"CNN wants to position itself as a reliable middle ground between Fox and MSNBC. CNN knew fact-checking would make its hosts seem biased against Trump, just as firefighters seem biased against arsonists. …
In effect, major media are running infomercials for insurrection."
@wdlindsy if the President did not feel well, couldn’t they have postponed it? And why not have the debate at 1 or 2 PM Eastern time instead of that time of night. CNN let Trump lie and lie. There has to be a journalist that could’ve handled that debate in a better way by not letting Trump go off on tangents.
Because insurrection means big bucks for corporate media. The bigger the shit show, the more money they make. That's why I won't watch, read, or click on anything by CNN ever again.
They are no longer trustworthy.
@CindyS Definitely not trustworthy. When training in values and ethical norms no longer applied to journalists, things began going downhill. I grew up in the middle of the Civil Rights crisis in the South seeing some admirable journalists and medial outlets who risked a lot to stand for what is right. After that, I saw the caving in of media to "objectivity" and both-sidesism, and this trend has now just about gutted media.
At this point, calling what the corporate media "journalists" are doing both-sideism seems like a generous interpretation of just plain laziness with a large dollop of greedy self interest. Journalism schools today teach predominantly how to write to get a job, how to present yourself, how to keep a job.
No effort needed or risk required to regurgitate what someone else says.
For me, calling it both-sideism makes it seem like they're trying to be fair. I do not believe they are.
@CindyS I continue to find the term "both-sidesism" useful, since it takes a concept they themselves have developed to defend their refusal to take the obviously right side and throws it back in their faces.