Discussion about journalism


#1

Is the false dichotomy of journalism good/government bad a regional thing?


What’s up today?
#2

How did you get that from what I said, I will never know. Is that a USA thing?


#3

A just and responsive government is good and free, quality, independent journalism is a tool for enabling that. That’s what me and most of the people I’m friends with believe. It’s probably just who you’re talking to.


#4

You said Australia is not the US. I’m asking because my first comment and the youtube link were not meant to be restricted to the US and you seemed to be suggesting earlier that governments should be embarrassed and journalists are saints. Journalism and journalism schools around the world are strongly biased by the strong liberal radicalization that’s occurred in academia in the humanities. In many instances, CNN being the most obvious, the media has been infiltrated by clandestine political and financial interests just as much as government has. While there are still good yet marginalized investigative journalists out there, I’ve found the trend towards corruption in journalism to be a worldwide phenomena over the last few decades…just as it is in government. All that is NOT to say that I am for making backdoors(that already exist anyway), but maybe there are better, non-technical solutions. Technology isn’t the problem. It’s education and ethics. I’m seeing a lot of people waking up to the false dichotomy of “media good/government bad”, but it’s a slow process.

I can agree with that. It’s just not what we have around the world.
Both are deeply corrupted, but it’s particularly more dangerous that journalism is. Proper use of social media can bypass that again. That’s why many are preferring chatrooms and image board vs. facebook, et al.


#5

Ah forget it. Think what you want.


#6

What’s this? You seem to be suggesting that you think I am wrong or that I am misunderstanding you. Or something else…
It’s not particularly helpful to close the dialogue like that, but “think what you want”, right?


#7

OK, you could have read the edit and then you would have known.

Frankly the message you gave was that you deliberately misrepresented my posts and turned it into a black and white statement and then attacked that imaginary statement you created and claimed I said some off-the-wall thing.

Its insulting and does not help any discussion.

And also I find it difficult to discuss things with you because of this misreading and then wanting people to justify things that they never actually said and they spend time trying to correct the misrepresentations

Thus my just saying - forget it.


#8

I’m not into (straw)men, sorry. You folded on a legit dialogue. Own it and stop projecting. :snowflake:


#9

Then why did you do it.

Because it results in what happens as displayed by when I decided to actually answer you when you responded to the so-called fold. Then you fold on what you started.

And the final piece of turning the tables to make it as myself the one at fault for your initial misrepresentations.

And folks this is why i folded up front and I have learnt my lesson.


#10

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)


Discussion about Qanon, Trump etc
#11

I did. Just read my post about 5 posts above.

You very much misrepresented my post on journalists in Australia and tried to claim I was making a false dichotomy. The post very obviously was not not had any implication of such a thing. It was pure fantasy to claim such. Thus a misrepresentation. Hint it was not a black/white statement nor one of what always happens. Why do I have to explain how the post of mine was misread/misrepresented/misinterpreted, it is clear enough on its own.


#12

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)


#13

Where I come from we distrust both the government and the media. Don’t know about other regions.