2 ms·
That's quite an oversimplification. Your characterization of the alternative media is sometimes right (except that they're usually not making up stories -- they
by NoGravitas 10y ago
That's quite an oversimplification. Your characterization of the alternative media is sometimes right (except that they're usually not making up stories -- they're usually summarizing stories produced by regular journalists, often with an editorial overlay). But there are also alternative media sources doing real research and investigative journalism, like Democracy Now! and the Intercept.
On the other hand, the biggest, most respected of the mainstream publications, the NYT and the WaPo, have permanently tainted themselves by acting as stenographers for US government disinformation campaigns -- most notably in the run-up to the Iraq war, when they consistently promoted the fake WMD story.
- threeseed 10y agoThe Iraq War happened well over a decade ago. And the New York Times et al all did internal reviews of their behaviour and made substantive changes. From Morning Joe, this morning, you can already see that the New York Times has learnt lessons from that era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaI0u0ZdpMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaI0u0ZdpMg So the idea that they should still after all this time be permanently tainted is ridiculous and frankly is just an excuse by those who have different political persuasions.
- NoGravitas 10y agoMaybe a decade seems like a long time to you; not to me. I may just be old. But I also never saw any documentation about those internal reviews and substantive changes -- I would like to see them. From an outsider's perspective, however, it doesn't look like anything has changed. Cokie Roberts is still employed, for example /snark
- oculusthrift 10y agoperhaps, but in today's political climate i think its a fair simplification. the vast majority of people take argue your side to mean that PizzaGate is real and that NYT stories critical of trump are all fake.