A wealthy, right-of-center person is buying The Baltimore Sun newspaper, and the legacy media is not taking the news well.
I’d like to discuss options on how you might rescue and “flip the politics” on a failing local paper that is infected with left-wing political bias in virtually every story, but first let’s take a look at how this story is being reported by the regime media.
A local buyer taking over a struggling newspaper in the 21st century is normally cause for some celebration. But The Baltimore Sun’s newly announced owner has a very specific political background, and some are concerned about what the 187-year-old publication could become.
“…and some are concerned…” is an example of the awful journalism that the Sun’s new ownership should seek to keep off of its pages. “Some people” is a lazy journalistic euphemism which really means “left-wing activists such as me.”
NBC is not taking this news well. (This following story is actually from MSNBC, but that is the authentic, unfiltered political voice of Comcast/NBC and its various outlets.)
Sinclair Inc. Executive Chairman David D. Smith has purchased The Baltimore Sun, the largest newspaper in Maryland. As the longtime leader of the notoriously right-wing local-TV news giant, again and again Smith has used his ample resources to advance a conservative agenda. Now his potential reach will only grow.
Journalists sure do seem bothered about unapproved topics and opinions not being suppressed, don’t they?
John Harwood is a rabidly partisan left-wing activist who has somehow found employment as an “objective journalist” at major US media outlets. As an “objective journalist,” he is completely unhinged that a metro newspaper near Washington DC might not be a mouthpiece for the left’s agenda.
Because of their bias and obsession with national politics, I’m happy to see hyper-partisan newspapers go out of business. However, there remains an important role for local papers in covering local news. It would be my ideal that they do so without serving a left-wing agenda, but they abdicated that role, so that is clearly no longer an option.
Over the past decade or so, I’ve watched various local paper struggle through downsizings, staff reductions, and re-organizations, and I’m always amazed that no matter how many jobs they cut, they still have a staff of local writers who use the paper’s pages to obsess about national politics and national political figures. Those political obsessives are the ones who need to be cut, with resources dedicated instead to local stories.
At the same time, whatever local news coverage a paper does provide still tends to get infected with politics and contextual bias. (e.g. “Residents of Maple Crossing, an area that Trump carried in the last two elections, voiced support for the racially charged proposal…”)
I’ve occasionally pondered what I would do if I were to purchase a local newspaper, or if a David Smith hired me to overhaul a local paper, and how I might recreate it as a local news source that would not advance a left-wing agenda. Just off the top of my head here are a few ideas.
• To start, it would have to embrace (John) O’Sullivan’s Law that "All organizations that are not explicitly right-wing will over time become left-wing." At a minimum, a fundamental principle of the organization would be to assertively purge it of left-wing writers and to keep left-wing bias out of news reporting.
• There would not be coverage of national politics. There are countless other resources for that coverage.
• While coverage of polling about state and local political races could be allowed, there would be no coverage of polls regarding topical issues. For instance, you would never see another story about a poll in which a majority of citizens believe the local utility should replace natural gas with unicorn emissions.
• All existing “opinion journalists” still on staff would be terminated. Any future opinion pieces would strictly be about state and local politics, and written by contributors, not employees. The conservative side of issues must always be presented, although a liberal counterpoint could also be presented.
• There would no political endorsements.
• All senior editor positions would be replaced by non-journalists who are challenged to root out any and all left-wing bias.
• Inserting bias through context would be prohibited and purged by the new editors. The word “despite” would be flagged for a closer look, as it is a favorite of left-wing writers to frame opinion. (e.g. “Despite concerns about his questionable business ties, Representative Smith (R-GA) continues to…”)
• References to “experts,” “some people,” and “sources say” would be prohibited. These are invariably the writer’s own opinion.
• No small subset of a group will be presented as speaking for the entire group. For example, “Doctors are alarmed about…” or “Parents are raising concern about…”
• Stories about “climate change” would be prohibited, as would any reference to climate in stories about weather events.
• Since the curriculum of most college Schools of Journalism pretty much requires the embrace of anti-American wokeness and racial obsession to pass, a degree in Journalism for writers would not only be unnecessary, but actively discouraged.
This is only a start. Feel free to offer up your ideas in the comments.
Let’s hope Mr. Smith makes the new Baltimore Sun exactly the type of newspaper that John Harwood and the left fear it will be.
[buck.throckmorton at protonmail dot com]