Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Jun 4, 2005.
Not that they care, it's not their money:
Op-ed...Got something to support it?
Yeah, well hidden:
Did you read the whole thing?
Yes I did, and typical of all Faux-News editorials, it is long on polemic and short on fact.
Bully the curmudgeon handle works well for you!
And I wear it proudly!
ok mister smarty-pants---debunk WITH proof, that what is being stated is NOT true. This may be an editorial, but everything they are saying is true, and you know it, just in your mind, everything that speaks bad about liberal ideas, is not true, wrong, etc., though you have no logical reasoning to prove otherwise.
Of course the Beeb is institutionalized leftism (nice phrase, btw). So is all major media. That's for various reasons, some controversial, some not. But it is still formidable: a BBC journalist is (or at least was) better informed than most American journalists, excepting maybe some of the biggest. I remember a Republican elected official telling me that the BBC had always done three times as much homework as any American journalist before coming to him with questions.
I think that for conservatives, the goal should be to cultivate our own smart journalism. Fox News sure as hell ain't it --- that's just cheerleading for Bush, who is no conservative. National Review used to be conservative until it was taken over by open-borders neocons.
Have you ever read Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire? If so, then you know about Rita Skeeter. Jo Rowling stated in an interview a while ago that she modeled Rita after the most popular BBC journalists. the "daily prohpet" being the media since wizards don't have TVs. While there is a hint of truth in the story being reported, most of it is made up bs and exaggerated statements to make the subject of the story look bad, just to generate ratings. Most of the story is THEIR perspective on the subject, not actual, provable facts.
As far as American journalists doing less background work, that's fairly true, when you watch interviews conducted by said journalists, watching them ask questions that have been asked so many times before, that the interview is nothing new, and far from productive.
Here's a term that jumped out at me:
"...the professionally aggrieved..."
Separate names with a comma.