There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

homesweethomeMrL OP ,

“He says” is not the same as “he says, essentially”.

True, that’s why I put both the full quote and, later, the “essentially” to show that was a reading of it. Yes.

It requires the leap of believing that defending democracy is best done by stopping Trump, even if it means abandoning journalistic ethics. He claims that defending democracy requires an impartial media.

No “leap” is required. Trump has already staged a coup. Trump has already said he will pursue a program of retribution. Trump’s idiot followers in red states have already passed unconstitutional laws to prevent the voters’ candidates from winning if they so decide. NO LEAP. IS REQUIRED.

He claims that defending democracy requires an impartial media.

This is a platitude one learns in journalism 101 and at the place and time he sits, right now, it is means nothing. Let’s skip the definitions of what ‘an impartial media’ might mean and examples for and against.

The purpose of the free press is to allow any subject to be told. There are MANY subjects the NYT hasn’t touched about either candidate. But as regards trump, the subjects-less-traveled are almost all criminal, corrupt, and deeply idiotic. Is it “impartial” to deliberately ignore them? No.

Furthermore, the NYT appears to be “defending democracy” by chasing polling results and securing more cycles of a given feedback loop. That is also not impartial, nor is it defending democracy.

To say that he doesn’t want to defend democracy is entirely bullshit. It’s not what he says or implies. He just disagrees with you on how best to do so.

No, what he says and what he implies is, in fact, bullshit.

I have no doubt he believes he has a role in “defending democracy”. His actions on how to do that are simply wrong, and his words justifying his critical inaction give away that he simply can’t bear to write a story that might not give both sides equal weight. Do we need to argue ‘both sides’? I would expect not.

He says they have a responsibility to publish “hard-hitting” stories. Well, where are they? “trump said some stupid shit at a rally again”? “Joe looked tired and was hoarse”(on repeat for the month)?

Bullshit.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines