I think what we are seeing now in the relationship between "journalists" and candidates...
is that the "journalists" are not that interested in fact checking because, frankly that takes a lot of time and effort on their part to educate themselves on all the issues that are raised in the campaign.
I think they are taking the easy way out and here is what I mean,
Instead of looking at an issue and researching and building a background of information to better understand those issues, they just take the opposing sides take and repeat that to the candidate.
This makes it all so easy for the candidates and the press since so-called "facts" don't have to be checked and researched and vetted and gone over more than once.
What I can't understand is if we are in an almost perpetual round of political campaigning, why can't the journalist do independent research, like say Matt Tailabi, and then confront the candidates with more than the oppositions talking points.
Because that is what it seems to be.
That is why so many on both sides don't trust the media anymore, I believe, because when the democrats candidate is being "interviewed", they just repeat what the republicans are saying and the same goes for the republicans being asked about democratic talking points.
I think part of this comes from the rights hatred and attacks of the so-called liberal media. The people behind the so-called journalists have fallen into that safety zone which allows them to appear "balanced" to the average person but to partisans, well, that is a different story.
What this does is take reality out of the process of electing and covering candidates and then elected officials and replace it with what we now call a "narrative" that is built by ignoring the truth and getting ques from the opposing candidates or elected officials.
Just some thoughts I had after watching some news today and keeping up with Broadcast News on HBO.
= new reply since forum marked as read
