“news” has been biased or outright lies for a long time, decades. Fun when they fail. propaganda machines one and all… now they are “printing “ out of tiny buildings like grunge bands hoping for a break… the local bird cage carpet here quit home delivery a couple years ago… “too expensive”… fuk em.
If the paper editorials have a bias, that is fine. When the news reporting has a bias as well, that is a problem.
No one expects The View to have any balance. (It would have to change its name to The Views if they did.) But, it is an opinion/editorial show, not news. And, their viewers know it, and do not care. But, if they were to present as a news show... sooner or later even the viewers that agreed with their editorial slant would start leaving.
And, I agree. You cannot abhor the mainstream news media enough.
The local birdcage liner is TARFU'ed beyond salvation. And still pumping out Progressive Agenda Propaganda daily (mostly digital these days). I read it to elevate my blood pressure. Better than PharmaChem.
"I don’t know if hate is even applicable in my case as it feels something you apply to somebody that has some worth."
I had a manager at work, a few jobs ago, who said one of the wisest things I've ever heard coming out of a live human being.
(Paraphrasing): "The opposite of love is not hate. Hate is a very small step to the left of love; both are strong feelings. No, the real opposite of love is apathy. When you just don't care, that's the opposite of love."
Journalists in the digital age thrive on clicks and people sharing their writings. Whether you love and agree with it, or hate and disagree with it, *you're still re-sharing it*. The journalist gets paid by the click; they make money either way. "No such thing as bad publicity," and all that.
(In a way, IMO that's one reason why journalism has gotten so bad in the past few decades. Facts and news are boring and predictable, but click-bait outrage-fests and controversial hit-pieces get lots of clicks, and clicks pay the bills.)
So treat journalists the way we treat mass-shooters. Don't publish them, don't publish their names, don't share or re-post any of their screeds. Don't give them any of the attention they need.
The worst thing you can do to a journalist vying for your attention is to shrug and say "Meh."
Could’ve let the editorial staff and publishers watch from the inside. What a missed opportunity. Oh well…
“news” has been biased or outright lies for a long time, decades. Fun when they fail. propaganda machines one and all… now they are “printing “ out of tiny buildings like grunge bands hoping for a break… the local bird cage carpet here quit home delivery a couple years ago… “too expensive”… fuk em.
If the paper editorials have a bias, that is fine. When the news reporting has a bias as well, that is a problem.
No one expects The View to have any balance. (It would have to change its name to The Views if they did.) But, it is an opinion/editorial show, not news. And, their viewers know it, and do not care. But, if they were to present as a news show... sooner or later even the viewers that agreed with their editorial slant would start leaving.
And, I agree. You cannot abhor the mainstream news media enough.
The local birdcage liner is TARFU'ed beyond salvation. And still pumping out Progressive Agenda Propaganda daily (mostly digital these days). I read it to elevate my blood pressure. Better than PharmaChem.
"I don’t know if hate is even applicable in my case as it feels something you apply to somebody that has some worth."
I had a manager at work, a few jobs ago, who said one of the wisest things I've ever heard coming out of a live human being.
(Paraphrasing): "The opposite of love is not hate. Hate is a very small step to the left of love; both are strong feelings. No, the real opposite of love is apathy. When you just don't care, that's the opposite of love."
Journalists in the digital age thrive on clicks and people sharing their writings. Whether you love and agree with it, or hate and disagree with it, *you're still re-sharing it*. The journalist gets paid by the click; they make money either way. "No such thing as bad publicity," and all that.
(In a way, IMO that's one reason why journalism has gotten so bad in the past few decades. Facts and news are boring and predictable, but click-bait outrage-fests and controversial hit-pieces get lots of clicks, and clicks pay the bills.)
So treat journalists the way we treat mass-shooters. Don't publish them, don't publish their names, don't share or re-post any of their screeds. Don't give them any of the attention they need.
The worst thing you can do to a journalist vying for your attention is to shrug and say "Meh."