Praising the media

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
Reporters & journalists routinely put their lives on the line in war zones, unstable countries & other violent hotspots to not just bring us the news, but to expose corruption, human rights violations & other widespread problems. Throughout our history, their courage has led to investigations, reform and shifts in public attitude and policy, and changed the course of millions of lives for the better. I salute them and their constant dedication to bringing us the truth.

To watch a clown who also happens to be the leading purveyor of falsehoods and fabrications dismiss the entire profession on a daily basis as “fake news”, and then have his willing minions parrot that without thought or evidence, is really pretty disgusting.

It’s what dictators and despots do – not leaders of the greatest democracy in history. Trump supporters should be embarrassed by this behavior.
 
I think people are starting to understand what Liars the right wing has been. I think people are starting to understand how racist the right wing has been. The growth in CNN and MSNBC shows that people are getting how wrong the right-wing media has been. Breitbart readership is in the toilet because again people understand how much they lie.
 
The actual number of journalists who do as you claim is a very small percentage. Most sit at their desks mining twitter all day long.
 
Journalism in America is a dead art,
Main Stream media has become partisan hacks, ambulance chasing and agenda driven.

thank goodness enough of us here in America are onto them, they represent al that is wrong with modern day communication
 
Thing1 said:
When did the criteria become "killed in war zones?"

Right said most were desk-sitters mining twitter.
Click to expand...
That was one of your own criteria....
the rest are obviously something else, most likely desk sitters but I couldn't guess how many are mining twitter....:)
or even how many are actually 'journalists'...
 
NOVA said:
That was one of your own criteria....
the rest are obviously something else, most likely desk sitters but I couldn't guess how many are mining twitter....:)
or even how many are actually 'journalists'...
Click to expand...

Re: the bolded. No, it wasn't - read Right's response, and my response to him. What does the "most" in my response refer to?

I'm rooting for you.
 
And never once did I single out reporters who were "killed in war zones." I said that there are many who put there lives on the line, but detailed a variety of situations.
 
Thing1 said:
And never once did I single out reporters who were "killed in war zones." I said that there are many who put there lives on the line, but detailed a variety of situations.
Click to expand...
You certainly did, Thingy.....you could have added, car accidents, plane crashes, muggings, etc.....

This thread is over for me.....
 
NOVA said:
You certainly did, Thingy.....you could have added, car accidents, plane crashes, muggings, etc.....

This thread is over for me.....
Click to expand...

Of course it's over, because you were wrong & now you're backing off. Never once did I single out that it was ONLY reporters "killed in war zones."

A win for me, but a waste of time. Please don't post unless you have something to contribute.
 
ROFL..the nobility of purpose is long gone -you have reporters like Sara Carter of Circa news an John Solomon of the Hill (Uranium One and the GPS/Steele Dossier) who actually investigate.
By and large though everything is politically driven. The New York Times is no exception.

Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/...oudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html
If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.
That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply?
 
noise said:
ROFL..the nobility of purpose is long gone -you have reporters like Sara Carter of Circa news an John Solomon of the Hill (Uranium One and the GPS/Steele Dossier) who actually investigate.
By and large though everything is politically driven. The New York Times is no exception.

Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/...oudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html
If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.
That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply?
Click to expand...

You're certainly one that has eagerly & mindlessly parroted Trump (who routinely fabricates narratives and statements) w/ the 'fake news' thing.

It's sad. You are basing it on a few articles & stories in a few outlets, and painting everyone w/ that broad & ill-informed brush. Trump's willing little accomplices.
 
Thing1 said:
You're certainly one that has eagerly & mindlessly parroted Trump (who routinely fabricates narratives and statements) w/ the 'fake news' thing.

It's sad. You are basing it on a few articles & stories in a few outlets, and painting everyone w/ that broad & ill-informed brush. Trump's willing little accomplices.
Click to expand...

Far from "a few articles & stories in a few outlets". This shit's been going on for decades now. Remember Dan Rather, your hero?
 
Right said:
Far from "a few articles & stories in a few outlets". This shit's been going on for decades now. Remember Dan Rather, your hero?
Click to expand...

Can you cite where I have stated that Dan Rather is my hero?

And it's funny you have to go back a decade+ for one story in trying to prove "pervasiveness."
 
Thing1 said:
You're certainly one that has eagerly & mindlessly parroted Trump (who routinely fabricates narratives and statements) w/ the 'fake news' thing.

It's sad. You are basing it on a few articles & stories in a few outlets, and painting everyone w/ that broad & ill-informed brush. Trump's willing little accomplices.
Click to expand...
not everyone. The unholy Cabal is NYTimes WAPO and the network news.

What is amazing is this NYTimes article actually confesses to being fake news ( advocacy journalism).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top