Allinsky! Alinssky!ALINSKY!
Just scream it!
Scream it again!
That will make it true.
It's an opinion. Not news. Learn the difference junior. You can take it for what it's worth.
It's absolutely crazy opinion. It has no basis in any rational reality.
It's an opinion. Not news. Learn the difference junior. You can take it for what it's worth.
You brought up Hollyweird as a way to label me. I simply told you the truth.
you are the one out on an island here.
No, I genuinely am. My first job out of Wake was a newspaper reporter and I did my damnedest to adhere to standards I had been taught. Just want to see how they line up with yours and why the WaPo's don't.
So in response to a Washington Post column (not an opinion, pure objective fact) that you call fake news, you post an opinion article to rebut "[ChrisL68's] Leader".
Alright, I'm really done now. I initially thought we could have a legitimate conversation about why you keep calling factual columns fake news, but it's pretty clear that we cannot. When pressed on defining your journalistic standards you just go off on a tangent about something not even remotely related to the topic at hand. I have no idea what you are even debating or arguing at this point.
You're either trolling to JHMD's lengths (I hope?) or you've got some pretty out there opinions that aren't rooted in a lot of reality. Good day to you sir either way. Hope your academic and work accomplishments keep you going through the day.
Loh's crazy psychobabble on sports topics makes much more sense now. He is certifiabily delusional.
I am very intrigued to hear what you think the current state of reporting represents...
Is it objective? Is it fair? Is is biased? Is it trying to sell an agenda? Does it even report news? Do you think the NYT and WaPo are objective or slanted?
My take is I can remember when news anchors would report news straightforwardly and later provide an editorial. The screen would display EDITORIAL behind them or there would be a disclaimer. Now, in my opinion as a viewer it appears all reports are editorialized. I hear an undercover report where producers indicate the news of the day -the Trump Russia relationship- is a hoax but it has been good for ratings so they keep running with it.
You look at the big rush and reaction to Don Jr. meeting with a lawyer from Russia and you have Senators calling it treason. You had the members of the DNC (don't know if they were directly connected with a campaign) meet with Ukrainians and actual exchange info. There is very limited reporting of this and certainly no outcry or accusations of treason. How can Chuck Schumer get away with demanding that all text and correspondence be turned over without demanding the same from the DNC whose servers would go along way to ending the debate by letting the FBI look at it. Where is the press clamoring for this? They are not. In my mind, yet another example in a long list of my favorite soapbox that the reaction to very similar events is a function solely of what party is involved.
It makes me wonder if there is any news reporting any more? As such, I am interested in hearing your perspective. BTW, how long were you in the industry and did you see any changes to the approach of presenting news or the politicitation of it?
I love it. What did 60-70 year old men do before the internet to pass their time and share their shitty views? Was this why there was such high participation that is now dwindling in rotary and lions clubs? Is Wednesday night bingo suffering?
It was ONE Senator calling it "possible treason".
Next it wasn't a "member of the DNC" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukraine-try-to-interfere-in-the-2016-election/
"It wasn't so much the Clinton campaign, per se, but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.
That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party. As Vogel reported, she knew about Paul Manafort's extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign. As part of that effort, she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C.
The Democratic National Committee denies that it was ever in contact with the Ukrainian government."
Compare that to the meetings we know took place with Jared Kushner, Manafort, Donnie, Jr., and others had with Russians while working for the campaign.