General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Journalistic impartiality tested in NSA leak story [View all]OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I'm not attacking the "messenger", I'm attacking their journalistic chops. All of the aforementioned are hacks. Greenwald, specifically, became a "journalist" through his haphazard blogging "career" and shows no knowledge of journalistic practices, standards, and ethics. Shit, he proudly dismisses them. As a result, his work product is shoddy and ought to be an embarrassment to the Guardian, an otherwise exemplary publication. I'm hoping that, after this latest round of bizarre Greenwald antics, they show him the door. I'll certainly regain my respect for them and I suspect many others, who've been scratching their heads since his hire, will do the same.
I do not give one runny shit who lines up on what side of this story. As I stated, I merely bemoan the journalistic malpractice that led to it in the first place.
I can "take" what's on a liberal forum, though I have a hard time taking seriously any of the Anarcho/Paulite/Self Righteous/Purity Club "left" that dominates parts of it. Feel free if you must to exclude me from your "liberal Democrats" club, but I'll stack my bona fides against yours any time. You don't agree with me? Fine. But how the fuck dare you question my political philosophy?
We have not reached a point where writers are a "threat". We have reached a point where hacks are driving the narrative, and far too many readers are not discerning. That's "threatening" because it fosters a growing class of news consumers who are driven by nothing but confirmation bias - facts be damned.
I'm pretty much done with you. Not "iggie" done, which seems to be a common, albeit craven tactic among some of DU's Very Important Posters when they hear something which offends their delicate sensitivities. But done, as in you're intractable and useless in conversation.