If journalists cannot distinguish between obvious propaganda and reasonable facts, between whether platforming a murderous regime is right or wrong, then we have a much bigger problem on our hands.
Truth Matters, you have taken the thoughts out of my head! Joshua, you are truly a journalist in every positive sense of the word. Regarding the subsidiaries of Al-Jazeera (that is the BBC, The New York Times, and WSJ), just reading Al-Jazeera at 0530hr each day makes it redundant to read BBC, NYT or WSJ geopolitical sections. Al-Jazeera makes it one-stop shopping to know what our adversaries are thinking. In combination with Pakistan's DAWA and Kayhan IRAN, I feel fully read in each morning. Thank you Joshua and thank you Truth Matters, Gary
They don't work for the Legacy Media and if they do, you can't trust them, because their editors job is not to report the truth but to hide it. They cover stories with a pillow until it stops moving. If it hurts Democrats you will never see it until it is obviously exposed.
List of Real Journalists:
James O'Keefe
Data Republican - Jennica Pounds
Tommy Robinson -UK
Kathy Gyngell - UK
Katie Hopkins - UK
Laura Loomer
Edward Dowd
Sam Cooper - Canada
James Howard Kunstler
Sharri Markson - Australia
These people report what they see - source it - investgate it - leave no stone unturned -corroborate it. That is journalism
In WW2, any Allied newspaper writing Nazi propaganda would be considered abhorrent and ‘siding with the enemy’. The same should be considered today.
Todays’s society is so very different to 100 years ago. Today’s conveniences of instant news, internet, Ai, digital and social media have created a maelstrom whereby people do not know what to believe. Never has the following expression been more valid ..
‘by not reading the news, one remains uninformed, whereas reading the news, one is misinformed’.
I am also a journalist. In less elegant words I have been telling people we are in an era of rampant yellow journalism. My professors at GW were former news men and they are turning over in their graves. I would bet the WSJ got a kickback for the op-ed. I always council people to read multiple sources to seek the truth. For the people who only want to know what is "going on", they will only read one, or only listen because they are too busy...And with that the empire of democracy falls to crisis media. Thank you for this article. Good to know at least one great journalist is still at work!
The quality of reporting has dropped. Reporters are inexperienced, not well trained, subject to political and financial pressure and poorly edited, if at all. Take what they write or say with a grain of salt and see if others are saying the same or something different. Always ask if the reporter or the source has a conflict or reputation for honesty and integrity. Based on years of dishonesty, you cannot expect anything reliable from Trump and his enablers.
My understanding is that opinion pieces (Op-Ed) in the WSJ are not fact-checked by their journalists; they represent the opinion of the outside author being platformed. I have seen other WSJ opinion pieces there that are full of misinformation and lies. The question for me is the Editorial Board would have known that this would be an Iranian minister's propaganda piece, so I would criticize them for deciding to run it at all. Why give voice to a murderous, anti-US/Western regime? Their regular journalists have done an excellent job covering the Israel-Gaza War, always qualifying every Gaza Health Ministry report of war casualties as not distinguishing between citizens and combatants. They also have a Bureau Chief in Israel.
There has been extensive documentation in recent years showing that many media outlets have intentionally blurred the line between reporting and opinion, not out of confusion but out of incentive. Opinion-driven content reliably generates far more reach, engagement, and revenue than straightforward news, and as a result, editorial judgment has increasingly been subordinated to what provokes the strongest emotional response rather than what most accurately informs the public.
First, Op Eds are not intended to be "journalism;" they intrinsically represent the author's opinions, and are not necessarily expected to be factual.
In addition, Mr. Hoffman omits a key fact, i.e., that the Editorial Board of the WSJ published a concomitant opinion explaining its rationale for publishing the Iran Foreign Minister's Op Ed, while also roundly criticizing it (https://tinyurl.com/jbtf6td6). As the editors themselves note, readers may disagree with their decision to publish the Op Ed. However, to omit the fact of their response invites a charge of hypocrisy, or at least irony, as this omission itself appears to represent a form of shoddy journalism.
Like Hoffman, I'm concerned about the epidemic of yellow journalism that has infected once trusted news outlets. But this WSJ Op Ed, together with the Editorial Board's response, is not a cogent example.
