Joy— but by censoring Greenwald, the Intercept guaranteed that the guard rails were in place and not even their best reporters will step outside those imposed limits. It’s what our national media has been doing for decades and why the Intercept was founded—to counter those limited and biased narratives of the mainstream. They’ve violated their raison d’etre.
I appreciate what you are saying, and agree up to a point. We have to recognize where those barriers are, but also recognize that some who are still there are covering important matters that no one else is. Death penalty issues with Liliana Segura, is one example.
Maybe. But in a way, reading a compromised news site that does sort of a good job is like drinking milk that has been peed in— you can never be quite sure what you’re getting.
I don't agree. Milk, once contaminated is of a whole, completely integrated and dissolved, but the articles are discrete. It's more like something that doesn't dissolve but is in the milk that can be seen and strained out. One is able to scrutinize and use judgment which is not possible with something dissolved in milk, or added to other fungible goods. Not that you shouldn't be careful, but it is better than the NYT, and many others, and if you know where they fall short, basically they are "Democratic party sycophants," they have some good articles and writers on other topics.
I totally don’t agree. It’s a milieux at any media outlet, set and controlled by the editor, not a bunch of little particles that can think what they want to Everyone in the milieux complies, tacitly, knows where the guard rails are and stays well within them. BTW, seen anything lately about how Killary makes money off the prison system in the US?
Joy— but by censoring Greenwald, the Intercept guaranteed that the guard rails were in place and not even their best reporters will step outside those imposed limits. It’s what our national media has been doing for decades and why the Intercept was founded—to counter those limited and biased narratives of the mainstream. They’ve violated their raison d’etre.
I appreciate what you are saying, and agree up to a point. We have to recognize where those barriers are, but also recognize that some who are still there are covering important matters that no one else is. Death penalty issues with Liliana Segura, is one example.
Maybe. But in a way, reading a compromised news site that does sort of a good job is like drinking milk that has been peed in— you can never be quite sure what you’re getting.
I don't agree. Milk, once contaminated is of a whole, completely integrated and dissolved, but the articles are discrete. It's more like something that doesn't dissolve but is in the milk that can be seen and strained out. One is able to scrutinize and use judgment which is not possible with something dissolved in milk, or added to other fungible goods. Not that you shouldn't be careful, but it is better than the NYT, and many others, and if you know where they fall short, basically they are "Democratic party sycophants," they have some good articles and writers on other topics.
I totally don’t agree. It’s a milieux at any media outlet, set and controlled by the editor, not a bunch of little particles that can think what they want to Everyone in the milieux complies, tacitly, knows where the guard rails are and stays well within them. BTW, seen anything lately about how Killary makes money off the prison system in the US?