Representatives of major media companies today failed to deny the use of intellectual and ethical diversity programs in their hiring practices.

The controversy began when the Institute Against Advocacy in Media (IAM) released a report alleging “serious, long-term negative affects caused by on-going intellectual and ethical diversity programs.” According to the IAM report, these “IE” programs have led to a rapid increase in “tabloid journalism” and are largely responsible for “a general decay in both broadcast and print media.”

These IE programs were reportedly created in an attempt to correct a long-standing, industry-wide prejudice favoring journalists of high intellect and strong social conscience. The programs strive to fill job openings with reporters, editors and producers who score low or very low on IQ tests or display little or no moral character. Misinformed applicants who believe journalists should interject their own personal political agendas into their work are also favored.

The director of IAM issued a strong statement claiming that, “most of the major news services, networks, affiliates and print media organizations have been heavily involved in these [IE] programs for the last two decades.” He also noted that the major media companies, “do not deny involvement in these bizarre hiring and promotion practices.”

One media insider, who wished to remain anonymous, was supportive of the programs.

“All we're saying is that historically these jobs were given to people who understood the issues and genuinely cared about journalistic integrity. Why, just fifteen or twenty years ago, almost no one of limited ability and knowledge was even given a chance.”

One media observer noted that in fact, “there was a time in this country when psychopaths, simpletons and political hacks were not allowed to report the news.”

Another supporter claimed that intellectual and ethical diversity programs have been good for ratings.

“All I know is that our ratings were horrible before we hired a bunch of people with a real contempt for the truth and no sense of the reality of most people's lives. I mean, can you imagine Edward R. Murrow sticking a microphone in a grieving mother's face during a funeral? Do you really think he could make it in today's market?”

Detractors say the programs have led the news media to produce more sensationalistic stories that are devoid of any real substance. They also claim the “ratings excuse” to be invalid because reporting the days events in a clear, factual manner hasn't been tried since Walter Cronkite left.

A large percentage of the American public agrees that the industry has been severely, if not irreparably, damaged. A poll conducted recently by the Associative Press indicated that 100% of the people surveyed found most news coverage to be inaccurate, self-indulgent, blatantly editorialized and curiously lacking solid information.

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that policies of hiring intellectually-challenged, morally-deficient applicants have been used by some of the nation's most respected news services.

One well-known newsperson seemed agitated and uncomfortable with the allegation that he may have been hired solely because of his ignorance and cynicism. One media analyst believes his reaction to be a, “sure sign of guilt.”

Another prominent journalist appeared to be confused by even the most basic principles of interviewing. When asked how hiring policies that preferred illiterate, psychotic reporters had affected his network, he seemed perplexed and replied, “I don't know who you people are or why you keep asking me these questions!” Can a man who doesn't understand this critical process be trusted to report the news?

Have the news media been overrun by overpaid, uneducated, self-aggrandizing, amoral, ideological fascists who have no detailed knowledge of the issues they cover and no genuine concern for the people they serve or the society they inhabit? That is the question so many have asked.

eMail This Page
FreedomLobby.org
Contents