Yet from there, Hoffman veers into other realms, notably the fatal ICE shootings of three people, two of them American citizens, within 3 weeks. Meanwhile, MInneapolis' Chief of Police noted that last year his department confiscated over 900 weapons and arrested hundreds of violent offenders, without a single officer-involved shooting. This fact alone raises major concerns about the training and competency of ICE agents.
I find it curious that Hoffman cavils about media outlets, and how much evidence one needs to form a valid view, given the voluminous video evidence, and the overall fact patterns concerning ICE's actions. In addition to the killings, these include invading homes and businesses of US citizens, and/or assaulting them, without warrants or due process, and preventing standard participation of local and state authorities in the investigations of the killings. Add to this the near instantaneous demonization of the victims by Trump, Vance, DHS and multiple other Administration leaders. These are not matters of opinion--they are facts. That certain partisan media outlets have chosen to pretend they are not is the main source of flagrantly partisan reporting in this instance.
All that said, to Hoffman's point, there's no shortage of dismayingly biased, agenda-driven reporting on the part of the liberal media, either. Such avatars as the NYT, CNN, MSNBC and the BBC degrade themselves and their profession with their transparently anti-Israel bias, which has animated their coverage of Oct 7, the Gaza War, and general stories related to Israel, the Palestinians, and the Arab world.
In summary, we agree that quality journalism is at a low ebb, with countless examples that make the case. But the WSJ editorials aren't among these.
This objection misunderstands the nature of the critique. The problem is not that the Wall Street Journal failed to explain itself afterward; it’s that the decision to publish the op-ed at all was the error. An accompanying editorial scolding does not neutralize the damage done by granting a senior Iranian regime official the prestige, reach, and legitimacy of the Journal’s opinion pages. You cannot launder propaganda by appending a disclaimer and then claim journalistic absolution.
“If journalists cannot distinguish between obvious propaganda and reasonable facts, between a murderous regime and democratically elected officials, then it ceases to be a profession in the service of society.”
If journalists will not. It has to be a deliberate choice.
What you're saying sits beside the following on the same shelf. AI's prime ability is being able to convincingly lie. The foretold Great Delusion is well under way. All we can do is turn to the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to get the actual Truth which will keep us on the path until the Messiah arrives.
"Poor judgment on behalf of ICE agents, for example, does not mean America does not have an illegal immigration problem that should be addressed."
I don't know of anybody who would seriously make this argument. Everybody that I've tuned into who seems to align center left recognizes the border has been a problem, it needs to be resolved, but the way its being resolved currently has been proven to be dehumanizing, unethical, and illegal. I don't see why those two realities can't be held in tension. Is illegal immigration a problem? Yes. Is a lot of the narrative about illegal immigration total fearmongering propaganda? Yes. Does that problem need to be solved? Yes. Does the need for this problem to be solved warrant or justify the mandates and behavior of not only a few ICE agents, but case upon case upon case of ICE agents? No, it does not.
"A bad police shooting does not mean law enforcement itself is illegitimate and deserving of systemic punishment." All the world witnessed an execution.
The violence is not an excess, but part of the mandate the federal agents received from Washington. Even now, after the apparent execution, the lies of those responsible, the accusations against the victim, and the blocking of an independent investigation demonstrate that the regime's goal is not justice, but injustice.
Stop mealy-mouthing. There's still way too many caveats and modifiers in criticism of journalism by journalists. Still too timid to lambast their utter unprofessionalism. They are a disgrace and should be shunned. Get real.
The Media has been a Signal Intelligence Operation for the Financial Services Sector and The Armed Services for many years now, since World War Two in fact: War by pictures and words, all of which have been weaponised and thus Militarised by The State. I have been told that the Secret State is what European States here have instead of Concentration Camps and to prevent them. Did you expect anything else? It is what we have instead of open Fascism. Somehow this keeps us Free.
Exactly why I follow you and ignore MSM. You are a journalist. Thank you Josh.
