Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There, she's way off the reservation.
|
Just so you know, the cool, PC kids are not using this phrase anymore. I think the objection is minimizing the genocide done to native people or something.
Quote:
|
But when she says, "Look, 85% of journalists are registered Democrats... That's just a fact," she makes a solid point.
|
She does? First, is that true? Second, if it's true, does it matter, especially if they are centrist, corporatist democrats? Does it make any difference if they are employed by a giant corporation?
I will concede that the overwhelming bulk of journalist are "socially liberal." Do we really need more viewpoints on those questions? Isn't it enough that major news organizations go out of their way to give space (Douthat, et al) to opposing opinions? And if the editorial page is intentionally "balanced" then do we really get more "opinions" (her concern) by having "news" outlets that intentionally skew their facts to be "conservative" (by which we really mean racist)?
Quote:
A world in which for eight years, Fox never once said anything positive about Obama, and now for two years, almost all of cable and national news says nothing but negative things about Trump is - objectively - not a media which is reflecting reality.* It's a competition of advocates.
_______
* I'm not suggesting equivalence. Trump is an embarrassing mess. But the angle of almost every story on the guy in the Times or WaPo is to shred him, to make sure you know the author hates him, and you should too, and then report on whatever he did. It's childish. As childish as he is. He deserves it. And media deserves him. We deserve a better media, and a better President.
|
Trump's coverage is negative because he is an embarrassing mess. You're suggesting that the media should cover that up?
Or is this where you go find a completely accurate statement and say it's some awful and unnecessary dig?
Threaded Mode