Gonna disagree there. I’ve worked with journalists (am not one) and it’s not BS as you seem to suggest.
I don't think you have worked with journalists in the sense that I use the word. When I use the term its with trained news gatherers, who go to great lengths to cover a subject, and have an approach to objectivity and fact-checking when they present their work - and follow-up as corrections (inevitable at some point) are required.
When you bring in organizations like the NYT/WaPo/etc to this, you will find layers of process and rigor to ensure any story is held to high standards, facts are verified and substantiated.
Yes, the process can break and is not perfect, but it generally works. Facts often speak for themselves.
As one person once told me (I'm paraphrasing): good journalists don't just write and publish. It's like when a developer writes code directly on production - you don't do that. Instead there are unit tests, code review, editing, testing, and then its deployed. Journalism institutions have their own versions of this.
Look at the story of how Greenwald parted ways with The Intercept. It was because he wouldn't follow that journalistic process. He said he was above being 'edited' and free to make any claim he wanted without substantiating it - those are the people you need to be careful of.
- https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
- https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/inside-glenn-greenwa...
- https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int...
I don't know how to be any more clear than "can you call yourself that when the show is named after you?", without getting very specific. I'll make another generalization that you'll hate: "journalists" are incredibly vindictive. So I'll not be getting specific.
> I don't think you have worked with journalists in the sense that I use the word.
Oh, you mean people like Kurt Eichenwald... well I have, but not to the same extent.
It is accurate to describe the events leading up to Greenwald's departure as the "journalistic process", but that doesn't reflect as positively on the profession as you seem to think:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-intercept-edito...
Separate from all that, in terms of the phrase "can you call yourself that when the show is named after you?" - I have zero idea what this reference is - can you explain?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_...
The ones that people are typically frustrated with but get the most clicks from 'their' side, are the ones that have an idea for a story, write the conclusion first, and then only include facts that fit that conclusion. Alternatively they discard an article if the facts overwhelmingly disagree with their original conclusion.
YMMV
Journalists who challenge narratives are not given access to people to interview. If you are asking the wrong question, you will simply get "no comment" - and if you do it too much, people will simply stop answering your calls.
That is why the media has effectively aligned with the political parties.
You simply cannot survive in journalism without political support.
It costs a magnitude more (at least) for this type of journalist, as opposed to the latter.
You can get lie peddlers of all stripes for free.
Today, the MSM is literally fake news that conforms to leftist/DNC dogma. See my other post in this thread for why.
You can see this in the common use of narrative keywords like "no widespread election fraud" and "insurrection" across multiple MSM media properties. Everybody knows there is always election fraud (voters moving to another state and voting in their old state is considered voting fraud by the FEC), but inserting "widespread" in the phrase makes it easy to keep moving the goalpost.
But, there wasn't. This has been backed up in courts and by various gov and independent agencies - and then reported in the news.
"insurrection"
The Capitol was stormed. You can even watch the video. There is evidence of advance planning by some groups involved (see Proud Boys and Oath Keepers etc.). It disrupted sessions of the House and the Senate. VP was evacuated by Secret Service. Many were armed. 5 people died, one of those shot as she tried to get into the barricaded doors of the House. At least one member of the police also killed. Extensive video footage exists documenting the day.
It’s like saying, did you steal a million dollars? No, I didn’t steal a _million_ dollars! (leaving blank they stole ten thousand thousand).
A member of the police force died. It’s uncertain he was killed.
If you listened to the media it was an armed insurrection. In reality it was a bunch of idiots a half dozen of whom had weapons. If you believed the media hundreds or thousands or armed goons were on the cusp of taking over government. It’s so far removed from reality but people believe that is what happened.
I do not need MSM to tell me that an insurrection was happening. I see it for myself.
And here you are down-playing, ignoring facts, ignoring the other points I made that counter yours, and generally being mis-leading.
I think you should refresh your history. Often it can be opportunistic armed goons that topple governments.
Which holds for everybody. And it's the diversity of those sources that determines how close your view matches the truth.
I am aware of my bubble. Are you aware of yours?
If this is a sarcastic post, well done!
We know fraud happens. People go to jail over it every year. It's not a lie. So to cover that, they qualify it as "widespread" Ok.
The Capitol. On the one hand, The CHAZ and Portland is inconsequential where business get looted, we have fires and people were murdered (not just happened to die) and it's yeah, protesters will protest... When it comes to the Capitol, oh, the interrupted congress!!! I mean, like congress has never been interrupted before. And then they make it out to be a full blown rebellion. Yes, you had thugs and goons, but you're deluded if you think that's how coups happen.