idiotic "journalism" 101: republicans said it, therefore we have to report it.
horsecrap. for starters, the media doesn't use this standard for democrats. they certainly don't report whatever we want to talk about. if they did, we'd have an actual national debate about methods to improve law enforcement and reduce government killing innocent americans (usually people of color). instead, we have a "debate" over valid ways to protest without offending white people or the police. which is all republicans want to say about this topic.
moreover, just because republicans want to talk about it doesn't mean it's news or worthy of limited airtime. the media should be talking about thinks that meaningfully affect peoples lives. government programs, the economy, etc. the latest fake scandal republicans want to allege about a relative of a democratic politician? please, how is this news?
idiotic "journalism" 102: we can report a lie because it's true that a republican said it.
reporting "the sun rises in the north" would be a lie, so we don't report that. but if a republican said that, well, then, it's certainly true that that republican *said* "the sun rises in the north". so, that's ok to report. using this "logic", the media has rationalized spreading lie after lie after lie, including giving virtually unlimited attention to the man who may well be the biggest liar in the whole of world history.
claiming to be a source of truth is pretty meaningless if all you have to do to get a lie published is say it, and it's no longer a lie, but a truthful quote of a lie. that's a loophole republicans routinely drive a truck through. they've essentially turned the media into an outlet of topical fiction. mostly, republican fantasy.
idiotic "journalism" 103: we're objective if we report "both" sides.
once upon a time, journalists made editorial decisions about what topics we worth discussing and what viewpoints were worthy of attention. the lunatic fringe was routinely and rightly ignored. people who were too extreme couldn't get airtime. when they did, it was always in the context, of hey, these guys are really radical.
which meant that the debates they did have were between people who actually had reasonable positions worthy of respect.
today's media extends this courtesy to republicans, no matter how ludicrous their positions are. they have at least 50% of the seats at any "debate", often more, and they are also allowed to shout down democrats and monopolize the time.
= new reply since forum marked as read
