4 ms·
This isn't a case of "sure I'm buddies with that DNC guy... shrug". This is a case of journalists adjusting language to fit DNC talking points, journalists omit
by slowmovintarget 8y ago
This isn't a case of "sure I'm buddies with that DNC guy... shrug". This is a case of journalists adjusting language to fit DNC talking points, journalists omitting components of stories after checking with DNC operatives for approval/disapproval. These journalists compromised the work they were doing in order to further political concerns of the DNC.
That confirms partnership, no implying or inferring needed.
FWIW: I still never said "control". It is certainly easy to argue the DNC doesn't control the media. The problem is that such control is unnecessary as many journalists were and continue to be willing partners in turning news stories into one-sided political pieces, while be unwilling to label such work editorial. i.e. "Not doing their jobs."
- falcrist 8y agoThe article above talks about the Clinton campaign's attempt to influence reporters by feeding them information. Now it seems like you think Clinton was giving these people marching orders.
- a_tractor 8y ago>Now it seems like you think Clinton was giving these people marching orders. That is sort of a stretch based on what OP actually said. Anyway, I think it is better to frame it as these journalists who see positions in media as powerful outlets for leftist activism, via narrative control and the ability to influence the public on a mass scale. In some cases, we do have evidence of collusion between Clinton's campaign and specific journalists (initiated by both sides), but in many others it is just clear that this bias and activist intent is completely voluntary and unrestrained. That distinction still doesn't mean that their work is anything less than propaganda.