4 ms·
> those who consistently take anti-establishment stances, often without merit, barely get a footnote "anti-establishment" as in holding the government accounta
by albert_e 2y ago
> those who consistently take anti-establishment stances, often without merit, barely get a footnote
"anti-establishment" as in holding the government accountable and asking questions of them -- irrespective of which party is in power?
isn't that the job of news media?
if they are doing it consistently - good on them.
why does it need a footnote or disclaimer?
I am sure there is enough content to file under a "Controversies and Crticism" section on the page of every anti-establishment media house. Volunteers are free to add.
- mrlongroots 2y ago> "anti-establishment" as in holding the government accountable I'm all for holding the government accountable, but the apt metaphor for some of the cited outlets would be that they protest for a road where the government hasn't built one, and protest for the tree where they chopped one to build a road. > Volunteers are free to add. I tried addressing this in my initial response. I have nothing more to add.
- defrost 2y ago> but the apt metaphor for some of the cited outlets would be that they protest for [ opposites ] You might be confused about media outlets. They are not homogenous, they have many people working for them, and their primary task is covering what's happening; both those parties that are pro tree and those parties that are pro road.
- mrlongroots 2y agoAnd I trust and hope that I am able to make that distinction before I lay out my allegations :). I don't want this to become a game of "supplying the evidence" because that also becomes a game of the "skeptical party" DoSing the "earnest party". What I said was a best-effort distillation of my takeaways from years of following Indian news media, both free and paid.