Quote:
Originally Posted by cacophony
i really dislike the practice of newspapers endorsing candidates. it's one thing for editorial writers to endorse a candidate on an individual level. but for the whole publication to do so seems.... wrong. for reasons i can't quite explain.
|
Totally agree. you just can't expect them to objectively look into their pet favorites, in other words, like, do their job. And maybe that's the intent as more news outlets are actually advertising their political biases, coddling the consumers, advertising their confrontation free chatter that provides little more service than to assure them they are right to believe what they already believe.
Which is strange when their pet favorite is a thing like an unjustified, pre-emptive, bloody war. Would news paper readership still be plummeting had more news organizations actually looked into the claims of wmds? And not blandly passed over what has turned out to be arguably the least popular foreign policy decision ever made by our government?
And would the reputation of journalism as a profession not be powerless against the opinions of hannity, olbermann, rush, and maddow, if there were no such vaccuum for them to fill and become the new information sources?
I enjoy exposure to all the names mentioned, but if I had to choose between saving olbermann and hannity from a burning building I would be too busy making sure hannity went down to save either of them.
which is a kind of pathetic situation, all summed.