They lie…
@loppar posted this in another thread, but it’s an excellent article for this conversation:
It’s a tempest in a teacup Pat.
You just don’t know the difference between reporting and editorializing.
Oh they certainly lie at least via omission. The peaceful protest crap would otherwise have been out the window a couple months ago. They wouldn’t have fauned over Sanders appearing in front of Rushmore and then have fits over Trump doing the same
If they call a violent riot a “peaceful protest”. Is that lying by omission or just flat out lying?
“Journalists ” editorialize journalism through emphasis and omissions in order to spin a narrative.
So she had an elevated, more important role at the NYT than most of it’s journalists, so she matters, uh less… So we shouldn’t pay any attention to what she has to say?
Or is it more, you don’t like what she had to say so you aim to discredit her by saying she’s “just an editor” for the NYT?
Oh, that’s flat out lying. And omission by not including what was happening late at night.
I remember a reporter on scene characterizing things as most peaceful (paraphrasing)…As he stood in front of a building fully engulfed in flames…
If I go to a protest that takes place between 4:00 and 6:00 on Market Street, then go home and write a piece about it wherein there was no violence, but violence erupts later on, Did I lie, or did I report on a peaceful protest?
You lie if you don’t update any followups.
I just saw a very recent NYT article about what an actual hell CHAZ was and how terrified local people and business owners were…No crap! How the hell wasn’t ghat story being pushed weeks ago?!
No. The piece is on the protest. Give the 5 W’s and a couple of pictures.
That’s it. Go home.
A different thing that happens at another time in a near by location is not the same.
Let’s say there is a St. Patrick’s Day parade. It goes down Grant St. So 2 hours later and 5 blocks away a bunch of guys dressed as leprechauns rob a bank.
Did parade goers rob the bank?
Is the parade the cause or somehow responsible for the bank robbery?
Federal courthouse siege. Twitter personalities have had to do the ‘journalism’ week after while mainstream sources ignored it or minimized it. Or, flat blamed it all on Trump.
Did you make the distinction in the article? “From 4-6 when I was there, people were peacefully protesting”.
Because if that same protest becomes violent later on then maintaining the narrative that the protest is peaceful is factually wrong.
If you do it accidentally, you’re just a nincompoop who shouldn’t be a reporter.
If you do it deliberately your lying.
And if that’s the image your organization left…Then you would all be liars. And if you keep showing up for the story between 5-6… Then you’re deliberately avoiding the story that keeps developing, night after night, from midnight on.
You can find a copy of it in the GF thread. The hypocrisy of the times is just astounding.
If one had only been reading the NYT and then saw that article, they would have been shocked, because the NYT had been promoting how it was a peaceful block party and residents and business alike were really enjoying themselves.
Oh no doubt. The NYT knew these things all along. That or their too stupid to be trusted to do journalism.
1 Like
Actually the events were reported here, locally as happening at different times in separate locations.
Because that’s how they happened.
Protests occurred lawfully at C from time A to B.
Then some rioting and vandalism occurred in location X, from Y to Z.
Just like that.
It’s all editorializing. Either blatantly, or through how it’s presented.
“Then some rioting and vandalism…” That would be misleading when your talking about full blown rioting, looting and arson.
Good. I’m glad your local news has been diligently pointing out that law enforcement has been clashing with violent rioters while peaceful protestors have been able to peacefully protest.
But in no way did the mainstream media do its due diligence as a whole.