News media can and should describe President Donald Trump’s conduct as “racist,” argues Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) in a Monday-published post.
Entitled “Dancing around the word ‘racist’ in coverage of Trump,” CJR argues the term “racist” is a preferable decriptor with which to describe Trump and the president’s conduct rather than “racially charged,” “racially loaded,” and “racially divisive.”
Left-wing racial agitator Jamelle Bouie of Slate and CBS is cited by CJR as a legitimate resource for professional guidance of political news media:
Kyle Pope, CJR’s editor and publisher, agrees with Bouie’s assessment of Trump’s racism as prima facie and axiomatic:
CJR pushes the false left-wing and Democrat narrative of Trump’s “racist caricature of Mexican immigrants” as proof of what it alleges is the president’s “long and well-documented … history of racism.” CJR concludes, matter-of-factly, that Trump can objectively be defined as “racist”:
Opinion writers and columnists have long felt free to label Trump’s words for what they are. Given the surfeit of evidence, of which his castigation of NFL players is only the latest piece, it’s time for reporters to do the same.
At no point in the article does CJR define “racism” or “racist.”
CJR generally frames political objectivity as both a desirable and achievable standard to be pursued across the news media industry.
Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism (CUGSJ) was founded in 1912 via donations by Democrat news media tycoon Joseph Pulitzer, whose namesake adorns the Pulitzer Prize, ostensibly awarded in recognition of quality journalistic endeavors.
CUGSJ alumni include assorted personalities across left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets, most of which present themselves as politically objective and non-partisan in their operations.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.