Just weeks after news reporter Brian Stelter was fired from CNN, he was hired for a new gig that shows just how corrupt the American education system is.
According to a news release from Harvard University, Stelter will join Harvard’s Kennedy School as the Fall 2022 Walter Shorenstein Media and Democracy Fellow.
“The Walter Shorenstein Media and Democracy Fellowship brings high-profile figures at the forefront of media, politics and public policy to Harvard’s Kennedy School to work with students, faculty, scholars and the public on important issues of the moment,” the release said.
“As the Walter Shorenstein Fellow, Stelter will convene a series of discussions about threats to democracy and the range of potential responses from the news media.”
That’s right: the same man who was fired last month for being terrible at his job in journalism will now join one of the most prestigious universities in the country to teach aspiring journalists.
The irony would be laughable if it was not so discouraging.
New CNN CEO Chris Licht has not explicitly said why he canceled Stelter’s “Reliable Sources” show and fired him from the network.
It could be that the audience was not tuning in or responding to the program, or it could be that Licht decided on his own that Stelter was not worthy of being on the air. No matter what the reason was, the fact that Stelter was fired means CNN determined he was not succeeding at his job.
Yet even though he failed at being a journalist in his own right, Harvard has somehow decided he is qualified to teach students who wish to become journalists in the future.
Was Stelter a good pick for this new position?
Yes: 2% (2 Votes)
No: 98% (85 Votes)
Harvard’s reasoning for hiring Stelter is obvious to anyone who is paying attention. It has nothing to do with Stelter’s qualifications as a journalist and everything to do with his political views.
Leftist institutions like Harvard do not actually care about training students to be good journalists. Instead, they care about turning students into Democrat activists.
The more leftist journalists Harvard can train to eventually be put on television, the more influence they can have on viewers. Harvard understands it can garner more votes for Democrats using this process.
In 2016, Econ Journal Watch published a study that considered the party registration data for 7,243 professors from 40 of the top universities in America. The professors surveyed were from the fields of Economics, History, Journalism/Communications, Law and Psychology.
Econ Journal Watch said it examined the names of professors, including middle initials and estimated birth year, on voter data website Aristotle. While the authors admitted they could not “be 100 percent sure” the registration data for each name was not a different person with the same name, they said they were “confident that our data is accurate and unbiased” since they reviewed full names and birth dates in an effort to ensure they identified the correct person.
The study found 3,623 professors were registered Democrats, but just 314 were registered Republicans. Harvard was one of the universities examined in the study, and it found the school had a 10:1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans among its professors.
Stelter’s show was supposed to examine the background and biases of various news sources in an effort to pursue objective journalism. In reality, Stelter was one of the most biased journalists there was.
For evidence, just look at this compilation the Daily Caller put together of his worst moments.
[embedded content]
Stelter claimed to be some sort of media watchdog, but he is nothing more than a left-wing activist masquerading as a journalist. He could not accomplish his goal of determining which sources were “reliable,” because he falsely believed he and the rest of the pundits at his network were incapable of making mistakes.
Sadly, this is the type of person Harvard wants to see more of in the news industry, and that is exactly why the school hired Stelter. The left does not want to determine what is objectively true, but rather suppress any information that does not fit their preferred narrative.
