4 ms·

The bar is so far lower these days and decisions are made to keep legacy media companies afloat. Nobody really seems to care if anonymous sources are real or no

• dangus 6y ago
  What piece of evidence would make me doubt the validity of the claims in this article? It lines up quite well with previous public statements by the administration: for example, the president made derogatory statements about cities with Democrat mayors, claiming they were unsafe places. He quite obviously, publicly, and directly demonizes Democrats as lesser citizens, constantly. Discrediting the media as a whole, taking any media story to be untruthful by default is the wrong approach. Without independent media, the only mouthpiece is the state. Instead, we should compare stories from multiple sources and fact check where we can, and use our critical thinking to evaluate the motivations behind the actors in a story.
  • leesalminen 6y ago
    I am making the claim that corporations when facing extinction will choose money over some intangible concept like journalistic integrity. I meant I was not taking a position on anything particular in this Vanity Fair article. You are correct though that there is a pattern. We can agree there. At the end of the day, I just don’t trust corporations to be fair arbiters of objective truth. Not because it’s inherently impossible but because nobody seems to care about it these days. They’re just giving the market what they demonstrably want. Note: I am not posting anonymously. My username is my real name.