https://x.com/amuse/status/1923377626116182058?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
We should absolutely revere the MSM.
We now know that the MSM was all in on furthering the false narrative about COVID, the Trump/Russia stuff, and the Biden family enterprises. So, one wonders why there is still this sense that the MSM is some bastion of Truth and objectivity. Years ago I wrote about my experience at an event that was covered by the MSM and that the MSM coverage was an inaccurate representation of the actual event. I've also noted that I have a Bachelors degree in the subject and sat through ample classes about the ethics of reporting (Who, What, When, Where, How). While I'm not an expert, by any means, I do have some expertise on the topic.
So, let's start here. Jake Tapper is (by most definitions) an real journalist, and he practices his craft at one of the "revered" sources of "real journalism". Tapper has written a book about Biden's cognitive decline and the response has been interesting, although predictable. (I'm posting Twitter posts because of the stories/video that they include.)
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1922450896761565385?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1922363499272872104?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1922302004904280481?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/chrismartzwx/status/1922306644441960458?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/basedmikelee/status/1921953872873935007?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/cenkuygur/status/1922755539777245540?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/1922691045294293182?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/scottjenningsky/status/1922636585222168789?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/thomassowell/status/1922783985496707519?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1922496276907651407?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
The above are a few examples of how the MSM (along with the one's noted above, and the recent good economic news) are a few examples of how the MSM is probably not a trustworthy as those who revere them believe they are. The notion that Truth can only be reported by certain legacy media outlets and that any others are to be suspected, is flatly absurd. The internet (which was predicted) has opened the floodgates to all sorts of new journalism outlets. Are they all equally trustworthy, no. Are they all equally ethical, no. Are some of them doing a better job of reporting on stories that the MSM chooses to avoid, absolutely.
Here's a story that virtually no MSM sources have covered, yet has gotten reasonably wide coverage in some non MSM outlets. It's the specific story of Mira Thabet, yet it's also the larger story about the abuse of Non Muslim girls by Muslims. A quick Google search returned absolutely zero mentions of this in any MSM outlets. It seems like this sort of human rights abuse should be covered worldwide, along with all of the other similar stories, by the MSM and championed by those who claim to support "human rights". Yet it's not. The excuse will be that it's just one girl in a country that really isn't worth much news coverage.
"Heartbreaking. Mira Thabet, a Syrian Alawite girl, was kidnapped from school by Islamists while waiting for her dad. For weeks, she was presumed dead. Today, she was allowed to visit home, but was wearing a burqa. It turns out she was forcibly married to her abductor and rapist. You can see the pain and fear in her eyes."
I think I've mentioned before that my cousin is involved with a group trying to restore trust in media. One of her suggestions was that local media is probably more trustworthy of trust than the national media. Which is probably True. Yet, the very fact that the MSM has done things that have eroded the trust in them, and that is acknowledged by her (far left) seems to be a commentary on where we stand today.
The performance of the MSM over the last few decades doesn't justify the reverence than some give them. Until they acknowledge their mistakes, and failures, I see no reason to revere them or blindly trust them.
I'm not saying that there aren't good journalists out there at MSM outlets who aren't trying to do their jobs well. I'm saying that the MSM prostituted themselves to a political party/philosophy/narrative because it was beneficial for them.
4 comments:
You just don't understand what "freedom of the press" is supposed to look like. Honest, accurate, factual data has absolutely nothing to do with it. Just ask Dan.
Unfortunately, as someone with an actual college degree in the subject, I do know what journalism is supposed to be. Unfortunately or fortunately, we're seeing "real journalism" being done by different groups and disseminated more directly than ever before. You'd think that the revered MSM folks would be upset that they're being upstaged by "armatures" but they clearly see that their bread is buttered by fawningly parroting the narrative of the APL.
To inveterate lying progressives, criticizing a clearly propaganda leftist press is somehow infringing on freedom of the press. At the same time, the very same liar will crap on alternative media with abandon, as if they're illegitimate but only because they do not toe the marxist line.
To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with partisan media who are up front with their biases. It's the veneration of certain of the MSM that are revered for their past standards, while ignoring their complicity in pushing and validating multiple stories that were lies.
Post a Comment