NYT's Occupy Wall Street Reporter-Supporter Lennard Proudly Throws Objectivity Overboard
Former New York Times freelance reporter Natasha Lennard, who contributed to the paper’s reporting on Occupy Wall Street, then participated in a left-wing panel discussion of OWS tactics with protest participants and supporters, broke the chains of "objectivity" for good in a rather refreshing article posted Tuesday morning at left-wing Salon Magazine: “Why I quit the mainstream media – Journalism must break the chains of objectivity and report truth -- and the Occupy movement led me to do just that.” (Lennard has previously contributed to Salon.) She agreed with the "right-wing firebrands" who said "I have no place in the mainstream media."
I was in complete agreement when, last month, the triumvirate of right-wing firebrands Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart all condemned me for being more than just a journalist. They are correct, and I agree with every pundit who argues that I have no place in the mainstream media.
On Oct. 14, I appeared on a panel at the radical, feminist Blue Stockings bookstore in New York’s Lower East Side. Hosted by Jacobin Magazine, the discussion addressed left-wing politics and strategy. During the event, I criticized old-left styles of organizing and praised -- with some ardor -- the experimental nature of Occupy Wall Street. I also dropped “F-bombs” in abundance.
Stumbling out of the bookstore onto Allen Street after the debate, I hugged an old friend, who has been heavily committed to Occupy activities in New York. “I think I just watched you lose your job,” he said.
“I know,” I replied, with a smile.
Indeed, a video of her appearance was picked up by Big Government, “and the fallout led to the Times publicly stating that they had 'no plans' to use me for future OWS coverage.”
Lennard was far more defensive about the talk after it was first revealed. She responded with defensive posts on her Twitter account like this: “Not only am i not on NYT payroll; have only freelanced sporadically. And a debate in a bookshop is not an organizing mtg”
After announcing “it is also with some pride that I have stopped writing for publications that aim for journalistic objectivity,” Lennard made points on media objectivity that conservative media watchdogs could agree with.
Similarly, if the mainstream media prides itself on reporting the facts, I have found too many problems with what does or does not get to be a fact -- or what rises to the level of a fact they believe to be worth reporting -- to be part of such a machine. Going forward, I want to take responsibility for my voice and the facts that I choose and relay. I want them to instigate change.
Lennard let her far-left light shine in the last paragraph (I bleeped out her trademark vulgarity):
Breitbart, Beck and friends are correct in saying I’m more than just a journalist. They are wrong in saying I’m an activist – that means something specific, in my mind. But if by “more” they mean I am a journalist in agreement with those across the country who think “F*** this s***” when it comes to a system upholding inequality and alienation for all but a few, then they are right. This -- and my proclivity for dropping “F-bombs,” once again -- is the reason the mainstream media and I have parted ways.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
"Journalism must break the chains of objectivity and . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:35pm.
. . . report truth."
Well said, Comrade Lennard. Pravda has a desk for you.
Not surprisingly, fellow-traveller Dan Rather was in agreement back in 2004 when he said that it really didn't matter if the alleged 'Air National Guard memos' were authentic or not, because "We know the truth."
The brazenly open dismissal of objectivity seems to permeate the generations of so-called journalists. What would Murrow say?
There are many more in the
Submitted by d1carter on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 3:57pm.
There are many more in the LSM still playing the "objectivity" game. It is time for them to come out as well. Why continue the charade?
Ah, yes
Submitted by LinTaylor on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:08pm.
The classic "You can't fire me, I quit!" attitude. Used to justify many bruised egos when they got what was coming to them.
I love it when embracing
Submitted by dr-go on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 4:27pm.
the left requires that one's vocabulary bank consist of a singular vulgarity. It must be a secret code because there is no other milieu where one word can be an adjective, noun, verb, adverb, pronoun and personal pronoun all at the same time. Brilliant!
I don't know about that.
Submitted by IdahoJim on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:49pm.
"It must be a secret code because there is no other milieu where one word can be an adjective, noun, verb, adverb, pronoun and personal pronoun all at the same time"
When I got out of the Navy in 1975, I literally had to learn how to speak civilian again. That word was used at least once in every spoken sentence.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
"But if by “more” they mean I
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:04pm.
"But if by “more” they mean I am a journalist in agreement with those across the country who think “F*** this s***” when it comes to a system upholding inequality and alienation for all but a few, then they are right."
All but a few? No society has ever existed where the masses are equal to those at the top, be it represented by financial power, political power, or physical power. Alienation for all but a few? If someone feels alienated from their fellow man, that alienation is not foisted on them by those at "the top". Some of the most alientated people are those who have the power, or the money, or the prestige.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Facts
Submitted by LionKing on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 5:51pm.
Seems that what she is really trying to say is that she only wants to write about topics that she can selectively choose her facts. The TRUTH is never mentioned.
and she woulda gotten away with it
Submitted by kata on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 6:20pm.
if it weren't fer those meddlin [conservatives]!
LOL. As someone already said : "You can't fire me, I quit!"
Is she finally admitting it?
Submitted by Marcus Porcius on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:55pm.
That the mainstream media doesn't report the truth?
I don't think she quite understood what she actually said. Of course, she also apparently does not know what objectivity means, which is the process of being objective. Per dictionary.com, objective:
"Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."
Key words here: "based on facts; unbiased"
In other words, Natasha Lennard wants the media to abandon the practice (which it already does not follow anyway) of reporting "based on facts" or in an "unbiased" manner and "report truth," which by definition is the same thing. If you are unbiased and your reporting is based on facts, you ARE telling the truth.
And I bet Natasha Lennard thinks REPUBLICANS are stupid.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
www.theconservativereview.com
Is that her photo? If it is, she is much better looking...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 1:30am.
than most lefties I have seen in the media. Maybe the reason she talks the way she does is because she is "on" something and maybe that was the "real" reason she was fired. I wouldn't be surprised.
Just because you are a goodlooking female reporter doesn't give you job security when your ultimate boss is a homosexual.
Can't be objective and truthful?
Submitted by taznar on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:11pm.
"Journalism must break the chains of objectivity and report truth "
In the real world, in order to report the truth, one must be objective. In what kind of brain is truthfulness and objectivity mutually exclusive rather than mutually reinforcing.
If you can't be objective, you can't know the truth. And if you can be honest and true with yourself (know your biases), you can't be objective.
The English woman is just so
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 4:00pm.
The English woman is just so childish.
She went to an elite of the elite university in England -- CAMBRIDGE -- and she is still mired in sophomoric leftist bilge like ANARCHY.
Another wasted education on a white bread female from an upper-class, rich, privileged background.
The English lady has NEVER had a real job in her young life. And she's telling flyover Americans how to live their lives.
ARROGANT and sanctimonious.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.