4 ms·

These are separate: media has a financial incentive in crises, media has on several occurrences taken recent actions that stir up their crises more than reasona

by tjs8rj 6y ago

These are separate: media has a financial incentive in crises, media has on several occurrences taken recent actions that stir up their crises more than reasonably incident in getting the facts. These two are separately supported, one does not suggest the other independently, but considered together can be argued to be a motivation and resulting action. Doctors make money from more sick people: true. If we found that doctors we’re poisoning the water supply frequently, we might take that observation and consider it in the light of their financial incentives.

kergonath 6y ago
> These are separate: media has a financial incentive in crises, media has on several occurrences taken recent actions that stir up their crises more than reasonably incident in getting the facts. How would it matter, in this instance, even if it were the case? A judge has explicitly ordered the police to leave journalists alone. So, the police is enforcing its own version of the law, in disagreement with the judiciary? So your excuse is that it’s ok, it’s just the police going rogue? > These two are separately supported, one does not suggest the other independently, but considered together can be argued to be a motivation and resulting action. Punishing people for things they might have done hypothetically because of their profession is a strange conception of justice. Either they are guilty of doing something illegal (which inciting riots is and should be), in which case you try them and punish them for that, or they aren’t. This is irrelevant to whether they should be intimidated for covering protests, which they most certainly have a right to do. > Doctors make money from more sick people: true. If we found that doctors we’re poisoning the water supply frequently, we might take that observation and consider it in the light of their financial incentives. And harass them, round them up, and intimidate them, regardless of what they have done or not? Somehow I doubt it.
- tjs8rj 6y ago
  I don’t know if you’re genuinely confused or just willfully leaping to assumptions. I’m going to assume you just genuinely misunderstand what I’m saying. My original point was to argue the idea that journalist aren’t some innocent class of truth seekers getting a bad wrap, but that there is an observable strong and growing anger/distrust at journalistic institutions and so we should consider those perspectives and treat them seriously. I’m not saying to round up the journalists, I’m not saying the police are justified, I’m not even saying hating journalistic institutions is justified. My direct and explicit point was to mention the counter argument against the idea that journalists are innocent and getting unjustified blame/anger directed at them. I implore you to reread this comment chain with an open mind instead of what you currently seem to be doing, which is falsely trying to predict which ideological game I’m playing.

by tjs8rj 6y ago

kergonath 6y ago

> These are separate: media has a financial incentive in crises, media has on several occurrences taken recent actions that stir up their crises more than reasonably incident in getting the facts. How would it matter, in this instance, even if it were the case? A judge has explicitly ordered the police to leave journalists alone. So, the police is enforcing its own version of the law, in disagreement with the judiciary? So your excuse is that it’s ok, it’s just the police going rogue? > These two are separately supported, one does not suggest the other independently, but considered together can be argued to be a motivation and resulting action. Punishing people for things they might have done hypothetically because of their profession is a strange conception of justice. Either they are guilty of doing something illegal (which inciting riots is and should be), in which case you try them and punish them for that, or they aren’t. This is irrelevant to whether they should be intimidated for covering protests, which they most certainly have a right to do. > Doctors make money from more sick people: true. If we found that doctors we’re poisoning the water supply frequently, we might take that observation and consider it in the light of their financial incentives. And harass them, round them up, and intimidate them, regardless of what they have done or not? Somehow I doubt it.

tjs8rj 6y ago
I don’t know if you’re genuinely confused or just willfully leaping to assumptions. I’m going to assume you just genuinely misunderstand what I’m saying. My original point was to argue the idea that journalist aren’t some innocent class of truth seekers getting a bad wrap, but that there is an observable strong and growing anger/distrust at journalistic institutions and so we should consider those perspectives and treat them seriously. I’m not saying to round up the journalists, I’m not saying the police are justified, I’m not even saying hating journalistic institutions is justified. My direct and explicit point was to mention the counter argument against the idea that journalists are innocent and getting unjustified blame/anger directed at them. I implore you to reread this comment chain with an open mind instead of what you currently seem to be doing, which is falsely trying to predict which ideological game I’m playing.