, Kurtz and Travis argue.
The focus on the Supreme Court, as opposed to the deceptive journalistic tactics being employed to exploit it, signifies a hasty decline in journalistic ethics. It’s high time that we halt these over-the-top attempts to discredit the court and instead, restore respect and security for our justices. Public scrutiny should be aimed at maintaining the principles of transparent, fair journalism – not leveraging it as a tool for misinformation.
