We have been referring to the assault on foundational notions of neutrality in mathematics in academia. This includes academics rejecting the concept of objectivity in mathematics in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean along with New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced the way the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being”weaponized” to shield disinformation. While Hannah-Jones was given a Pulitzer Prize for her writing about The 1619 Project, she’s been criticized (like on this site ) because of her part in purging dissenting viewpoints from the New York Times pages along with embracing ridiculous anti-police conspiracy theories.
As mentioned previously, Hannah-Jones was among the journalists who uttered the New York Times for publishing the views of Sen. Tom Cotton to the use of troops to quell rioting from U.S. cities. Hannah-Jones applauded the disgraceful conclusion of the Times to apologize for publishing such an opposing viewpoint and denounced those who engage in what she called”even-handedness, both sideism” journalism. When Hannah-Jones and others objected to the publishing of the views of Cotton, opinion editor James Bennet was rustled out to create a praying apology. That however was not enough. He was later forced to resign for publishing a pillar that advocates a choice used previously in history with rioting.
Notably, while the use of national guard troops was convicted from the protests around the White Housethe delay in the use of national guard troops had been criticized in Jan. 6th riot.
Not long after playing a leading part in the elimination of Bennet,” Hannah-Jones was criticized for progressing an anti-police conspiracy theory.
In her deleted tweet, Hannah-Jones promoted a thread that discussed the recent injuries and destruction caused by fireworks was not the fault of protesters but actually a part of a conspiracy. This is happening at a time when police are trying to quell the use of those fireworks in New York and other cities. These incidents were becoming more and more of a concern for citizens equally in protests and random strikes. This comprised an incident between the victimizing of a displaced man and attempt of the police to spot the offender:
As criticism of the use of fireworks have grown really has a conspiracy theory on the world wide web is that the fireworks are a part of a police storyline”to disorient and destabilize the #BlackLivesMatter movement” The thread promoted the view of a person identified as Robert Jones, Jr. who
“The media is reporting this as though it is just Black and Brown kids blowing off steam, but I don’t think that’s the situation. My neighbors and I feel that this is part of a coordinated attack on Black and Brown communities by government forces; an attack intended to disorient and destabilize the #BlackLivesMatter movement”
When confronted with her republishing of this conspiracy theory, Hannah-Jones deleted the conversation and apologized. This was the right response. On the other hand, the incident doesn’t seem to have prompted some reconsideration of the recent movement from the Times or its editors. In that episode, they published not only even a conspiracy theory but a pillar onto an electricity held by the federal government for years and used in history.
There was not a great deal of”investigative reporting” shown in Hannah-Jones suggesting that police were framing protesters by covertly providing them the fireworks utilized contrary to the public or displaced individuals. It fit a narrative which was adequate.
Unlike the editor of the Times, however, such concepts aren’t viewed as cause for resignation or improper”both sideism.”
Academics have also criticized Hannah-Jones writing about the 1619 Project. They raised”things of fact” that”cannot be referred to as translation or’framing.'” They whined that the work represented”that a displacement of historic comprehension by ideology” The Atlantic noted that”given the stature of those historians involvedthat the letter is a significant obstacle to the trustworthiness of the 1619 Project, which has attracted its share not just of admirers but also critics”
The concern is that characters such as Hannah-Jones represent a basic rejection of objectivity and neutrality within mathematics. She seems to stick to a growing view among academics.
In a meeting with The Stanford Daily, Glasser insisted the journalism required to”free itself in this notion of objectivity to develop a feeling of social justice” He rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views”journalists as activists since journalism at its finest — and really history at its finest — is about morality.” Thus,”Journalists need to be overt and blunt advocates for social justice,” and it is difficult to do that under the limitations of objectivity.”
It’s exactly the same rationalization for shaping the news to fit your agenda and treating readers as topics to be educated instead of educated.
In an tweet, Lowery announced”American view-from-nowhere,”objectivity”-obsessed, both-sides journalism is really a failed experiment…The older way has to go. We need to rebuild our business as one that works from a place of moral clarity.”
All these are major voices in media. Glasser is a Stanford Department of Communication professor emeritus and functioned as the manager for Stanford’s Graduate Program in Journalism.
What’s intriguing is that this fundamental challenge to journalistic values isn’t being widely discussed. For all those of us who have worked for years as columnists and in the media, the growing intolerance for dissenting viewpoints is stifling and alarming. Media outlets are currently married to replicate journalism models where conflicting views or facts are becoming more and more rare. We are seeing our leading schools teaching such advocacy and bias as values instead of risks to journalism. It’s a change at universities that can influence journalism for several years to come.
Like this:Like Loading…