Truth Matters, you have taken the thoughts out of my head! Joshua, you are truly a journalist in every positive sense of the word. Regarding the subsidiaries of Al-Jazeera (that is the BBC, The New York Times, and WSJ), just reading Al-Jazeera at 0530hr each day makes it redundant to read BBC, NYT or WSJ geopolitical sections. Al-Jazeera makes it one-stop shopping to know what our adversaries are thinking. In combination with Pakistan's DAWA and Kayhan IRAN, I feel fully read in each morning. Thank you Joshua and thank you Truth Matters, Gary
I must have missed it. When did an Islamist regime purchase the WSJ?
Journalists?
They don't work for the Legacy Media and if they do, you can't trust them, because their editors job is not to report the truth but to hide it. They cover stories with a pillow until it stops moving. If it hurts Democrats you will never see it until it is obviously exposed.
List of Real Journalists:
James O'Keefe
Data Republican - Jennica Pounds
Tommy Robinson -UK
Kathy Gyngell - UK
Katie Hopkins - UK
Laura Loomer
Edward Dowd
Sam Cooper - Canada
James Howard Kunstler
Sharri Markson - Australia
These people report what they see - source it - investgate it - leave no stone unturned -corroborate it. That is journalism
Well written piece, sir! Thank you!
In WW2, any Allied newspaper writing Nazi propaganda would be considered abhorrent and ‘siding with the enemy’. The same should be considered today.
Todays’s society is so very different to 100 years ago. Today’s conveniences of instant news, internet, Ai, digital and social media have created a maelstrom whereby people do not know what to believe. Never has the following expression been more valid ..
‘by not reading the news, one remains uninformed, whereas reading the news, one is misinformed’.
I am also a journalist. In less elegant words I have been telling people we are in an era of rampant yellow journalism. My professors at GW were former news men and they are turning over in their graves. I would bet the WSJ got a kickback for the op-ed. I always council people to read multiple sources to seek the truth. For the people who only want to know what is "going on", they will only read one, or only listen because they are too busy...And with that the empire of democracy falls to crisis media. Thank you for this article. Good to know at least one great journalist is still at work!
The quality of reporting has dropped. Reporters are inexperienced, not well trained, subject to political and financial pressure and poorly edited, if at all. Take what they write or say with a grain of salt and see if others are saying the same or something different. Always ask if the reporter or the source has a conflict or reputation for honesty and integrity. Based on years of dishonesty, you cannot expect anything reliable from Trump and his enablers.
You just proved the authors point nicely, 😁
And you can expect the same level of dishonesty from the mainstream media.
My understanding is that opinion pieces (Op-Ed) in the WSJ are not fact-checked by their journalists; they represent the opinion of the outside author being platformed. I have seen other WSJ opinion pieces there that are full of misinformation and lies. The question for me is the Editorial Board would have known that this would be an Iranian minister's propaganda piece, so I would criticize them for deciding to run it at all. Why give voice to a murderous, anti-US/Western regime? Their regular journalists have done an excellent job covering the Israel-Gaza War, always qualifying every Gaza Health Ministry report of war casualties as not distinguishing between citizens and combatants. They also have a Bureau Chief in Israel.
There has been extensive documentation in recent years showing that many media outlets have intentionally blurred the line between reporting and opinion, not out of confusion but out of incentive. Opinion-driven content reliably generates far more reach, engagement, and revenue than straightforward news, and as a result, editorial judgment has increasingly been subordinated to what provokes the strongest emotional response rather than what most accurately informs the public.
I find this essay disingenuous on several counts.
First, Op Eds are not intended to be "journalism;" they intrinsically represent the author's opinions, and are not necessarily expected to be factual.
In addition, Mr. Hoffman omits a key fact, i.e., that the Editorial Board of the WSJ published a concomitant opinion explaining its rationale for publishing the Iran Foreign Minister's Op Ed, while also roundly criticizing it (https://tinyurl.com/jbtf6td6). As the editors themselves note, readers may disagree with their decision to publish the Op Ed. However, to omit the fact of their response invites a charge of hypocrisy, or at least irony, as this omission itself appears to represent a form of shoddy journalism.
Like Hoffman, I'm concerned about the epidemic of yellow journalism that has infected once trusted news outlets. But this WSJ Op Ed, together with the Editorial Board's response, is not a cogent example.
