Liz Peek was one of the first journalists that I reached out to. I’m not sure how I came across her name because I had never heard of her. Her website http://www.lizpeek.com/index.php/site/about/ provides information about her background and lists her various professional accomplishments including that she was one of the “first women on Wall Street to become a partner of a so-called “major bracket” firm” and the first woman to “head the National Association of Petroleum Investment Analysts”. Furthermore, she has contributed to a variety of journals and magazines including The New York Post, the Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal, The Fiscal Times, and FoxNews.com.
My first post to her was in response to an article titled “Forget the Mainstream Media Hysteria – America like’s Trump’s agenda, including his immigration pivot.” It struck me as bizarre that someone who was reporting for Fox News would not consider themselves “mainstream media” so I decided to ask her directly. I posted, “I do not know you and do not wish is insult, blame or shame you for your opinions, thoughts, or perspective. I am reaching out to individuals on Facebook and attempting to engage with them in a politics conversation guided by principles of mutual respect, compassion, and patience. I am simply asking every American to stop adding to negative sentiment. If you are interested, I was wondering why you consider Fox News to be outside of the “mainstream media”? Also, as a journalist and news reporter, do you think it is possible to remain impartial in today’s culture?” I didn’t hear back from her, but I did receive two replies from different individuals and four “likes”. Both of the responses were derogatory in nature; one person insulted me for pretending to know “that which [I] know not,” and did not address anything specific about my original post and the other insulted the previous insulter claiming she was “projecting her own lack of knowledge.” Although I responded to both individuals directly, they chose to respond to one another rather than respond directly to either post that I posed to them individually.
Yesterday I posted for the third time on Liz Peek’s page. The most recent outrage that President Trump has posted on Twitter refers to President Obama illegally wire-tapping the Trump Tower during the summer of 2016. Liz posted an article with the following comment: “The piece below suggests that the Obama White House attempted to make a criminal case against the Trump campaign. When that didn’t pan out, they turned to the national security angle, which of course would allow surveillance. This whole thing stinks”. My response is once again directed at her specific use of language in this case the word ‘suggests’. I wrote: “Hi Liz Peek. I have reached out to you a few times before about some of the wording that you use in your posts. I was wondering what you felt a journalists’ job was in the 21st technologically driven century when often it is as easy for individuals to have access to the same information that journalists do? In your post you use the word “suggests” which means that you really have no actual information supporting your claim; right now I think it would be fair to call it an unsubstantiated claim. Since we clearly know so little about what has occurred, do you think you are adding to an already inflammatory political environment by posting information that merely “suggests” something? I am not trying to be aggressive or insulting, but am working to inquire on what you are attempting to accomplish in “suggest[ing]” news rather than reporting news. I look forward to hearing from you or from anyone else who might be interested in discussing the role that journalists play in story telling and the news. Thank you! #CreatingaNationUnited #CanU”
I find myself continuingly compelled to return to her page; in part because she is clearly a well read and informed journalist who has accomplished a great deal throughout her professional career and in part because I am not sure why she reports the news the way that she does. As someone who has an extensive background in research, why would such an individual choose to willingly mislead an entire group of people who look to her for information?
This is one of the questions that have been driving my investment in this project. It is clear that newscasters, journalists, and the like have begun profiting on providing information that “suggests” rather than information that tells. Why do we continue to listen to them and let their presumptions guide our own way of thinking? Why can we not figure out what the news “suggests” for ourselves?
Creating A Nation United 