Yet from there, Hoffman veers into other realms, notably the fatal ICE shootings of three people, two of them American citizens, within 3 weeks. Meanwhile, MInneapolis' Chief of Police noted that last year his department confiscated over 900 weapons and arrested hundreds of violent offenders, without a single officer-involved shooting. This fact alone raises major concerns about the training and competency of ICE agents.
I find it curious that Hoffman cavils about media outlets, and how much evidence one needs to form a valid view, given the voluminous video evidence, and the overall fact patterns concerning ICE's actions. In addition to the killings, these include invading homes and businesses of US citizens, and/or assaulting them, without warrants or due process, and preventing standard participation of local and state authorities in the investigations of the killings. Add to this the near instantaneous demonization of the victims by Trump, Vance, DHS and multiple other Administration leaders. These are not matters of opinion--they are facts. That certain partisan media outlets have chosen to pretend they are not is the main source of flagrantly partisan reporting in this instance.
All that said, to Hoffman's point, there's no shortage of dismayingly biased, agenda-driven reporting on the part of the liberal media, either. Such avatars as the NYT, CNN, MSNBC and the BBC degrade themselves and their profession with their transparently anti-Israel bias, which has animated their coverage of Oct 7, the Gaza War, and general stories related to Israel, the Palestinians, and the Arab world.
In summary, we agree that quality journalism is at a low ebb, with countless examples that make the case. But the WSJ editorials aren't among these.
This objection misunderstands the nature of the critique. The problem is not that the Wall Street Journal failed to explain itself afterward; it’s that the decision to publish the op-ed at all was the error. An accompanying editorial scolding does not neutralize the damage done by granting a senior Iranian regime official the prestige, reach, and legitimacy of the Journal’s opinion pages. You cannot launder propaganda by appending a disclaimer and then claim journalistic absolution.
Minnesota Democrats hate ICE because they are deporting their voters.
Do I gather correctly you've canvassed the 2,000 or so Minnesota democratic voters you'd need to validate your assertion?
You gather that I'm 100% right and you don't like it.
Thank you for the link to the WSJ Editorial Board's reasoning for publishing the Iranian Foreign Minister's Op Ed.
“If journalists cannot distinguish between obvious propaganda and reasonable facts, between a murderous regime and democratically elected officials, then it ceases to be a profession in the service of society.”
If journalists will not. It has to be a deliberate choice.
Great work.
What you're saying sits beside the following on the same shelf. AI's prime ability is being able to convincingly lie. The foretold Great Delusion is well under way. All we can do is turn to the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to get the actual Truth which will keep us on the path until the Messiah arrives.
"Poor judgment on behalf of ICE agents, for example, does not mean America does not have an illegal immigration problem that should be addressed."
I don't know of anybody who would seriously make this argument. Everybody that I've tuned into who seems to align center left recognizes the border has been a problem, it needs to be resolved, but the way its being resolved currently has been proven to be dehumanizing, unethical, and illegal. I don't see why those two realities can't be held in tension. Is illegal immigration a problem? Yes. Is a lot of the narrative about illegal immigration total fearmongering propaganda? Yes. Does that problem need to be solved? Yes. Does the need for this problem to be solved warrant or justify the mandates and behavior of not only a few ICE agents, but case upon case upon case of ICE agents? No, it does not.
Food for thought.
"A bad police shooting does not mean law enforcement itself is illegitimate and deserving of systemic punishment." All the world witnessed an execution.
The violence is not an excess, but part of the mandate the federal agents received from Washington. Even now, after the apparent execution, the lies of those responsible, the accusations against the victim, and the blocking of an independent investigation demonstrate that the regime's goal is not justice, but injustice.
Stop mealy-mouthing. There's still way too many caveats and modifiers in criticism of journalism by journalists. Still too timid to lambast their utter unprofessionalism. They are a disgrace and should be shunned. Get real.
The Media has been a Signal Intelligence Operation for the Financial Services Sector and The Armed Services for many years now, since World War Two in fact: War by pictures and words, all of which have been weaponised and thus Militarised by The State. I have been told that the Secret State is what European States here have instead of Concentration Camps and to prevent them. Did you expect anything else? It is what we have instead of open Fascism. Somehow this keeps us Free.